The Doctor

1) basically noone, this is one of the underpinnings of the argument around self-ID, but like 25 countries and a chunk of US states have it without issue 2) pretty much all of it. Like there are precedents dating back to the 70s and 80s around this (like self id was a thing until Corbett v Corbett, where an aristo decided he didn't want to pay alimony to his ex wife, a trans woman, so went to court arguing she was a man so the marriage was never valid), but it was so not a controversy not that long ago that it made up part of Tory policy in 2017 under May, and even still it is just not an issue for the majority of women.

There's nothing more Tory than holing your ship below the waterline for the sake of spite though, they'll no more do a deal with reform than labour would with the lib dems, SNP and greens (remember the nonsense about a rainbow coalition last time out?)

I would say it simply cannot be separated from the issue of trans healthcare generally. Like in the UK you're looking at up to a decade for a first appointment: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68602939 Then there's another multi year waiting list for the second appointment, another few years to then get on the waiting list for GRS, then again to reach the top of this list and get surgery. Even setting aside the issue of dignity, is it safe for trans women to use the mens changing room? No, the level of sexual violence trans women face in enclosed quarters with men is shocking (while it applies to prisons, if you'd like to feel sick look up V-coding). In an ideal world, changing rooms would be single occupancy and family cubicles, but currently the balance is do you ask cis women to be slightly uncomfortable at the potential for a woman with a cock to be in the changing rooms, or do you ask trans women to avoid public life for more than a decade on threat of sexual violence? Seems to me that the former is more reasonable

Make it a 70 point deduction. Technically they could stay up but it'd have to be pretty much a perfect season to hit 40 points

No we weren't? There was no punishment for administration then, it only became a thing because certain professional victims wouldn't stop whining about it

People on FT, being unnecessarily harsh towards Daka? I'm shocked.

They're going top on goal difference having played a game more and we've already beat all 9 teams we've got to play, by a cumulative 25-7 margin. This willingness of fans, on here and in the stands, to throw in the towel is a massive part of the problem

What a finish! Go and finish them off lads

Choudhury nowhere to be seen again...

Behave. Reasonable ball in, he's always stretching for it though and it's difficult to get on target. If it was Vardy going for that it would have been a similar result most of the time and no-one would be saying anything other than it being a decent chance

Pearce: "Fatawu isn't the type to track back" Go back to commentating on robot wars if you're going to do this little research...

Rested, if he was injured he'd have been pulled out of the Denmark squad as well

Would be fantastic if this happens given it'd be guaranteed semi space for us (Chelsea eliminated for playing an ineligible player)

It very much is if by vocal you mean "made some weak attempts at deflecting"

I mean, this makes it sound like prior to Newton everyone was just floating everywhere

The idea with puberty blockers is it buys time. If you come off them, as happens with everyone who takes them after a couple of years then puberty progresses normally (in the case of changing their mind) or via cross sex hormones (in the case of not changing their mind). There's no excess medical risk (it's important to stress that all medical products have risk, part of my job in pharma R&D is risk assessing drugs) of taking them at that young age because that's the age they're clinically effective at and are licensed for in the case of precocious puberty (they're not licensed for gender dysphoria because as I've said the patient base is tiny and it's not financially worth while for pharma companies to go through the variation process to add it as an indication particularly given off label doesn't imply experimental at all in the eyes of competent authorities). Puberty blockers after the age of puberty is very much a gate after the horse has bolted situation. My point is that we see natal puberty as a neutral act that's fine to occur for all and cross sex puberty as a significant deviation, despite both having the same overall impact (significant changes to the body either way) because society views cis as the default, due to systemic biases against trans people. This I will concede is a more controversial view however it's built off similar sentiments regarding sex in radical feminist theory and race in critical race theory. Everyone has biases that they learn from society and the way it's structured, and, consciously or unconsciously, they enforce those biases in a way that functionally is bigotry in terms of impact - to stay on the topic of puberty blockers and youth transition generally, whether someone's motivation for pushing for a ban on youth transition because they consider trans people to be inherently inferior and something to be prevented at all costs (conscious bias) or because they just think it's a big decision to make at such a young age and surely people should wait till they're a bit more mature to make such a decision (unconscious bias), the end result is the same from the perspective of the trans child, a ban on their healthcare and the second person's intentions don't mitigate the impact on them.

Not going to name who it is I'm thinking of because litigious and I've no desire to be sued or get the forum sued, but the allegations have been around for years. Morgan was found out, Christy Holly in the US was as well, seems like Kirk will be too, but it's horrendously common place in women's football

I've already explained why that viewpoint is incorrect, on account of the basis of the belief being a societal bias towards cis people. You then restated the same point and I explained again that it's underpinned by societal bias, and while most of that is unconscious bias, in practice it's still bigotry, because the intent or lack thereof doesn't mitigate the impact on those affected.

Given the rumours abound about other managers and coaches, including a very big name one, that's going to be a root and branches reform

For those who are actually interested in the topic, this is a good deconstruction of the Cass Review (the underpinning for this decision) and the extent to which it was a stitch up: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249 That it expressly discounted the input of SMEs (“deliberately does not contain subject matter experts or people with lived experience of gender services” [Report 1, version 1]) would be enough to discount it as a hatchet job by anyone approaching without an unconscious (or very conscious) bias against trans people.

If you consider pointing out unconscious biases as being harmful then that says far more about you than anyone else 👍

I understood your point, it was just wrong. The entire topic being a debate point is because of latent bigotry, it's just systemic discrimination and so deeply engrained that people don't recognise it as bigotry or even intentionally be bigoted, just consider it as how things are.

Bell is crank who claims to be a tavistock whistleblower despite never having actually worked in the GIDS: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dr_david_bell_employment_at_gids He's also one of the primary sources of Barnes hatchet job, which makes that book laughable, along with the fact that she sources all of her information on youth transition from a detransition Reddit site: As for Kaltiala, she is part of SEGM, a very shadily funded conversion therapy group who promote junk science like Littmans ROGD study: https://transsafety.network/posts/segm-uncovered/ Her experience working with youth with gender dysphoria is only evidence of the issues with youth gender services not adequately vetting staff to protect it's patients from dangerous ideologues like herself and the Evans (another one of Barnes sources). The science on transition is pretty clear, there's low levels of desistance and that gender transition is very clearly good for trans people: https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/ - the denial of that to children is part of an overall move to drive the needle against transition as a whole which is lead by the far right very openly, even if misguided people try to run interference and pretend it's an apolitical project

Bell absolutely is, and the Cass review had conversion therapy advocates (Riittakerttu Kaltiala) on the panel so you tell me. The simple facts are that the antitrans movement is lead by the far right and those who join it go down a far right rabbit hole (see JKR tweeting Holocaust denial yesterday)

Tbqh you lost me at "forget the science a minute" because what else should a proper public health policy be based on if not the science, given that is the reflection on safety, efficacy and ethics? The issue with this is that, with all due respect, it comes from a cisnormative point of view. If we actually want to say "wait until you're older to make such a major decision [whether you want to be a man/woman]" then the conclusion would be puberty blockers for everyone, because going through the puberty associated with your birth sex isn't a neutral act, it's harmful to trans people, creating a lot of extra things that you may want as part of transition (mastectomies for trans men, facial hair removal for trans women, voice training for both). Puberty blockers would buy time for everyone to decide whether they wanted to go through a natal puberty or a cross-sex one, but it's not seen that way because society is cisnormative, cis people are ~99% of the population based on the last census and so being cisgender is seen as the default, as neutral and any step away from that is seen as acting and making a decision.