The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on. As above, there are some of JKRs comments that I don’t particularly agree with, but they were presented in a reasoned way and were not particularly out there or extreme.

It feels like there’s a vacuum in the middle ground of the argument that people are too scared to step in. That leaves the only people really commenting to be a hardcore trans community on one side, and Daily Mail/Lawrence Fox/Piers Morgan types on the other.

I have no further interest in argument than to say "Frightened" and "scared" are maybe not quite the best description to define a whole section of humanity who don't particularly see deviants from Scripture and 2000 years of human behaviour as jolly fine chaps and chapesses, rainbow coloured doyens of a brave new world just because they say so. I'd go so far as to say a great deal of society don't actually care. Live and let live I can accept, but put the placards away and stop celebrating non-events. What you're doing now is what my grandkids will have to live with. It isn't just about you.

I suspect if someone said the equivalent about you, you’d not be that happy.

It’s not like homosexuality is new. If anything it was more prevalent when some storytellers wrote a work of fiction you call ‘scripture’. They were all bummers then. Lots of them enjoyed their animals too whilst we are at it.

[BWFC_Insane]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on. As above, there are some of JKRs comments that I don’t particularly agree with, but they were presented in a reasoned way and were not particularly out there or extreme.

It feels like there’s a vacuum in the middle ground of the argument that people are too scared to step in. That leaves the only people really commenting to be a hardcore trans community on one side, and Daily Mail/Lawrence Fox/Piers Morgan types on the other.

I think that in part is driven by the closed questions. How many people get asked "Is a trans-woman a woman?" - They're in a media spotlight so they go for an answer. I'm fairly sure I'm in a position of "dunno and not necessarily but maybe - mostly dunno"

We can't and shouldn't try to make rules that ensure that no-one is ever offended, because the only way that's happening is to ban communications.

The fact people continually are asked that question is simply to try and trap people. I think the answer ‘maybe’ is perfectly acceptable. But both sides are offended then in equal measure.

[nicholaldo]

What is it specifically that JK Rowling has said or written that qualifies her as being on the extremes?

And how does it relate to black people?

I'm confused on that point.

[Prufrock]

I thought the piece BWFCi linked to was interesting, and made some good points where it focussed on arguments. It was also something I think falls squarely within the circle of reasonable debate even if I think calling JK Rowling transphobic is patently wrong and unhelpful.

My main area of strong feelings on this issue are around making sure "gender critical" women are heard and their perfectly valid views taken into account. It's a conflict of rights, and doesn't mean coming down firmly on one side or another across the board. There are lots of general factors (there are far more women, even GC women than trans people, but then lots of women are happy with trans people in women's spaces, but then that's not really the point, that there were Jewish people who didn't find Corbyn's Labour anti-semitic didn't mean they weren;t etc) as well as issue specific ones (the risk in prisons is clearly higher than sport say). But we aren;t going to negotiate that balancing act by shutting one of those interest groups down and calling them bigots or offensive.

I must say I still don't really see the offensive point other than that some people are going to be offended by perfectly reasonable views and I'm sorry but that's just tough. There are perfectly valid reasons why some women don't want trans people in single-sex spaces. Maybe the balance comes down in some case in allowing them, but that doesn't make those views unspeakable or reflect on the people who hold them in any way. JK Rowling is conscious that those views might be hurtful, and tries to minimise that as far as possible, but ultimately I can't see a single issue she raises that isn't a valid, albeit difficult question.

I think this is an unfair summary of one of the points she was making:

But I also read Rowling effectively saying 'I was confused but didn't have the luxury of changing my gender so just listened to some music' or some such ridiculously trite nonsense and think 'come on you are brushing away young people's mental health in a horrible horrible manner there that even I as a non trans, non young person find offensive'.

