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!
"Now I know why you're a cook. Cos you hit like a faggot!" - Gary Busey to Steven Seagal in "Under Siege".
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.
There does seem to be a notable overlap between the folk that feel a Palestine flag outside Waitrose presages a new Holocaust and the toilet monitor guys, Glinner seems to have gone right down the rabbit hole on both subjects. The obvious unifying factor seems to be that they all go from 0 to enraged in under 5 secs when both subjects come up.
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.
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.
Which is actually interesting, because it's "lived experience" of what we can see in the polls - a divergence between the views of younger and older women. As a friend said pithily a few months ago - "can't wait for the same stringent standards applied to Dr Upton to be used for the umpteen examples of white straight men sexually assaullting or harassing NHS staff".
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
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.
So, it's personal to you.
I get that, and I'm horrified to hear that - you have my condolences - and that also makes it difficult for you to be objective on the subject.
For your health and wellbeing as much as anyone else's, I suggest you change the subject.
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.
What matters to me is whether Starmer is willing and able to provide enough support to Ukraine to cope with very little prospect of additional Patriot interceptor missiles, with Russia revitalised by a surge in oil revenue, all while European governments are besieged by demands from voters to make inflation go away painlessly.
I m sorry for your loss. I don’t keep tabs on all of pbs family lives.
I treat everyone I met with respect. I simply feel that women’s rights are being infringed by bad actors and it needs to stop. I suspect you partner would not have provoked ire as someone who had fully transitioned. Remember that most ransomed retain their male genetalia, for various reasons.
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.
"Mein Leben!"
Too late sucker, ive already made that cry, Schutzstaffel!
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.
So, it's personal to you.
I get that, and I'm horrified to hear that - you have my condolences - and that also makes it difficult for you to be objective on the subject.
For your health and wellbeing as much as anyone else's, I suggest you change the subject.
She died years ago. For as long as cyclefree continues to post transphobic crap here, I'll post rebuttals.
Amazing mid 90s mix on Greatest Hits radio at the moment.
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.
That is the real magic of music. It captures a moment in time and allows all the joy, the angst, the pain and the context to come flooding back in a way that nothing else does. This is a weird one but roughly 30 years ago now I had a really bad RTA which I was lucky to survive. When it happened I was listening to Rachmaninov's 2nd piano concerto in the car and whilst I recovered in hospital I became obsessed. Even now it moves me to tears every time it reaches the crescendo where the two themes finally clash. I remember the pain, the fear and the sheer joy of still being alive. Its a kind of magic.
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.
There does seem to be a notable overlap between the folk that feel a Palestine flag outside Waitrose presages a new Holocaust and the toilet monitor guys, Glinner seems to have gone right down the rabbit hole on both subjects. The obvious unifying factor seems to be that they all go from 0 to enraged in under 5 secs when both subjects come up.
Or indeed, that the presence of an Israeli flag means similar.
Mind you, as a student, I spoilt a date - she was waxing lyrical about all the different flags hanging from windows near UCL (world cup I think) and I pointed out that one of them was the insignia of the Arena party of El Salvador.
They’ve changed somewhat, but back then, they were the party of “We aren’t into violence, but if you have a problem with leftists or trade unionists and you give us their names, strangely, death squads will visit them.”
I suppose, looking back, that is a *kind* of diversity.
The honest answer to your question is "That which society says are the characteristics of a woman at any given moment."
If you disbelieve that, consider this. The UK is currently moving from "your sex is what your birth certificate says" to "biological sex", which the SC explicitly did not define but social media and various authorities define as "gamete prediliction" (or similar terms): whether your body would have produced small gametes or large gametes. This definition is skewed to make sex totally binary, unlike "genetic sex" (my preferred def'n) which is overwhelmingly binary but has a small sliver of intersex people in it.
To argue by analogy: Marx could not comprehend, and John Stuart Mill(?) hated but eventually accepted, the fact that the monetary value of an thing is a function of supply and demand and not a function of inherent value. Similarly society's definition of "a man" or "a woman" varies over time. It's not my fault, I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
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.
Which is actually interesting, because it's "lived experience" of what we can see in the polls - a divergence between the views of younger and older women. As a friend said pithily a few months ago - "can't wait for the same stringent standards applied to Dr Upton to be used for the umpteen examples of white straight men sexually assaullting or harassing NHS staff".
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
I am sure she also pithily opines that those same standards need to be applied to sexual assault by illegal Afghan immigrants and Pakistani grooming gangs.
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.
Your contributions on this topic are always worth reading.
Re extremism, I'd say the poles are as below:
Pro Trans Ideologue. Gender identity is all important. Where it differs from birth sex the latter becomes irrelevant.
Anti Trans Ideologue. There's no such thing as gender identity. It's a fiction which should not be pandered to. You are what you were born as.
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.
There does seem to be a notable overlap between the folk that feel a Palestine flag outside Waitrose presages a new Holocaust and the toilet monitor guys, Glinner seems to have gone right down the rabbit hole on both subjects. The obvious unifying factor seems to be that they all go from 0 to enraged in under 5 secs when both subjects come up.
Or indeed, that the presence of an Israeli flag means similar.
Mind you, as a student, I spoilt a date - she was waxing lyrical about all the different flags hanging from windows near UCL (world cup I think) and I pointed out that one of them was the insignia of the Arena party of El Salvador.
They’ve changed somewhat, but back then, they were the party of “We aren’t into violence, but if you have a problem with leftists or trade unionists and you give us their names, strangely, death squads will visit them.”
I suppose, looking back, that is a *kind* of diversity.
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.
Your partner never had those rights. The GRA never gave those rights. There is - and never has been - any right, either under domestic law or under the ECHR, to access the loos or changing rooms of the opposite sex. That your partner was misled into believing this is the fault of those who deliberately lied - and continue to lie - about what the law says.
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
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.
There does seem to be a notable overlap between the folk that feel a Palestine flag outside Waitrose presages a new Holocaust and the toilet monitor guys, Glinner seems to have gone right down the rabbit hole on both subjects. The obvious unifying factor seems to be that they all go from 0 to enraged in under 5 secs when both subjects come up.
