The Doctor

there's nothing I want more from this season than for Forest to fully bottle it and end up in the conference league. All other sources of joy are long dead

come back in 48 hours then. we'll be down after today and he'll get booted

The latter. It happens very frequently as is. I've already mentioned a few pages back about the woman who was sacked by walmart in the US because a man suspected she was trans, followed her into the toilets and created a scene, but it is a common experience for in particular butch lesbians. Increasing the panic around trans people and legislative outcomes like this embolden people, like the man in walmart, to increase that harassment, and from a purely numerical stance, more of that is going to fall on the heads of gender non-conforming cis women than on trans women, because trans women are a tiny tiny minority.

it's not technically the case, but ask again in about 6 months (going through final edits to my thesis at the moment)

it's really not though is it, this is how every genocide in history has started, through legislative bursts to make it harder and harder for the targeted minority group to exist in public. When that doesn't work, will they take the next step of straight up criminalising the minorities existence? Quite possibly. Let's look at the 10 stages of genocide: Classification, Symbolisation, Discrimination, Dehumanisation, Organisation, Polarisation, Persecution, Extermination, Denial. concentration camps come at step 8, persecution. Now, it's not an inevitable straight line all the way through, for instance we've lingered on discrimination and dehumanisation for disabled people for decades without progressing to state sponsored eugenics, but the path is well marked, it's happened before and a blase wait and see attitude in the face of increasing discrimination and dehumanisation is not only foolish, it's down right dangerous. like, to be clear, I don't think that every single person who has campaigned against trans inclusion will want to end up there, but it's undeniable that there are a significant handful for who the goal is that trans people, particularly trans women, stop existing, and there's only one way you achieve that...

it's genuinely ridiculous, no woman is safer as a result of that verdict that she was at the start of the week, in fact a lot of women are far less safe than they were. As a verdict it's going to embolden more harassment of trans women, that should be bad enough for people to care but I know it's not for too many, so let's consider the impact on cis women. We know full well that cis women get mistaken for trans women and harassed on that basis regularly, you can find a ton of news reports to that end, predominantly targeting butch lesbians, but let's suppose for a second that "we can always tell", so no trans woman passes, and let's assume a 1% false positive rate (identifying a cis woman as trans). Per the census we know there are 48,000 trans women in the UK, and 30.4m women in the UK. For fairness, let's deduct 48k from that number, assuming all trans women were registered as women in that. that leaves us with 30,352,000 cis women in the UK, with our 1% false positive rate, that's 303,520 cis women who'd be falsely considered to be a trans woman, or 6.3 cis women who'll face harassment as a result for every trans woman. Anti trans rhetoric endangers all women.

but, hey, thank god the supreme court enabled this: https://news.sky.com/story/trans-women-to-be-strip-searched-by-male-transport-police-after-court-ruling-13350577 now, what are you going to do when male police abuse it to strip search random cis women because you actually cannot always tell and the supreme court judgement means that this would apply even with a GRC (which changes your marker on your birth certificate). You've got no way of proving you're not trans, and even if you carry your birth certificate with you (not legal ID so not sure why you would), they've now been given grounds to ignore what it says

ah yes, because complex scientific and sociological questions should be simplified for the benefit of a hack children's author who's now ~60% black mould by weight and a bunch of people really unhappy that science didn't stop at their primary school education.

This isn't making women "responsible for solving the problem of male violence", rather what you're doing is stating that you think there should be a sacrifical group of women to pacify men, and that's a dangerous road to go down, because when you start divvying up people who are and aren't acceptable targets for violence, you invariably create a slippery slope where more and more groups are designated acceptable targets. There's no reliable evidence that trans women have male pattern criminality to start with, the common citation for this is Dhejne et al, and it's a gross misinterpretation of the research. The study doesn't look at conviction types, it's not a male or female pattern criminality (in terms of offences) study, it's a finding that a cohort of trans women between 1973 - 1988 has similar conviction rates to a cisgender male group, a pattern not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort. So, we then have to ask the simple question: why was this pattern seen in the older cohort but not the younger? could it have anything to do with the attitudes towards LGBT people as a whole in the 70s and 80s compared to the 90s? So, I don't agree with the notion that there is significant masculinisation of the brain, because there's not solid evidence that significant differences between "male" and "female" brains exist, instead instead we can mostly discount it as an artefact of the average sizes of men and women, but let's suppose that 1% of difference is significant, well the research we've got suggests that the brains of trans women are significantly different from both cis men and cis women to start with, and that hormone therapy pushes the more neuroplastic regions towards that of acquired sex anyway. The notion of male and female brains is on shaky ground generally, and the idea that trans women have male brains (and trans men female brains) is even less founded. As for the idea that post transition trans women behave like men, cite your evidence - and make sure it's actual evidence, not speculative crap from anti-trans campaign groups like Sex Matters who take half the available information to justify the conclusion they've already started at.

The mockery has been clickbait for years tbf

In the crime and policing bill? My understanding is not that it's necessarily viewed as ok, but that it doesn't prompt mandatory reporting regardless of circumstance. So, where coercion or significant power imbalances occur, that still gets reported and isn't ok, but that two teenagers engaging with each other consenually doesn't benefit from being treated that way. It's not a "yea, you're 14, go for it" deal, and that really should never be the case, but two teenagers who like each other and decide to do something reckless don't necessarily face police investigation into them, and that seems right to me, it's not a matter that the police should get involved with (which the current law has it as, through the offence of statutory rape), rather the responsible adults for these teenagers should be ensuring if they're going to engage in stupid behaviour they don't do so recklessly and that they have safe access to care in the event of something going wrong