The point she was making is that a mushrooming number of teens are identifying as trans and places like the Tavistock clinic are performing irreversible surgery on them, including fighting court cases to allow them to do so against their parents' wishes. She is saying that she, who having become an adult is not trans, felt out of place as a teenager and had that option been open to her she may well have gone down that road. It's a really important area, arguably the most in this whole morass, and again an important but necessarily difficult argument to make. It's undeniably tough to say to teens who genuinely have gender dysmorphia "I'm sorry but you need to wait until you grow up fully until we can allow you to have this surgery", but the alternative (see the awful case of Keira Bell) is worse. Teens are difficult and still developing. See Worthy's example where most of the teens in question turned out to have been going through a phase, but one wasn't. When it's sexuality, fine no harm done. When it's irreversible surgery, less so.

The comparison to black rights or gay rights is often made, but I think it's trite and misleading. It's superficially attractive: it's a marginalised group fighting for their rights, but the ultimate difference is that in those areas there is no valid conflict of rights. Equality for black people or gay people does not conflict with the rights of anyone else. White people don't have a valid right to be treated better than black people, nor to straight people than gay. But women do have a right to single-sex spaces, and trans people do have a right to safe spaces. And that's a tricky balancing act that needs both "sides" to be able to fight their corner.

On whether TWAW, whilst agreeing that it's a daft, reductive question, as arguments over definitions rather than substance almost always are, the answer I've heard that most closely aligns with my view is "ultimately, no, but politeness and kindness mean that as far as possible I'm happy to pretend". So name, pronouns, clothes, absolutely. But as soon as it comes down to the difficult questions then I'm afraid no. But that's not necessarily to say that means they should always be excluded from women's spaces. In some areas there the balance might well lie on those spaces being for women and TW.

It's also worth thinking about whether trans-women are really one class, and I don't think they are. I think a small group are people with a genuine psychological condition (not a doctor!) where they really truly feel that their body is wrong. I don't believe that such a trans-woman is in fact a female, in the same way that somebody with phantom limb syndrome can't really still feel their missing leg, but that must be horrible to experience, and if surgery in some way "fixes" that then that's great.

I think the remainder of genuine trans-women (i.e. ignoring your AG chancer types) don't have a (or the same) psychological condition. Instead they are people who suffer from the gender expectations that society has. They're born male but none of the things that men are supposed to do make sense to them. In terms of all the things they want to do, wear, watch, how they want to behave, society would be absolutely fine with it if they were women, but because they are men it's difficult. I have sympathy for them too, and have no problem using names, pronouns etc.

I think *some* GC people can be a bit unkind to them, albeit I can understand why. If you're a feminist who has spent your whole life believing that gender roles are bollocks, and the fact you are a women shouldn't require you to keep house, or wear dresses or stay at home while the men go to the football, then I can see how it's infuriating when someone comes along and says that the fact that they like doing those things makes them in fact a woman. In terms of whose analysis of society I agree with, it's the feminists, the "answer" to that is that men should be free to do, like, watch etc they want without society making them feel "wrong" about it.

That said, it's no use to say to the trans-woman who lives in the society that we have that those societal forces that leave them feeling outcast shouldn't exist. I mean great, agreed, but they do.

[TANGODANCER]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on.

It’s not like homosexuality is new. If anything it was more prevalent when some storytellers wrote a work of fiction you call ‘scripture’. They were all bummers then. Lots of them enjoyed their animals too whilst we are at it.

And thereby Jimbo, I imagine is one reason many don't bother being involved. Over and out from me.

[BWFC_Insane]

What is it specifically that JK Rowling has said or written that qualifies her as being on the extremes?

And how does it relate to black people?

I'm confused on that point.

Not sure it makes her on the extremes.

It’s more that say 80 years ago an article fervently explaining why racial segregation was a good thing would have very much not been an extreme it still would have been obviously offensive to those in the minorities.

I guess the point I’m making is that I can see why people were upset by it. And it’s articulated well in the piece I linked. Also can see Rowling’s view point and think much of it is well reasoned. Some things in there for me are still a bit incendiary and I can see why there was some reaction. The reaction was of course completely unacceptable.

[nicholaldo]

What is it specifically that JK Rowling has said or written that qualifies her as being on the extremes?

