General News

[Torquay Gunner]

47 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

Everything in the news is so depressing.

 

Terfs on the rise.

Fascism on the rise.

Arsenal doing well.

A live streamed genocide.

 

Fvck this

Wtf?

[Parafox]

2 hours ago, worthosoriginals said:

Ruff

 

It might be. Depends on the opposition.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, Mike the Metal Ed said:

Don't normally question mod decisions to cool debate here, but it's interesting how transphobic strawmen disguised as "common sense" are allowed to remain here, but my reminder of the human cost of such is apparently beyond the pale.

 

You don't get to shut down the other side of the debate by calling them transphobic, or their arguments strawmen.  That is not how debate works.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

39 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You don't get to shut down the other side of the debate by calling them transphobic, or their arguments strawmen.  That is not how debate works.

I disagree it was an unwarranted accusation given I can hear dogs barking for miles, but I also don't expect much better in this thread so I'm done here.

[leicsmac]

To link the two most recent topics, an observation:

 

I'm not sure that anyone can in good faith claim to be an advocate for women's rights and at the same time have expressed any support of the administration of Donald Trump, either in 2016 or now, given the attitude of that administration towards women's rights was as clear then as it is now.

[ClaphamFox]

6 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

You don't get to shut down the other side of the debate by calling them transphobic, or their arguments strawmen.  That is not how debate works.

That’s precisely how many activists have tried to circumnavigate debate on this issue. It’s because they’ve always been well aware that any genuine debate would invariably end with them on the losing side. You can’t actually make a meaningful case for men to be allowed in women-only spaces or sports - it just can’t be done. Hence the tactic of constantly trying to shift the conversation away from those key points by accusing opponents of: a) being hate-filled bigots; b) acting in bad faith; c) being dupes for the US religious right; d) overstating a minor issue. And so on.

 

These tactics reached their high watermark a few years ago but have been in retreat since as people have grown weary about being bullied into saying they believe something they don’t actually believe. The aggressive activists on social media have had their day; hardly anybody is listening to them any more. 

 

It’s worth remembering why this case was brought in the first place. It was because the Scottish government had tried to argue that quotas for female representatives on the boards of public bodies could be open to any man who had paid for a piece of paper declaring him to be female. During the hearing, Ruth Crawford KC argued on behalf of the Scottish government that a heterosexual man with a gender recognition certificate is a woman and so “becomes” a lesbian and should be able to join lesbian groups even if those groups do not want him as a member. 

 

This was plainly absurd and it is insane that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to finally knock it down. Yesterday’s ruling does not remove any rights for transgender people - it merely confirms that as far as the law is concerned, ‘woman’ means biological female and nothing else, and that biological females have the right to women-only shortlists, services, spaces and sports. And despite having followed this issue closely for many years, I still haven’t come across anybody offering a plausible argument for why they shouldn’t. 

Edited 17 April by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

That’s precisely how many activists have tried to circumnavigate debate on this issue. It’s because they’ve always been well aware that any genuine debate would invariably end with them on the losing side. You can’t actually make a meaningful case for men to be allowed in women-only spaces or sports - it just can’t be done. Hence the tactic of constantly trying to shift the conversation away from those key points by accusing opponents of: a) being hate-filled bigots; b) acting in bad faith; c) being dupes for the US religious right; d) overstating a minor issue. And so on.

 

These tactics reached their high watermark a few years ago but have been in retreat since as people have grown weary about being bullied into saying they believe something they don’t actually believe. The aggressive activists on social media have had their day; hardly anybody is listening to them any more. 

 

It’s worth remembering why this case was brought in the first place. It was because the Scottish government had tried to argue that quotas for female representatives on the boards of public bodies could be open to any man who had paid for a piece of paper declaring him to be female. During the hearing, Ruth Crawford KC argued on behalf of the Scottish government that a heterosexual man with a gender recognition certificate is a woman and so “becomes” a lesbian and should be able to join lesbian groups even if those groups do not want him as a member. 

 

This was plainly absurd and it is insane that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to finally knock it down. Yesterday’s ruling does not remove any rights for transgender people - it merely confirms that as far as the law is concerned, ‘woman’ means biological female and nothing else, and that biological females have the right to women-only shortlists, services, spaces and sports. And despite having followed this issue closely for many years, I still haven’t come across anybody offering a plausible argument for why they shouldn’t. 

...I guess we'll see where we are in ten years.

 

That goes for other supposedly "developed" nations, as well as the UK.