There are several very basic errors in this assessment (which should have been immediately obvious at the idea that trans women are far more likely to commit sexual offences than cis men, in contrary to every single piece of research on this topic which indicates that trans people are far more frequently victims of sexual offences than perpatrators, see for instance the post you're responding to with the indication that 50% of trans women have faced sexual assault), but lets go with the simplest. sex offences is anything under under the sexual offences act 2003, which includes solicitation - now, let's consider for a moment that 7 years ago, even before the current demonisation hit full speed, there was mass employment discrimination against trans people: https://www.crosslandsolicitors.com/site/hr-hub/transgender-discrimination-in-UK-workplaces. Now, if you're facing significant employment discrimination and you have bills to pay, what might you end up doing? If you said sex work, you would be correct: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10066761/

You talk of single sex spaces and yet you don't actually consider the impact they also have on trans people. Like, lets talk sex crimes and in particular let's talk about behaviour within prison wards. Are you aware of the concept of V-Coding? It is a truly abhorrent practice that occurs when trans women are put in male prisons and the prison staff use those trans women to pacify incarcerated men through their institutionalised rape: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=ijlse As to the argument around men opting out, this is a fundamental level at which we will never agree. Trans women are not men, not sociologically, not biologically. As far as I am concerned a trans woman who has undergone medical transition is a biological woman (and vice versa with trans men), because medical transition alters your biology (this is the entire point of all medicine - to alter your biology to treat the condition). It does not alter chromosomes but chromosomes are frankly irrelevant - they are the blueprints for the body, not the reality of the body. The endocrinology of the body and the reproductive capabilities of the body are far more important (and the reproductive capabilites are not binary for that matter, we don't define infertile and fertile as different sexes). The counterpoints to that get far closer to arguments for intelligent design that I'll ever give the time of day to. My position is not that there should be no single sex spaces at all, it's that single sex spaces which treat trans men as women and trans women as men fundamentally fail to achieve the point of single sex spaces and instead are the wilful endangerment of trans women, which ultimately endangers all women through increasing harassment of people for slighter and slighter gender non-conformity (case in point, women being harassed for being taller than average: https://www.yahoo.com/news/walmart-fires-64-cisgender-woman-210344920.html)

fascinating how frequently the argument becomes "trans women shouldn't be afforded dignity because cis men will abuse that" and yet people still won't just face that the problem is cis men, not trans women. I'd also say if you actually care about rape victims, you should probably focus more on the sub 1% conviction rate for reported cases, and the trauma that women are put through for that minimal chance of justice (near enough two thirds don't go to court because the victim is so destroyed by the process of trying to get justice that she drops it), rather than only bringing rape up when it becomes a tool to smear a group who have absurdly high victimisation rates (like, over 50%). And since No Debate has once again been brought up, it's fascinating how frequently people ignore all context as to it. The No Debate position was generally taken after Channel 4's "genderquake", with live debates between trans people and anti-trans activists, and with planted audience members who shouted abuse at the trans panellists. Even if we set aside everything else, a position of "we will not participate in public debates where we'll be ritually abused as light entertainment" is not only understandable, it is completely justified. But, beyond that there are significant issues with the idea that trans identities are up for debate, and that participation in society by trans people is up for debate. It creates a completely unmeetable double standard as it does with every other minority group - random cis men aren't expected to answer for and be accountable for the actions of Andrew Tate, white people aren't expected to be accountable for the actions of people like Dylann Roof (the Charleston Church shooter), straight people aren't expected to be accountable for the actions of Ted Bundy. And yet white supremacists will constantly expect all black people to answer for the crime stats, homophobes have used the actions of Jeffery Dahmer to justify suspicion of all gay people, and we're seeing the same here, where people are genuinely suggesting that we should restrict the rights of all trans people because of the likes of Isla Bryson. All demographics have scummy people and good people in them, but majority demographics aren't expected to answer for the scummy ones in them.

No, what's happened is that the supreme court has just put the UK in breach of the ECHR. The gender recognition act came in as a result of Goodwin v UK in 2002, which found that blocking the ability to change your sex on your birth certificate violated articles 8 (right to privacy) and 12 (right to marry and found a family). Article 12 is no longer relevant here as the UK has implemented same sex marriage, however article 8 still is. Making the gender recognition certificate essentially irrelevant puts the UK back in breach of that ruling (as the Equality Act had to be drafted with that in mind). What the supreme court has done isn't common sense (it's also not accurate at all w.r.t. biology, biological sex is mutable - if something isn't mutable it ceases to be biological and becomes a matter of sociology), it's making it clear that the UK considers punching down at minorities to be of greater importance than abiding by the ECHR, which should be absolutely terrifying to anyone who holds any sort of protected characteristic (women included, the levels of attacks on womens rights even in first world countries like the US should be of concern). Once again though, trans people are the canaries in the coal mine and it turns out people love to see the canary die.

I mean, there's a few possible takeaways from that. One is that he's good at his job, the other is that he's a soft touch and easy to walk all over either as an underling or a peer at a different club. Given the state of the club currently, the safe money would be the latter.

absolutely carved apart.

The idea that Luton were building a "championship super team" was pretty common among fans. Among pundits, not a clue, I don't pay attention to anything they say.

that is exactly what people said about Luton?

Chelsea could have caught them though is the point, had they got another today they'd be 1 point behind with a better goal difference. Yes, back Villa and Newcastle too, but the more points those three pick up, the better the odds of forest not getting CL get

due to the way PSR works though, we'd be better off getting 12m for him next summer than 16m this summer

no one has ever said that, it's forest that pretend they don't care about us

no, they entered today on 53 pts, win takes them to 56, 1 behind Forests 57

top 5 is CL, we need forest to finish 6th or lower. If Chelsea win they're a point behind. greatly improves the chances of forest blowing it, the maths isn't hard

what is wrong with our fan base wanting Forest to make the CL?