And how does it relate to black people?

I'm confused on that point.

Not sure it makes her on the extremes.

It’s more that say 80 years ago an article fervently explaining why racial segregation was a good thing would have very much not been an extreme it still would have been obviously offensive to those in the minorities.

I guess the point I’m making is that I can see why people were upset by it. And it’s articulated well in the piece I linked. Also can see Rowling’s view point and think much of it is well reasoned. Some things in there for me are still a bit incendiary and I can see why there was some reaction. The reaction was of course completely unacceptable.

Okay, but you previously described her as being "as distasteful as the right side of history mob" and it seems clear you consider her as one of those bringing more heat than light to the issue yet don't seem to be able to articulate exactly why. For example, which bits are incendiary?

(I'm not claiming she hasn't expressed any incendiary or distasteful opinion but I'd just like to know what you think is so objectionable)

The point about racial segregation fails in my opinion as the reason single-sex spaces are as necessary as they are is because of the sheer overwhelming scale of sexual violence from one class (males) against another (females). And trans woman are, after all, male.

That, of course, doesn't mean that every trans woman is a threat to biological women (or anything but a tiny minority - a point Rowling herself was at pains to make clear) but then neither is every man. Safeguarding has to be broad by definition - it simply isn't possible to know which member of a particular oppressor class are or aren't a threat in advance.

Whereas the only motivation for racial segregation is and was bigotry.

[Worthy4England]

Agree with this, pretty much Nicholado, I read the not unreasonable rebuttal of Rowling's essay, but there was the bit in there where the child with the dick was potentially getting changed in the same room my daughter might have been getting changed in. That offends me and I might never recover. Sorry but no. Irrespective of anything. You're 14 with a cock, you don't belong in the same changing room as my 14 year old daughter.

Looking after our children's mental health involves a shit-load more than just giving then what they think they want. Which bigoted TERF Nazi, could've possibly guessed?

[BWFC_Insane]

Agree with this, pretty much Nicholado, I read the not unreasonable rebuttal of Rowling's essay, but there was the bit in there where the child with the dick was potentially getting changed in the same room my daughter might have been getting changed in. That offends me and I might never recover. Sorry but no. Irrespective of anything. You're 14 with a cock, you don't belong in the same changing room as my 14 year old daughter.

Looking after our children's mental health involves a shit-load more than just giving then what they think they want. Which bigoted TERF Nazi, could've possibly guessed?

I suppose the rebuttal being that it has been the case for well over a decade now that your daughter could encounter a trans person in a shared space. How problematic has that been? Yet we have a huge increase in violence, harassment and assault against women and girls in the last few years…trans people make zero difference to those numbers, the major drivers seem to be the attitude of younger men and…lockdown…

Ugh. Anyway this feels to me like an entirely reasonable debate with plenty of middle ground opinions. Which is good.

[Worthy4England]

My response to that would be just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Why bother with segregated changing rooms in the first place? What are the long term mental health issues caused by it for the other group (not the person going on the journey?)

[BWFC_Insane]

My response to that would be just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Why bother with segregated changing rooms in the first place? What are the long term mental health issues caused by it for the other group (not the person going on the journey?)

I completely agree. It’s where you get to the point of there being no good answers.

You can understand why trans people feel victimised for something they’ve not caused. You also see exactly why people like you and I are concerned.

Checkmate. And they will just scream at each other.

[Worthy4England]

Could politics get any lower. Lee Anderson has apparently offered Steve Bray a boxing match, to settle who "goes away" - I mean, seriously? Fcuk me.

[TANGODANCER]

Could politics get any lower. Lee Anderson has apparently offered Steve Bray a boxing match, to settle who "goes away" - I mean, seriously? Fcuk me.

That should be in a gold frame in the House of Lords and Commons. How much more ridiculous can we make ourselves. Politicians..pah.

[BWFC_Insane]

Could politics get any lower. Lee Anderson has apparently offered Steve Bray a boxing match, to settle who "goes away" - I mean, seriously? Fcuk me.