Or indeed, that the presence of an Israeli flag means similar.
Mind you, as a student, I spoilt a date - she was waxing lyrical about all the different flags hanging from windows near UCL (world cup I think) and I pointed out that one of them was the insignia of the Arena party of El Salvador.
They’ve changed somewhat, but back then, they were the party of “We aren’t into violence, but if you have a problem with leftists or trade unionists and you give us their names, strangely, death squads will visit them.”
I suppose, looking back, that is a *kind* of diversity.
An anecdote, how refreshing!
Coming from Northern Ireland, cultural displays of flags, can have a certain meaning. Or, they can just be a bit of fun. At the same time. I'll bet the people next door who were hanging the Norwegian (or whatever it was) flag had no idea.
It does become fascinating when you consider the intersections of intentions.
On the subject of musical memories My first serious girlfriend (and still the finest girl ive ever met tbf) , our song was Wuthering Heights and she cslled me her Heathcliff. Mainly because i was a messed up pain in her arse. If shes reading this thread, she'll know who i am , lol
Other 'our songs' - Heroes, if it makes you happy, Saturday Night
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.
Hasn't the original Afro-Caribbean demographic largely integrated into wider British society while not being renewed for at least two generations.
With increasing numbers of Black people in this country being largely of African origin, with a significant number of Muslims among them.
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.
Which is actually interesting, because it's "lived experience" of what we can see in the polls - a divergence between the views of younger and older women. As a friend said pithily a few months ago - "can't wait for the same stringent standards applied to Dr Upton to be used for the umpteen examples of white straight men sexually assaullting or harassing NHS staff".
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
I am sure she also pithily opines that those same standards need to be applied to sexual assault by illegal Afghan immigrants and Pakistani grooming gangs.
Oh wait, no, I'm actually not.
That's actually a great example. You sometimes get the sense it’s not really the sexual assaults that concern people, but rather who is doing them.
We don't have thousands of posts on PB about the sexual assaults conducted by white grooming gangs, or by white straight men in clubs, or the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.
I appreciate this is an advanced form of whatabotery, but putting aside the rights and wrongs I think it's an explanation for why the Greens are currently in the lead for people aged under 50 - and in the lead amongst all women according to YouGov - despite their position on trans.
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.
Hasn't the original Afro-Caribbean demographic largely integrated into wider British society while not being renewed for at least two generations.
With increasing numbers of Black people in this country being largely of African origin, with a significant number of Muslims among them.
There was a wonderful comic Guardian opinion piece a while back, concerned that people of African origin were selling up in London, moving to the countryside and generally integrating there. The writer was particularly worried that their children were intermarrying the locals and "losing their unique cultural identity".
"Any discussion of the politics of women as a class on PB will over time inevitably turn into a discussion of trans"
I like trains!
Our Penwarden, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy crankshaft cycle will be done; on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily startup. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into four stroke; but deliver us from gas turbines. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
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.
Cross purposes. I didn't say Cyclefree is extreme I said she is more extreme (on this) than kyf_100.
If you accept (which I think you will) the definition in my post a few minutes ago of what the 2 extremes are then the fact is that Cyclefree is closer to one than kyf_100 is to the other. Far closer actually.
I base this on the detailed views of the 2 posters as written at length on here. Nothing else.
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.
Hasn't the original Afro-Caribbean demographic largely integrated into wider British society while not being renewed for at least two generations.
With increasing numbers of Black people in this country being largely of African origin, with a significant number of Muslims among them.
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.
This is horrible and you have my deepest sympathies, if it helps at all
But @Casino_Royale is right, perhaps this great trauma means you should avoid this subject, if only because debating it must re-open the wound?
But you must do what you must do. And remember everyone on PB will be appalled and saddened by your story, whatever their views on this or that issue
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.
Your partner never had those rights. The GRA never gave those rights. There is - and never has been - any right, either under domestic law or under the ECHR, to access the loos or changing rooms of the opposite sex. That your partner was misled into believing this is the fault of those who deliberately lied - and continue to lie - about what the law says.
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
And they say I'm the extremist.
Do please explain to me how the GRA (2004) language, "once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes" means that my beloved partner, in possession of both a GRC and a c****, should be excluded from being able to piss in safety and privacy.
Not legal chicanery. Not get out clauses, dispensations, different statutory processes. Do please explain to me, that when a hard right ideologue like Widdecombe believes a trans woman who has gone "the Full Turbotubbs" so to speak and has a functionally identical "Bartholomew Roberts" to a cis woman, should enjoy the same rights as a cis woman, you think that such women are not deserving of the same protection as other women?
I am not the extremist here (as others have noted), with a fairly limited / restrictive view on trans rights according to medical intervention.
You are a trans exclusive radical feminist, and I'm sorry if it insults you to describe you as a trans exclusive radical feminist, but that is what you are.
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.
Which is actually interesting, because it's "lived experience" of what we can see in the polls - a divergence between the views of younger and older women. As a friend said pithily a few months ago - "can't wait for the same stringent standards applied to Dr Upton to be used for the umpteen examples of white straight men sexually assaullting or harassing NHS staff".
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
I am sure she also pithily opines that those same standards need to be applied to sexual assault by illegal Afghan immigrants and Pakistani grooming gangs.
Oh wait, no, I'm actually not.
That's actually a great example. You sometimes get the sense it’s not really the sexual assaults that concern people, but rather who is doing them.
We don't have thousands of posts on PB about the sexual assaults conducted by white grooming gangs, or by white straight men in clubs, or the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.
I appreciate this is an advanced form of whatabotery, but putting aside the rights and wrongs I think it's an explanation for why the Greens are currently in the lead for people aged under 50 - and in the lead amongst all women according to YouGov - despite their position on trans.
'the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.' As far as I can recall Cyclefree has had quite a lot to say about that over the years.
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.
Hasn't the original Afro-Caribbean demographic largely integrated into wider British society while not being renewed for at least two generations.
With increasing numbers of Black people in this country being largely of African origin, with a significant number of Muslims among them.
“TERF” is a term like “Zio.” It is absolutely intended as an insult.