[leicsmac]

Think this one belongs here rather than the scientific thread because it's rather "human interest":

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jwj90ejno

 

There are some scientific discoveries that do much more than advance our knowledge: they create a shift in our psyche as they show us the scale of the Universe and our place in it.

One such moment was when space craft sent back images of the Earth for the first time. Another is the discovery of life on another world, a moment that has inched a little closer today with the news that signs of a gas, which on Earth is produced by simple marine organisms, has been found on a planet called K2-18b.

Now, the prospect of really finding alien life - meaning we are not alone in the Universe - is not far away, according to the scientist leading the team that made the detection.

"This is basically as big as it gets in terms of fundamental questions, and we may be on the verge of answering that question," says Prof Nikku Madhusudhan of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University.

But all of this prompts even more questions, including, if they do find life on another world, how will this change us as a species?

 

Fascinating topic of discussion.

[fox_up_north]

Having work in education for the last 10+ years, having a legal framework around sex gives us a lot of breathing room. 

 

The press summary judgement provided by the Justices helps clarify a lot of the muddy waters of the Equality Act. 

 

It allows schools/ colleges, particularly regarding sport and changing rooms, to refer to a court judgement in the exceptionally rare cases where a child of one biological sex may wish to use spaces designated for the other. It provides clarity in these situations and is a good starting point to open discussions about ways in which concessions or adaptations can be made, without fear that the school/ college could be challenged in court - a financial and PR risk. 

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

That’s precisely how many activists have tried to circumnavigate debate on this issue. It’s because they’ve always been well aware that any genuine debate would invariably end with them on the losing side. You can’t actually make a meaningful case for men to be allowed in women-only spaces or sports - it just can’t be done. Hence the tactic of constantly trying to shift the conversation away from those key points by accusing opponents of: a) being hate-filled bigots; b) acting in bad faith; c) being dupes for the US religious right; d) overstating a minor issue. And so on.

 

These tactics reached their high watermark a few years ago but have been in retreat since as people have grown weary about being bullied into saying they believe something they don’t actually believe. The aggressive activists on social media have had their day; hardly anybody is listening to them any more. 

 

It’s worth remembering why this case was brought in the first place. It was because the Scottish government had tried to argue that quotas for female representatives on the boards of public bodies could be open to any man who had paid for a piece of paper declaring him to be female. During the hearing, Ruth Crawford KC argued on behalf of the Scottish government that a heterosexual man with a gender recognition certificate is a woman and so “becomes” a lesbian and should be able to join lesbian groups even if those groups do not want him as a member. 

 

This was plainly absurd and it is insane that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to finally knock it down. Yesterday’s ruling does not remove any rights for transgender people - it merely confirms that as far as the law is concerned, ‘woman’ means biological female and nothing else, and that biological females have the right to women-only shortlists, services, spaces and sports. And despite having followed this issue closely for many years, I still haven’t come across anybody offering a plausible argument for why they shouldn’t. 

[Sampson]

One good thing is seeing what a proper hard right government that wants to smash the institutions looks like in practice has caused massive turnarounds in polling in Australia and Canada as plenty of people are realising what “country first” actually means in practice. 

Edited 17 April by Sampson

[leicsmac]

And to weave together the last few topics here once again:

 

I reckon that if there indeed is an intelligent civilisation capable of FTL travel or observation watching us right now, their viewpoint on our actions regarding nationalism and sexual dimorphism would be patronisingly amused at best and utterly contemptuous and saying it's unbecoming of a supposedly intelligent species at worst.

 

But who knows?

[Dahnsouff]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And to weave together the last few topics here once again:

 

I reckon that if there indeed is an intelligent civilisation capable of FTL travel or observation watching us right now, their viewpoint on our actions regarding nationalism and sexual dimorphism would be patronisingly amused at best and utterly contemptuous and saying it's unbecoming of a supposedly intelligent species at worst.

 

But who knows?

You would hope and expect that such a species had already seen or even suffered such history themselves, so could well view our current foolishness without humanistic judgement

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

You would hope and expect that such a species had already seen or even suffered such history themselves, so could well view our current foolishness without humanistic judgement

I would hope so too, which is why I would hope that their view would be either dispassionate or at least the "roll eyes, 'look at those backward primates but we were there once too' " kind of amused derision.

[Dahnsouff]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I would hope so too, which is why I would hope that their view would be either dispassionate or at least the "roll eyes, 'look at those backward primates but we were there once too' " kind of amused derision.