And these are the loonies Sunak is embracing. I thought he might be sensible but he’s just Johnson with better hair.

[Worthy4England]

Could politics get any lower. Lee Anderson has apparently offered Steve Bray a boxing match, to settle who "goes away" - I mean, seriously? Fcuk me.

And these are the loonies Sunak is embracing. I thought he might be sensible but he’s just Johnson with better hair.

I thought gentlemen preferred blondes?

[Hoboh]

Is anyone else scratching their head in bewilderment that certain Boris bum lickers are alluding it was purely Sue Grey and her report that brought the fake Churchill down?
Christ, she gathered evidence, wrote a report and submitted it and after all she was appointed by Winston.
Now if I was a betting man I reckon good money could go on acquaintances of a certain 'non Dom' leaking all the material she had to work on.
My opinion is she should not be allowed to take up a post under comrade Starmer until after the next election which seems only fair. I think all the major civil service positions should be political appointments and changed wit a differently elected government to stop these behind the scenes shenanigans, I believe this is the case in the US.

[Worthy4England]

Is anyone else scratching their head in bewilderment that certain Boris bum lickers are alluding it was purely Sue Grey and her report that brought the fake Churchill down?
Christ, she gathered evidence, wrote a report and submitted it and after all she was appointed by Winston.
Now if I was a betting man I reckon good money could go on acquaintances of a certain 'non Dom' leaking all the material she had to work on.
My opinion is she should not be allowed to take up a post under comrade Starmer until after the next election which seems only fair. I think all the major civil service positions should be political appointments and changed wit a differently elected government to stop these behind the scenes shenanigans, I believe this is the case in the US.

Part a - to me, it's an absolute nonsense appointment by Starmer, precisely because it left this wide open goal. When it came out yesterday? day before, you just knew someone or group was going to bleat. For me, showed a lack of leadership thinking.

To the other bit - major appointments - US? Yeah that's working real well. I don't trust any UK party to make those choices.

Tax man audits every President annually, previous President gets in no Audit. Current incumbents raid home of previous President (fair play they've done similar for the sitting President) - and it's decried as a politically motivated attack - by the FBI. Same the other way around.

What happens when a whacko gets in with no checks and balances on who heads up the Military and the Police? No thanks.

Think on this Hobes, we could have a politically appointed Minister for Woke thinking, and the same party is going to politically appoint the leading military and police positions - no thanks.

What would have happened Jan 6 if fruitloop had been able to exercise total control based on the big lie?

[Worthy4England]

Whilst we're about it Hobes - and no fan of Matt Hancock who's stitched himself up because he's a feck*. Isabel Oakeshott - woman for the people - fcuk me, I wouldn't trust her to deliver the milk order. What a turd. No one much seems to have explained she's in anyway connected to Richard Tice over at Reform UK..Nothing politically motivated to see here....

[BWFC_Insane]

I couldn’t disagree more. The Tories spent months saying how good Sue Gray was and how much integrity she has. So if you are looking for a chief of staff you go for the absolute best. It’s annoyed people loyal to Johnson. So is absolutely ideal.

The idea that you shouldn’t appoint someone with massive experience in government to be chief of staff for fear of annoying the very people you need to win an election against is absolutely bizarre to me. It’s the thought process of desperate right wing rags.

Johnson appointed her to carry out the investigation. She didn’t have the parties. She didn’t get picked by a committee to do the investigation. Johnson asked her.

She now has a job offer that she has accepted. The only people who thinks this taints the investigation are the absolute nutters who live in an alternative reality and like to bend and twist truth beyond all recognition.

[BWFC_Insane]

Whilst we're about it Hobes - and no fan of Matt Hancock who's stitched himself up because he's a feck*. Isabel Oakeshott - woman for the people - fcuk me, I wouldn't trust her to deliver the milk order. What a turd. No one much seems to have explained she's in anyway connected to Richard Tice over at Reform UK..Nothing politically motivated to see here....

She’s his partner. Hancock really is monumentally dim.