I've discussed this trans radicals who openly admit this. They decided they needed a nasty slur word to throw at their enemies, and they came up with TERF, BECAUSE it has real bite as a cuss-word. It sounds insulting. You can spit it with venom
“TERF” is a term like “Zio.” It is absolutely intended as an insult.
I've discussed this trans radicals who openly admit this. They decided they needed a nasty slur word to throw at their enemies, and they came up with TERF, BECAUSE it has real bite as a cuss-word. It sounds insulting. You can spit it with venom
IIRC the term goes back to the mid-1990s. I doubt any trans activist on Twitter remembers those times.
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.
Cross purposes. I didn't say Cyclefree is extreme I said she is more extreme (on this) than kyf_100. Neither are extremists.
If you accept (which I think you will) the definition in my post a few minutes ago of what the 2 extremes are then the fact is that Cyclefree is closer to one than kyf_100 is to the other. Far closer actually.
I base this on the detailed views of the 2 posters as written at length on here. Nothing else.
I am not entirely sure what criteria you are using. In her latest post @Cyclefree said:
"Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general."
I don't see anything extreme about that. It is a fundamental truth that my job brings home to me on an almost daily basis. Until it is a universally acknowledged and practiced truth women remain at risk in our society and they must be entitled to enforce their protections without fear or favour.
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.
Your partner never had those rights. The GRA never gave those rights. There is - and never has been - any right, either under domestic law or under the ECHR, to access the loos or changing rooms of the opposite sex. That your partner was misled into believing this is the fault of those who deliberately lied - and continue to lie - about what the law says.
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
And they say I'm the extremist.
Do please explain to me how the GRA (2004) language, "once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes" means that my beloved partner, in possession of both a GRC and a c****, should be excluded from being able to piss in safety and privacy.
Not legal chicanery. Not get out clauses, dispensations, different statutory processes. Do please explain to me, that when a hard right ideologue like Widdecombe believes a trans woman who has gone "the Full Turbotubbs" so to speak and has a functionally identical "Bartholomew Roberts" to a cis woman, should enjoy the same rights as a cis woman, you think that such women are not deserving of the same protection as other women?
I am not the extremist here (as others have noted), with a fairly limited / restrictive view on trans rights according to medical intervention.
You are a trans exclusive radical feminist, and I'm sorry if it insults you to describe you as a trans exclusive radical feminist, but that is what you are.
Functionally identical is a stretch. No transwoman will ever bear a child through said Bartholomew Roberts, for a start. And your point about a certificate is meaningless because they are still male, whatever the paper says. If it said they were a horse would you run them at Cheltenham?
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.
Which is actually interesting, because it's "lived experience" of what we can see in the polls - a divergence between the views of younger and older women. As a friend said pithily a few months ago - "can't wait for the same stringent standards applied to Dr Upton to be used for the umpteen examples of white straight men sexually assaullting or harassing NHS staff".
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
I am sure she also pithily opines that those same standards need to be applied to sexual assault by illegal Afghan immigrants and Pakistani grooming gangs.
Oh wait, no, I'm actually not.
That's actually a great example. You sometimes get the sense it’s not really the sexual assaults that concern people, but rather who is doing them.
We don't have thousands of posts on PB about the sexual assaults conducted by white grooming gangs, or by white straight men in clubs, or the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.
I appreciate this is an advanced form of whatabotery, but putting aside the rights and wrongs I think it's an explanation for why the Greens are currently in the lead for people aged under 50 - and in the lead amongst all women according to YouGov - despite their position on trans.
That is because the sexual misdeeds of white men are treated with the same efficiency and seriousness with which the justice system treats all crime - which I grant you is not an awful lot, but is something. The thing that we do not discuss (and I am sorry I brought it up in contravention of site rules, so this will be my last post on the matter) was ostenatiously ignored, and its perpetrators immune from justice for decades.
As for the Green lead, it's just easy. It's a way of acknowledging the shiteness of Labour without any serious reappraisal of or rejection of progressivism. It is 'one more heave' from people who struggle to admit they were wrong.
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.
Which is actually interesting, because it's "lived experience" of what we can see in the polls - a divergence between the views of younger and older women. As a friend said pithily a few months ago - "can't wait for the same stringent standards applied to Dr Upton to be used for the umpteen examples of white straight men sexually assaullting or harassing NHS staff".
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
I am sure she also pithily opines that those same standards need to be applied to sexual assault by illegal Afghan immigrants and Pakistani grooming gangs.
Oh wait, no, I'm actually not.
That's actually a great example. You sometimes get the sense it’s not really the sexual assaults that concern people, but rather who is doing them.
We don't have thousands of posts on PB about the sexual assaults conducted by white grooming gangs, or by white straight men in clubs, or the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.
I appreciate this is an advanced form of whatabotery, but putting aside the rights and wrongs I think it's an explanation for why the Greens are currently in the lead for people aged under 50 - and in the lead amongst all women according to YouGov - despite their position on trans.
'the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.' As far as I can recall Cyclefree has had quite a lot to say about that over the years.
That comment was certainly not directed at Cyclefree!
“TERF” is a term like “Zio.” It is absolutely intended as an insult.
I've discussed this trans radicals who openly admit this. They decided they needed a nasty slur word to throw at their enemies, and they came up with TERF, BECAUSE it has real bite as a cuss-word. It sounds insulting. You can spit it with venom
IIRC the term goes back to the mid-1990s. I doubt any trans activist on Twitter remembers those times.
That may well be true, what I mean is: they deliberately adopted it as an insult, a cuss, a slur, because it is very effective as that
It's very close to turd, also berk and nerd, it is a classic four letter Anglo Saxon swearword that begins with a plosive and ends with a fricative, two emphatic sounds - same as with piss, fuck, cock, c***, dick, shit, twat, and so on
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.
This is horrible and you have my deepest sympathies, if it helps at all
But @Casino_Royale is right, perhaps this great trauma means you should avoid this subject, if only because debating it must re-open the wound?
But you must do what you must do. And remember everyone on PB will be appalled and saddened by your story, whatever their views on this or that issue
So you're saying a holocaust survivor shouldn't be allowed to talk about antisemitism?
