Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

Pross

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.

If you want to be treated like a women, being sent to the "not women" bit isn't being treated like a woman.

It's the solution sports seem to be coming up with.

Am I the only one who saw your play on words? I assume it was deliberate but seems to have gone over heads!

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

The legal changes for adults are not all that contentious. Just makes the process less burdensome and humiliating. The particular case in the news at the moment is a lightening rod for those who argue it has gone too far the other way. Which is debatable.

I'm surprised how steadfastly this thread is focusing on that, rather than people who are, according to the UN and science, likely to be too young to be making informed decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their lives.

That's the part that Kier Starmer has correctly flagged as being of greatest concern.

You know, we get the politicians we deserve. And we have so many of the ones we do because thoughtful measured politicians are so often ignored.

Because it is all related to a powerful lobbying group that has made the subject so toxic that it can not be sensibly debated

You're starting to sound like some conspiracy theorist. Name a prominent trans politician.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s exactly what the critics of the trans laws ha

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

This makes an awkward situation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242

I’m sure you could make a strong argument the transition was solely to get yourself in a womens prison. Would be a sorry situation to be put in a women’s prison for committing crimes against women when you were a male.

But then it blows an enormous hole in way the trans laws are evolving.

Tbh, if I was in politics, half the stuff that came across my desk, I’d just be thinking who the hell makes this stuff up.

I find it odd that apparently no-one can conceive of a cis woman possibly sexually assaulting another woman. I mean it's almost as if the lack of safety in prisons is the issue rather than gender.

Why not go the whole hog and have mixed gender prisons.

And if not, you have to then work out what you do with men who lie to be treated as women.

Well obviously this. Just not sure that is in itself a reason to insist a small but significant number of non-criminal people have to formally apply for something that the rest of us take for granted.

Sure but the same logic applies to all places where there is gender segregation, right?

Not thought enough about it, but broadly I think so. In this specific scenario, I can't see why the duty of care for other inmates shouldn't take precedence and the prisoner gets put in whichever prison is deemed most appropriate on a case by case basis.

Right.

Problem is in other gender segregated settings you don’t have a court, nor the time, to establish things on a case-by-case basis.

I can’t really see a solution, as either the trans lot lose out or women do.

It’s a troubling zero sum game which is why I think the debate is quite so toxic.

As you started to say, it's exactly what one side of the argument kept warning against.

It feels like either, it isn't a significant issue, and thus this case is very fortuitous for the "anti" side of the argument. Or that the pro side of the argument has perhaps underestimated the risks.

If roughly 1% of the population is trans, and that population is evenly spread among prisoners, that's around 800 trans prisoners. that's feels like enough for tabloids to make a story out of regularly.

This is then all combined with a criminal justice system that seems to be quite flawed.

I don't think it's about, for what of a better phrase, authentic trans people - i.e. people who are going through whatever they're going through and are focused on themselves.

It's about the law that is appropriate for them might not be appropriate for women, as there will be predatory men who use it for their predatory ends.

More broadly, amongst some women there is a feeling that by accommodating trans, the previous female spaces are basically letting in men, which I can more easily sympathise with.

I guess I wonder how you filter the "authentic" from the non authentic.


The crude method above with the meat cleaver?

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s exactly what the critics of the trans laws ha

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

This makes an awkward situation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64413242

I’m sure you could make a strong argument the transition was solely to get yourself in a womens prison. Would be a sorry situation to be put in a women’s prison for committing crimes against women when you were a male.

But then it blows an enormous hole in way the trans laws are evolving.

Tbh, if I was in politics, half the stuff that came across my desk, I’d just be thinking who the hell makes this stuff up.

I find it odd that apparently no-one can conceive of a cis woman possibly sexually assaulting another woman. I mean it's almost as if the lack of safety in prisons is the issue rather than gender.

Why not go the whole hog and have mixed gender prisons.

And if not, you have to then work out what you do with men who lie to be treated as women.

Well obviously this. Just not sure that is in itself a reason to insist a small but significant number of non-criminal people have to formally apply for something that the rest of us take for granted.

Sure but the same logic applies to all places where there is gender segregation, right?

Not thought enough about it, but broadly I think so. In this specific scenario, I can't see why the duty of care for other inmates shouldn't take precedence and the prisoner gets put in whichever prison is deemed most appropriate on a case by case basis.

Right.

Problem is in other gender segregated settings you don’t have a court, nor the time, to establish things on a case-by-case basis.

I can’t really see a solution, as either the trans lot lose out or women do.

It’s a troubling zero sum game which is why I think the debate is quite so toxic.

As you started to say, it's exactly what one side of the argument kept warning against.

It feels like either, it isn't a significant issue, and thus this case is very fortuitous for the "anti" side of the argument. Or that the pro side of the argument has perhaps underestimated the risks.

If roughly 1% of the population is trans, and that population is evenly spread among prisoners, that's around 800 trans prisoners. that's feels like enough for tabloids to make a story out of regularly.

This is then all combined with a criminal justice system that seems to be quite flawed.

I don't think it's about, for what of a better phrase, authentic trans people - i.e. people who are going through whatever they're going through and are focused on themselves.

It's about the law that is appropriate for them might not be appropriate for women, as there will be predatory men who use it for their predatory ends.

More broadly, amongst some women there is a feeling that by accommodating trans, the previous female spaces are basically letting in men, which I can more easily sympathise with.