Advanced species will clearly have no sense of humour after such an elongated existence  

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Advanced species will clearly have no sense of humour after such an elongated existence  

Perhaps so.

 

Hopefully (or not so hopefully) one day we'll find out.

[Sampson]

38 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Advanced species will clearly have no sense of humour after such an elongated existence  

Maybe they all read their own versions of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and play their own version of Cosmic Encounter where the humans are their version of the Vogon or the Loser. 

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

One good thing is seeing what a proper hard right government that wants to smash the institutions looks like in practice has caused massive turnarounds in polling in Australia and Canada as plenty of people are realising what “country first” actually means in practice. 

Isn't it just.  Much as I think Albo seems like a nice bloke but is a bit left leaning for me, I would make him PM for ever over Peter Dutton.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

One good thing is seeing what a proper hard right government that wants to smash the institutions looks like in practice has caused massive turnarounds in polling in Australia and Canada as plenty of people are realising what “country first” actually means in practice. 

 

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Isn't it just.  Much as I think Albo seems like a nice bloke but is a bit left leaning for me, I would make him PM for ever over Peter Dutton.

And yet there are other countries where Trump-style nationalism is going full speed ahead. And given the way Reform continues to poll in the UK, I'm not sure they're anywhere near away from that particular outcome either.

 

Here's hoping that our species can, if slowly, move away from that precipice.

[The Doctor]

17 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

If a man is convicted of raping a woman but began identifying as a woman during his trial, do you think the media should refer to him as ‘she’ and claim the rape was committed by a woman? How do you think the victim will feel about seeing the media describe her penis-endowed attacker as a woman, and having her horrific experience twisted and lied about to spare the feelings of the man who destroyed her life? Because this actually happens. 

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.

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Think this one belongs here rather than the scientific thread because it's rather "human interest":

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8jwj90ejno

 

There are some scientific discoveries that do much more than advance our knowledge: they create a shift in our psyche as they show us the scale of the Universe and our place in it.

One such moment was when space craft sent back images of the Earth for the first time. Another is the discovery of life on another world, a moment that has inched a little closer today with the news that signs of a gas, which on Earth is produced by simple marine organisms, has been found on a planet called K2-18b.

Now, the prospect of really finding alien life - meaning we are not alone in the Universe - is not far away, according to the scientist leading the team that made the detection.

"This is basically as big as it gets in terms of fundamental questions, and we may be on the verge of answering that question," says Prof Nikku Madhusudhan of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University.

But all of this prompts even more questions, including, if they do find life on another world, how will this change us as a species?

 

Fascinating topic of discussion.

Apparently Trump has stuck a 10% tariff on it just in case 😀

Edited 17 April by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Apparently Trump has stuck a 10% tariff on it just in case 😀

A similar response to the one given to the President in Mars Attacks is forthcoming then (hopefully).

[ClaphamFox]

54 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

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.

The logic of your argument is that there should no single sex spaces at all - ie, men and women should share changing rooms, bathrooms, hospital wards, prison wards etc, and that nobody should be allowed to create a space for one sex because to do would be to unfairly discriminate against the other because of a tiny minority of ‘scummy’ individuals. If that’s what you think, fine - at least there is a logical consistency in what you’re arguing.
 

I disagree, however. The fact is, men are overwhelmingly more dangerous to women than vice versa. Men commit the vast majority of sex crimes and violent offences - male pattern criminality is fundamentally different to female criminality. That is why we have single sex spaces. As a man, I understand that there are certain spaces I cannot enter and I also understand that this is not a judgment against me personally - it’s because I am a man and there is no way of determining which men are a risk and which are not. To pick up your example, we don’t segregate along racial lines because there is no evidence that one race is overwhelmingly more dangerous than any other race - there would be no justification in doing so. The same does not apply to sex. 
 

I believe in single sex spaces because the evidence we have about male and female behaviour supports their existence. And once you have such a policy, it doesn’t make any sense to me to allow an opt-out for men who believe it shouldn’t apply to them. A safeguarding policy that allows anybody to opt-out if they choose is no safeguarding policy at all. 

Edited 17 April by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

... is eugenics (by demographics other than the poor, that's been going on for a while) going to be standard US administration policy now, then?

 

 

Edited 17 April by leicsmac

[Sampson]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... is eugenics (by demographics other than the poor, that's been going on for a while) going to be standard US administration policy now, then?

 

 

There’s an Elon Musk joke in there somewhere.