Perhaps Norman Tebbitt shouldn't be allowed to criticise the IRA?
Or - full reductio ad absurdam - person who got a parking ticket shouldn't be allowed to grumble that the current system of restrictions is unfair?
Interesting.
Thanks for the concern trolling, mate.
Perhaps, I have more experience on the subject than most on PB and my contribution in rebutting Cyclefree's transphobic bollox makes me a useful and interesting contributor on the subject?
I have mentioned my partner's death in passing several times on pb over the years, but the fact that I've been politely rebutting Cyclefree's anti trans BS for years and haven't leaned into the "this shit killed the woman I loved" vibe and have been consistently but politely rebutting her shit using logical, reasonable argument should tell you something.
You are trying to get me to shut up by pretending you are concerned about my "great trauma". Classic concern trolling. "Shut up, you're too emotional to talk".
I think the case for trans rights stands by itself, and I've been making it for years now without constantly referencing said trauma.
I'll keep on talking about it for as long as I'm still alive. Because many are not.
The trans debate is maybe my least favourite of all the PB debate genres, and never goes anywhere, and just leaves people even sadder and more embittered. Or confused. Or all three
“TERF” is a term like “Zio.” It is absolutely intended as an insult.
I thought these mischievous GC critters embraced TERF as a badge of honour, frinstance the Irish author John Boyne? It was pretty funny though that as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist he started bellowing and whining because he was excluded from an LGBTQ+ writing prize.
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.
He's won me over.
I have absolutely no skin in this game, and whilst I can understand @Cyclefree and her issues with people like Isla Bryson they are not representative of people just quietly living the life they would like to live.
One of the least admirable elements of Political Betting is when much the same handful of posters feel the need to pile onto a poster they all disagree with, be that on social issues or the colour of their rosette..
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.
Cross purposes. I didn't say Cyclefree is extreme I said she is more extreme (on this) than kyf_100. Neither are extremists.
If you accept (which I think you will) the definition in my post a few minutes ago of what the 2 extremes are then the fact is that Cyclefree is closer to one than kyf_100 is to the other. Far closer actually.
I base this on the detailed views of the 2 posters as written at length on here. Nothing else.
I am not entirely sure what criteria you are using. In her latest post @Cyclefree said:
"Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general."
I don't see anything extreme about that. It is a fundamental truth that my job brings home to me on an almost daily basis. Until it is a universally acknowledged and practiced truth women remain at risk in our society and they must be entitled to enforce their protections without fear or favour.
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.
Cross purposes. I didn't say Cyclefree is extreme I said she is more extreme (on this) than kyf_100. Neither are extremists.
If you accept (which I think you will) the definition in my post a few minutes ago of what the 2 extremes are then the fact is that Cyclefree is closer to one than kyf_100 is to the other. Far closer actually.
I base this on the detailed views of the 2 posters as written at length on here. Nothing else.
I am not entirely sure what criteria you are using. In her latest post @Cyclefree said:
"Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general."
I don't see anything extreme about that. It is a fundamental truth that my job brings home to me on an almost daily basis. Until it is a universally acknowledged and practiced truth women remain at risk in our society and they must be entitled to enforce their protections without fear or favour.
My post of 7.04 hopefully clarifies.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Its an interesting perspective but for me the more important question is are woman protected from male violence and oppression? A clear answer to that does not make me "anti trans" as I hope I have made clear. I will let @Cyclefree speak for herself. She is more than capable of doing so.
“TERF” is a term like “Zio.” It is absolutely intended as an insult.
I've discussed this trans radicals who openly admit this. They decided they needed a nasty slur word to throw at their enemies, and they came up with TERF, BECAUSE it has real bite as a cuss-word. It sounds insulting. You can spit it with venom
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.
On my proposals government would have to devise guidelines for hospital changing rooms and prisons because they are standardised and you have no option of going elsewhere. I would leave it up to sports bodies and women's refuges to determine their own rules. They should determine what is fair and acceptable, not an arbitrary law.
I suspect most women's refuges would accept trans women and this was backed up by the manager of a refuge in Wales during the Scottish Gender Recognition Bill consultation. She pointed out the women in the refuge know what it's like to be abused by same violent men as those who abuse trans women. It isn't a philosophical point for them. But if most decide, no, then those who disagree would have to change people's minds one refuge at a time.
The trans debate is maybe my least favourite of all the PB debate genres, and never goes anywhere, and just leaves people even sadder and more embittered. Or confused. Or all three
I'm off to have a gin and do some cookin'
Unfortuantely, it's a subject where minds aren't changed, and it feels impolite to change the subject. And the only thing I can put in the offertory plate is a few lines from the Screwtape Letters:
We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry.
Application to the Trans thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
I wonder when we post here (Actual political betting excluded) whether what we actually seek is a more comfy bed of nails.
Wow!
That is far too philosophical a post for an ill educated poster like me. I don't even know how to start unraveling that statement.
Yeah, but while you're doing so you may leak key political betting facts. That'll allow me to sweep in to the market and make as much as a fiver if I'm lucky.
I hope you'll forgive me though, but I think it's just too busy-body being involved with everyone's everything.
We should just step back (many paces!) and just let everyone get on with life. Sex doesn't matter, Religion doesn't matter, and who knows what does.
Denying the truth of other peoples religion can be very offensive to them.
Should it be banned?
What is this 'denying the truth' crap? (I appreciate you're just projecting)
Do you know any truths?
Well, very religious people often see their religion as an Essential Truth.
I don't think it is. But they find that very offensive.
What should we do?
Gnostics Gnow. Religions are just control mechanisms. Faith sets you free (imo), but its all a personal journey
I.e. its 'organised religion' thats the poison, not faith or belief
To an extent - but individuals are just as capable of inventing sociopathic religious beliefs as groups.
Groups = organised = religion
Faith = personal = individual
But what happens when the individual is attempting to build a group? Jospeh Smith, say
Then they are building a method of power and control over others. A Supreme Being does not need faith in them and personal relationship with them to be codified. (Imo)
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 hope you'll forgive me though, but I think it's just too busy-body being involved with everyone's everything.