I guess I wonder how you filter the "authentic" from the non authentic.


The crude method above with the meat cleaver?

Not the 'Crocodile Dundee' test, then?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

Maybe they can just have women's prisons and open prisons.

If you want to be treated like a women, being sent to the "not women" bit isn't being treated like a woman.

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

The legal changes for adults are not all that contentious. Just makes the process less burdensome and humiliating. The particular case in the news at the moment is a lightening rod for those who argue it has gone too far the other way. Which is debatable.

I'm surprised how steadfastly this thread is focusing on that, rather than people who are, according to the UN and science, likely to be too young to be making informed decisions that will profoundly affect the rest of their lives.

That's the part that Kier Starmer has correctly flagged as being of greatest concern.

You know, we get the politicians we deserve. And we have so many of the ones we do because thoughtful measured politicians are so often ignored.

Because it is all related to a powerful lobbying group that has made the subject so toxic that it can not be sensibly debated

You're starting to sound like some conspiracy theorist. Name a prominent trans politician.

why not keepit as a civil debate and I said lobbying not political party.

How about the takeover of Stonewall which is especially strange as their movement has nothing to do with sexuality?

rjsterry

In order to have power you need to either literally in government or more likely have the ear of the government. Penny Mordaunt made some vaguely supportive noises and clearly didn't benefit from that. Apologies for being rather blunt but I just find the idea that a powerful lobby group is in control when the Westminster government has just blocked a not very popular bill in Scotland a bit of a stretch. I would agree that there's a very polarised situation on social media, with some pretty disgusting behaviour on either side of the argument, but that's hardly notable.

briantrumpet

Why is The Telegraph so desperate to rehabilitate/exonerate Prince Andrew? Is it just because he's not Prince Harry? It really is a very weird paper these days.

First.Aspect

What is most intriguing is that no one associated with that story has ever tried so use the back seat of a Ford Fiesta.

kingstongraham

It intrigues me because it seems to be using a picture of two people in a bath to say that there isn't room for two people in the bath.

First.Aspect

#spacious

First.Aspect

#soapy

rjsterry

#worstproofever

Pross

I’m intrigued by what you lot are talking about.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

Why is The Telegraph so desperate to rehabilitate/exonerate Prince Andrew? Is it just because he's not Prince Harry? It really is a very weird paper these days.

Pro-royal nonce is the new anti-woke, anti-establishment, didn’t you know?

kingstongraham

Pross said:

I’m intrigued by what you lot are talking about.

This is the lead story in today's Telegraph:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1619254738662350849?t=8S2fYI-uXwrYSGwmGXF9RA&s=19

pblakeney

^^^^ 🤣🤣🤣🤣 ^^^^

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

^^^^ 🤣🤣🤣🤣 ^^^^

The correct response

Someone said "that's gold, let's run with that on the front page".

Pross

Jeez someone has led a sheltered life if they think that’s proof.

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

^^^^ 🤣🤣🤣🤣 ^^^^

The correct response

Someone said "that's gold, let's run with that on the front page".

Rather sums up where most of the Telegraph has ended up. A pity that it's no longer a serious newspaper that intelligently articulates a cogent right-wing viewpoint.

rjsterry

EU (pre 2016) divided into equally populated areas.



I quite like the sound of New Saxony.

https://twitter.com/simongerman600/status/1619442696313094144?t=bhUXS7Ohkzmi2yF0K86JQg&s=19

Wheelspinner

Someone should tell him the UK is no longer part of Europe? 😀

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

Someone should tell him the UK is no longer part of Europe? 😀

Doesn't exist on that map, so... 🤷🏻‍♂️

monkimark

But what colour passports will us New Saxonians have, and will there be border checks when I drive back home to Northland?

Pross

I'm struggling to believe there are 18 million people in the area they've designated the Celtic Union. Republic of Ireland is 5 million, Northern Ireland 1.9 million, Wales 3.1 million and Brittany 3.3 million (which is surprisingly high). So that leave Glasgow and a sparsely populated area of Western / Northern Scotland to contribute around 5 million when the whole of Scotland is around 5.5 million and Glasgow being around 1 million.

pinno

monkimark said:

But what colour passports will us New Saxonians have, and will there be border checks when I drive back home to Northland?

I should hope so. We need some method of keeping out itinerant southerners.

Stevo_666

pinno said:

monkimark said:

But what colour passports will us New Saxonians have, and will there be border checks when I drive back home to Northland?

I should hope so. We need some method of keeping out itinerant southerners.

All you need is a sign at the border saying 'Welcome to Scotland'. Should put most people off.

pblakeney

Must try harder. 😉

Stevo_666

pblakeney said:

Must try harder. 😉

You could argue that it has already done its job

rjsterry

Pross said:

I'm struggling to believe there are 18 million people in the area they've designated the Celtic Union. Republic of Ireland is 5 million, Northern Ireland 1.9 million, Wales 3.1 million and Brittany 3.3 million (which is surprisingly high). So that leave Glasgow and a sparsely populated area of Western / Northern Scotland to contribute around 5 million when the whole of Scotland is around 5.5 million and Glasgow being around 1 million.

There's another 1.5m in Devon and Cornwall.

briantrumpet

I'm not sure that Devon would want to be associated with the Celts these days, not least as the Cornish (sorry, 'Cornish people') don't know how to eat scones properly.