We should just step back (many paces!) and just let everyone get on with life. Sex doesn't matter, Religion doesn't matter, and who knows what does.
Denying the truth of other peoples religion can be very offensive to them.
Should it be banned?
What is this 'denying the truth' crap? (I appreciate you're just projecting)
Do you know any truths?
Well, very religious people often see their religion as an Essential Truth.
I don't think it is. But they find that very offensive.
What should we do?
Gnostics Gnow. Religions are just control mechanisms. Faith sets you free (imo), but its all a personal journey
I.e. its 'organised religion' thats the poison, not faith or belief
To an extent - but individuals are just as capable of inventing sociopathic religious beliefs as groups.
Groups = organised = religion
Faith = personal = individual
But what happens when the individual is attempting to build a group? Jospeh Smith, say
Then they are building a method of power and control over others. A Supreme Being does not need faith in them and personal relationship with them to be codified. (Imo)
The quest to reduce the universe to linear rules is a pattern, endlessly repeated.
See The Process State. Which seems to me, to be little different from The Religious State.
BREAKING: the most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who resides in Iraq) has issued a Fatwa on the Iran war, decreeing "collective religious obligation" for communal defense. The last time he issued such a fatwa was in June 2014 after ISIS capture Mosul.
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
Well said, Big G.
The debate is important to have so that, when in 30 years time, women as defined as "a biological woman" have had all their safe spaces taken from them and most of the rights they spent 200 years campaigning for, removed, some of us will at least be able to say, we tried to stop it!
Happy International Womens Day to ALL our amazing but sadly far too few, PB female contributors and a special hello and happy IWD to Ms. Cycle @Cyclefree who we wish nothing but good health and amazing things for, well into the future! 🙏
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.
Cross purposes. I didn't say Cyclefree is extreme I said she is more extreme (on this) than kyf_100. Neither are extremists.
If you accept (which I think you will) the definition in my post a few minutes ago of what the 2 extremes are then the fact is that Cyclefree is closer to one than kyf_100 is to the other. Far closer actually.
I base this on the detailed views of the 2 posters as written at length on here. Nothing else.
I am not entirely sure what criteria you are using. In her latest post @Cyclefree said:
"Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general."
I don't see anything extreme about that. It is a fundamental truth that my job brings home to me on an almost daily basis. Until it is a universally acknowledged and practiced truth women remain at risk in our society and they must be entitled to enforce their protections without fear or favour.
My post of 7.04 hopefully clarifies.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Its an interesting perspective but for me the more important question is are woman protected from male violence and oppression? A clear answer to that does not make me "anti trans" as I hope I have made clear. I will let @Cyclefree speak for herself. She is more than capable of doing so.
You don't come over as anything but 'more than most men' concerned about the freedom safety and empowerment of women.
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.
Your partner never had those rights. The GRA never gave those rights. There is - and never has been - any right, either under domestic law or under the ECHR, to access the loos or changing rooms of the opposite sex. That your partner was misled into believing this is the fault of those who deliberately lied - and continue to lie - about what the law says.
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
And they say I'm the extremist.
Do please explain to me how the GRA (2004) language, "once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes" means that my beloved partner, in possession of both a GRC and a c****, should be excluded from being able to piss in safety and privacy.
Not legal chicanery. Not get out clauses, dispensations, different statutory processes. Do please explain to me, that when a hard right ideologue like Widdecombe believes a trans woman who has gone "the Full Turbotubbs" so to speak and has a functionally identical "Bartholomew Roberts" to a cis woman, should enjoy the same rights as a cis woman, you think that such women are not deserving of the same protection as other women?
I am not the extremist here (as others have noted), with a fairly limited / restrictive view on trans rights according to medical intervention.
You are a trans exclusive radical feminist, and I'm sorry if it insults you to describe you as a trans exclusive radical feminist, but that is what you are.
Functionally identical is a stretch. No transwoman will ever bear a child through said Bartholomew Roberts, for a start. And your point about a certificate is meaningless because they are still male, whatever the paper says. If it said they were a horse would you run them at Cheltenham?
Ah, I see, when a woman is no longer able to produce children through her "Bartholomew Roberts", she is no longer a woman.
Therefore all women who have undergone hysteroectomies are no longer women.
BREAKING: the most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who resides in Iraq) has issued a Fatwa on the Iran war, decreeing "collective religious obligation" for communal defense. The last time he issued such a fatwa was in June 2014 after ISIS capture Mosul.
BREAKING: the most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who resides in Iraq) has issued a Fatwa on the Iran war, decreeing "collective religious obligation" for communal defense. The last time he issued such a fatwa was in June 2014 after ISIS capture Mosul.
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.
Your partner never had those rights. The GRA never gave those rights. There is - and never has been - any right, either under domestic law or under the ECHR, to access the loos or changing rooms of the opposite sex. That your partner was misled into believing this is the fault of those who deliberately lied - and continue to lie - about what the law says.
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
And they say I'm the extremist.
Do please explain to me how the GRA (2004) language, "once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes" means that my beloved partner, in possession of both a GRC and a c****, should be excluded from being able to piss in safety and privacy.
Not legal chicanery. Not get out clauses, dispensations, different statutory processes. Do please explain to me, that when a hard right ideologue like Widdecombe believes a trans woman who has gone "the Full Turbotubbs" so to speak and has a functionally identical "Bartholomew Roberts" to a cis woman, should enjoy the same rights as a cis woman, you think that such women are not deserving of the same protection as other women?
I am not the extremist here (as others have noted), with a fairly limited / restrictive view on trans rights according to medical intervention.
You are a trans exclusive radical feminist, and I'm sorry if it insults you to describe you as a trans exclusive radical feminist, but that is what you are.
Functionally identical is a stretch. No transwoman will ever bear a child through said Bartholomew Roberts, for a start. And your point about a certificate is meaningless because they are still male, whatever the paper says. If it said they were a horse would you run them at Cheltenham?
Ah, I see, when a woman is no longer able to produce children through her "Bartholomew Roberts", she is no longer a woman.
Therefore all women who have undergone hysteroectomies are no longer women.
Blessed be the fruit!
Surely the dentition of a "woman" is through biology (ie XX for women and XY for men) ?
Men can identify as women (and women as men) if they want and their personal choices and preference should be respected to some degree but the facts of life and the scientific truths we know, are non-negotiable?
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
Do you have any evidence to back that up or are you just projecting your bias and presenting it as a"fact"?
Its an opinion based discussion site. Most things on here are projections of bias.
If it is just your opinion of what might have been said that would be fine
My point is that you are portraying your opinion as fact and that needs calling out.
Otherwise or we end up in the same gutter as the USA where the MAGAs, led by their liar in chief, increasingly get away with passing off lies and opinions as facts. We can see where that leads.
BREAKING: the most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who resides in Iraq) has issued a Fatwa on the Iran war, decreeing "collective religious obligation" for communal defense. The last time he issued such a fatwa was in June 2014 after ISIS capture Mosul.
So that's going well then.
Inevitable.
Yes, completely. Which is at least one of the reasons why this was a completely insane idea to start with. We are going to have a wave of "terrorism" around the world which we will no doubt condemn in the strongest possible terms but without any recognition that Trump and Netanyahu have brought this upon us.
I hope you'll forgive me though, but I think it's just too busy-body being involved with everyone's everything.
We should just step back (many paces!) and just let everyone get on with life. Sex doesn't matter, Religion doesn't matter, and who knows what does.
Denying the truth of other peoples religion can be very offensive to them.
Should it be banned?
What is this 'denying the truth' crap? (I appreciate you're just projecting)
Do you know any truths?
Well, very religious people often see their religion as an Essential Truth.
I don't think it is. But they find that very offensive.
What should we do?
Gnostics Gnow. Religions are just control mechanisms. Faith sets you free (imo), but its all a personal journey
I.e. its 'organised religion' thats the poison, not faith or belief
To an extent - but individuals are just as capable of inventing sociopathic religious beliefs as groups.
Groups = organised = religion
Faith = personal = individual
But what happens when the individual is attempting to build a group? Jospeh Smith, say
Then they are building a method of power and control over others. A Supreme Being does not need faith in them and personal relationship with them to be codified. (Imo)
The quest to reduce the universe to linear rules is a pattern, endlessly repeated.
See The Process State. Which seems to me, to be little different from The Religious State.
A bird uses its left eye (right hemisphere) to survey the field, looking for risks and opportunities. It has a wide holistic perception.
When it perceives a seed, it uses its right eye (left hemisphere) to focus on it and use its beak to pick it up.
We are all a product of our artistic spiritual right hemisphere and our scientific materialistic left hemisphere but to differing degrees. Some people are very materialistic. Some are very spiritual.
As a mathematician I have a well developed left hemisphere (and multiple spreadsheets). But strangely my right hemisphere is dominant and I view the world, the universe, and the landscapes and the people in it with awe and wonder. I really do. That explains why I'm a Daoist.
BREAKING: the most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who resides in Iraq) has issued a Fatwa on the Iran war, decreeing "collective religious obligation" for communal defense. The last time he issued such a fatwa was in June 2014 after ISIS capture Mosul.
Although ISIS are apparently bloody furious at this comparison.
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.
Your partner never had those rights. The GRA never gave those rights. There is - and never has been - any right, either under domestic law or under the ECHR, to access the loos or changing rooms of the opposite sex. That your partner was misled into believing this is the fault of those who deliberately lied - and continue to lie - about what the law says.
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
And they say I'm the extremist.
Do please explain to me how the GRA (2004) language, "once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes" means that my beloved partner, in possession of both a GRC and a c****, should be excluded from being able to piss in safety and privacy.
Not legal chicanery. Not get out clauses, dispensations, different statutory processes. Do please explain to me, that when a hard right ideologue like Widdecombe believes a trans woman who has gone "the Full Turbotubbs" so to speak and has a functionally identical "Bartholomew Roberts" to a cis woman, should enjoy the same rights as a cis woman, you think that such women are not deserving of the same protection as other women?
I am not the extremist here (as others have noted), with a fairly limited / restrictive view on trans rights according to medical intervention.
You are a trans exclusive radical feminist, and I'm sorry if it insults you to describe you as a trans exclusive radical feminist, but that is what you are.
Functionally identical is a stretch. No transwoman will ever bear a child through said Bartholomew Roberts, for a start. And your point about a certificate is meaningless because they are still male, whatever the paper says. If it said they were a horse would you run them at Cheltenham?
Ah, I see, when a woman is no longer able to produce children through her "Bartholomew Roberts", she is no longer a woman.
Therefore all women who have undergone hysteroectomies are no longer women.
Blessed be the fruit!
‘No transwoman will ever bear a child through said Bartholomew Roberts, for a start.’
I hope you'll forgive me though, but I think it's just too busy-body being involved with everyone's everything.
We should just step back (many paces!) and just let everyone get on with life. Sex doesn't matter, Religion doesn't matter, and who knows what does.
Denying the truth of other peoples religion can be very offensive to them.
Should it be banned?
What is this 'denying the truth' crap? (I appreciate you're just projecting)
Do you know any truths?
Well, very religious people often see their religion as an Essential Truth.
I don't think it is. But they find that very offensive.
What should we do?
As Dave Allen closed his shows he always said
'May your God go wih you '
Because he was an atheist.
I thought he was an agnostic?
Allen was a religious sceptic.[18] He once said he was "what you might call a practising atheist" and often joked, "I'm an atheist, thank God." His scepticism came as a result of his deeply held objections to the rigidity of his strict Catholic schooling. Consequently, religion became an important subject for his humour, especially the Catholic Church and the Church of England, generally mocking church customs and rituals rather than beliefs. In 1998, he explained:
"The hierarchy of everything in my life has always bothered me. I'm bothered by power. People, whoever they might be, whether it's the government, or the policeman in the uniform, or the man on the door—they still irk me a bit. From school, from the first nun that belted me—people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies—they used to knock the fuck out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain—grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same. And I sit and watch politicians with great cynicism, total cynicism."
At the end of his act, Allen always signed off with the words "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you."[29]
Comments
I think the uneven standard is obvious to young, Green-voting women who are living through this stuff on a daily basis.
I get that, and I'm horrified to hear that - you have my condolences - and that also makes it difficult for you to be objective on the subject.
For your health and wellbeing as much as anyone else's, I suggest you change the subject.
I treat everyone I met with respect. I simply feel that women’s rights are being infringed by bad actors and it needs to stop. I suspect you partner would not have provoked ire as someone who had fully transitioned. Remember that most ransomed retain their male genetalia, for various reasons.
I can wait.
BREAKING: Initial reports of a boat being attacked off the coast of Oman with a Kamikaze boat.
Mind you, as a student, I spoilt a date - she was waxing lyrical about all the different flags hanging from windows near UCL (world cup I think) and I pointed out that one of them was the insignia of the Arena party of El Salvador.
They’ve changed somewhat, but back then, they were the party of “We aren’t into violence, but if you have a problem with leftists or trade unionists and you give us their names, strangely, death squads will visit them.”
I suppose, looking back, that is a *kind* of diversity.
If you disbelieve that, consider this. The UK is currently moving from "your sex is what your birth certificate says" to "biological sex", which the SC explicitly did not define but social media and various authorities define as "gamete prediliction" (or similar terms): whether your body would have produced small gametes or large gametes. This definition is skewed to make sex totally binary, unlike "genetic sex" (my preferred def'n) which is overwhelmingly binary but has a small sliver of intersex people in it.
To argue by analogy: Marx could not comprehend, and John Stuart Mill(?) hated but eventually accepted, the fact that the monetary value of an thing is a function of supply and demand and not a function of inherent value. Similarly society's definition of "a man" or "a woman" varies over time. It's not my fault, I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Oh wait, no, I'm actually not.
Re extremism, I'd say the poles are as below:
Pro Trans Ideologue. Gender identity is all important. Where it differs from birth sex the latter becomes irrelevant.
Anti Trans Ideologue. There's no such thing as gender identity. It's a fiction which should not be pandered to. You are what you were born as.
https://x.com/davidmkeyes/status/2030664562719002877
"I appreciate that, Emmanuel, but I meant unconditional surrender of Iran."
I have some sympathy with those who have undergone full surgical transition (though the vast majority do not and, as the EctHR has made clear - some 17 years go - such surgery cannot be a requirement of recognition or legal rights) and who do not wish to use the places reserved for their sex. But the solution is - and always has been - to make unisex spaces available. Not to deny women their safety, dignity and privacy.
Whatever you choose to believe about your partner - and I fully appreciate your love and concern - the fact is that sex cannot be changed. The strength of your belief, however sincere, does not change reality. And the other reality is that women can tell at a glance who is a a man, even one who has done whatever he can to make himself look like a woman. Why? Because our lives depend on this.
Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general.
If transidentified men want safe loos, changing rooms, rape shelters, refuges etc then they can do what women did, create them for themselves instead of demanding we give up ours. Or men can learn to be - ah yes - inclusive and kind, so that people like @kyf_100's partner are not put at risk.
Oh - and TERF is another of those words used to insult women to try and get them to shut up. "Witch", "hag", "bitch", "slut", "aggressive" etc etc. It's a very very old story and a very tiresome one. And not one any woman with any sense or self-respect pays the slightest attention to.
It does become fascinating when you consider the intersections of intentions.
I hope you'll forgive me though, but I think it's just too busy-body being involved with everyone's everything.
We should just step back (many paces!) and just let everyone get on with life. Sex doesn't matter, Religion doesn't matter, and who knows what does.
"Any discussion of the politics of women as a class on PB will over time inevitably turn into a discussion of trans"
Should it be banned?
If shes reading this thread, she'll know who i am , lol
Other 'our songs' - Heroes, if it makes you happy, Saturday Night
With increasing numbers of Black people in this country being largely of African origin, with a significant number of Muslims among them.
Any discussion that's long enough will naturally turn to Hitler and Trans, and eventually both.
We don't have thousands of posts on PB about the sexual assaults conducted by white grooming gangs, or by white straight men in clubs, or the widespread harassment from white straight men which women who run or cycle have to put up with.
I appreciate this is an advanced form of whatabotery, but putting aside the rights and wrongs I think it's an explanation for why the Greens are currently in the lead for people aged under 50 - and in the lead amongst all women according to YouGov - despite their position on trans.
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy crankshaft cycle will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily startup.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us
And lead us not into four stroke;
but deliver us from gas turbines.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.
Do you know any truths?
If you accept (which I think you will) the definition in my post a few minutes ago of what the 2 extremes are then the fact is that Cyclefree is closer to one than kyf_100 is to the other. Far closer actually.
I base this on the detailed views of the 2 posters as written at length on here. Nothing else.
But @Casino_Royale is right, perhaps this great trauma means you should avoid this subject, if only because debating it must re-open the wound?
But you must do what you must do. And remember everyone on PB will be appalled and saddened by your story, whatever their views on this or that issue
one minute later
@Sean_F, 20260308_1913: "“TERF” is a term like “Zio.” It is absolutely intended as an insult"
...and there we have it.
Do please explain to me how the GRA (2004) language, "once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes" means that my beloved partner, in possession of both a GRC and a c****, should be excluded from being able to piss in safety and privacy.
Not legal chicanery. Not get out clauses, dispensations, different statutory processes. Do please explain to me, that when a hard right ideologue like Widdecombe believes a trans woman who has gone "the Full Turbotubbs" so to speak and has a functionally identical "Bartholomew Roberts" to a cis woman, should enjoy the same rights as a cis woman, you think that such women are not deserving of the same protection as other women?
I am not the extremist here (as others have noted), with a fairly limited / restrictive view on trans rights according to medical intervention.
You are a trans exclusive radical feminist, and I'm sorry if it insults you to describe you as a trans exclusive radical feminist, but that is what you are.
"I love that man Enoch Powell
He's offering me £100 to go home
It's only 20p on the bus to Dudley"
I don't think it is. But they find that very offensive.
What should we do?
"Women's rights to safety, dignity and privacy are not conditional on whether men agree to this. Our rights are not what is left over after men get what they want. We do not have to justify why we say "No" to a man or men in general."
I don't see anything extreme about that. It is a fundamental truth that my job brings home to me on an almost daily basis. Until it is a universally acknowledged and practiced truth women remain at risk in our society and they must be entitled to enforce their protections without fear or favour.
As for the Green lead, it's just easy. It's a way of acknowledging the shiteness of Labour without any serious reappraisal of or rejection of progressivism. It is 'one more heave' from people who struggle to admit they were wrong.
It's very close to turd, also berk and nerd, it is a classic four letter Anglo Saxon swearword that begins with a plosive and ends with a fricative, two emphatic sounds - same as with piss, fuck, cock, c***, dick, shit, twat, and so on
Perhaps Norman Tebbitt shouldn't be allowed to criticise the IRA?
Or - full reductio ad absurdam - person who got a parking ticket shouldn't be allowed to grumble that the current system of restrictions is unfair?
Interesting.
Thanks for the concern trolling, mate.
Perhaps, I have more experience on the subject than most on PB and my contribution in rebutting Cyclefree's transphobic bollox makes me a useful and interesting contributor on the subject?
I have mentioned my partner's death in passing several times on pb over the years, but the fact that I've been politely rebutting Cyclefree's anti trans BS for years and haven't leaned into the "this shit killed the woman I loved" vibe and have been consistently but politely rebutting her shit using logical, reasonable argument should tell you something.
You are trying to get me to shut up by pretending you are concerned about my "great trauma". Classic concern trolling. "Shut up, you're too emotional to talk".
I think the case for trans rights stands by itself, and I've been making it for years now without constantly referencing said trauma.
I'll keep on talking about it for as long as I'm still alive. Because many are not.
I'm off to have a gin and do some cookin'
I have absolutely no skin in this game, and whilst I can understand @Cyclefree and her issues with people like Isla Bryson they are not representative of people just quietly living the life they would like to live.
One of the least admirable elements of Political Betting is when much the same handful of posters feel the need to pile onto a poster they all disagree with, be that on social issues or the colour of their rosette..
Religions are just control mechanisms. Faith sets you free (imo), but its all a personal journey
I.e. its 'organised religion' thats the poison, not faith or belief
That is far too philosophical a post for an ill educated poster like me. I don't even know how to start unraveling that statement.
Faith = personal = individual
I suspect most women's refuges would accept trans women and this was backed up by the manager of a refuge in Wales during the Scottish Gender Recognition Bill consultation. She pointed out the women in the refuge know what it's like to be abused by same violent men as those who abuse trans women. It isn't a philosophical point for them. But if most decide, no, then those who disagree would have to change people's minds one refuge at a time.
We have quite removed from men’s minds what that pestilent fellow Paul used to teach about food and other unessentials—namely, that the human without scruples should always give in to the human with scruples. You would think they could not fail to see the application. You would expect to find the “low” churchman genuflecting and crossing himself lest the weak conscience of his “high” brother should be moved to irreverence, and the “high” one refraining from these exercises lest he should betray his “low” brother into idolatry.
Application to the Trans thing is left as an exercise for the reader.
You'll never get into the Wee Free with an attitude like that.
'May your God go wih you '
Crom always seemed like a sensible view of a God. You really, really, don't want his attention.
A Supreme Being does not need faith in them and personal relationship with them to be codified. (Imo)
See The Process State. Which seems to me, to be little different from The Religious State.
BREAKING: the most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Sistani (who resides in Iraq) has issued a Fatwa on the Iran war, decreeing "collective religious obligation" for communal defense. The last time he issued such a fatwa was in June 2014 after ISIS capture Mosul.
The debate is important to have so that, when in 30 years time, women as defined as "a biological woman" have had all their safe spaces taken from them and most of the rights they spent 200 years campaigning for, removed, some of us will at least be able to say, we tried to stop it!
Happy International Womens Day to ALL our amazing but sadly far too few, PB female contributors and a special hello and happy IWD to Ms. Cycle @Cyclefree who we wish nothing but good health and amazing things for, well into the future! 🙏
And esp for a tory 🙂
@AmbJohnBolton
·
3h
The idea that the Iranian regime could come up with a new Supreme Leader that Trump could work with is delusional.
https://x.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/2030681196896911385
===
Delusional you say? Hmm...
Therefore all women who have undergone hysteroectomies are no longer women.
Blessed be the fruit!
Men can identify as women (and women as men) if they want and their personal choices and preference should be respected to some degree but the facts of life and the scientific truths we know, are non-negotiable?
My point is that you are portraying your opinion as fact and that needs calling out.
Otherwise or we end up in the same gutter as the USA where the MAGAs, led by their liar in chief, increasingly get away with passing off lies and opinions as facts. We can see where that leads.
When it perceives a seed, it uses its right eye (left hemisphere) to focus on it and use its beak to pick it up.
We are all a product of our artistic spiritual right hemisphere and our scientific materialistic left hemisphere but to differing degrees. Some people are very materialistic. Some are very spiritual.
As a mathematician I have a well developed left hemisphere (and multiple spreadsheets).
But strangely my right hemisphere is dominant and I view the world, the universe, and the landscapes and the people in it with awe and wonder. I really do. That explains why I'm a Daoist.
Thanks for a lol!
Trump can't even work with his own family.
"The hierarchy of everything in my life has always bothered me. I'm bothered by power. People, whoever they might be, whether it's the government, or the policeman in the uniform, or the man on the door—they still irk me a bit. From school, from the first nun that belted me—people used to think of the nice sweet little ladies—they used to knock the fuck out of you, in the most cruel way that they could. They'd find bits of your body that were vulnerable to intense pain—grabbing you by the ear, or by the nose, and lift you, and say 'Don't cry!' It's very hard not to cry. I mean, not from emotion, but pain. The priests were the same. And I sit and watch politicians with great cynicism, total cynicism."
At the end of his act, Allen always signed off with the words "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you."[29]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Allen_(comedian)#Religion
https://x.com/DanielPipes/status/2030291411275276397