[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No he flip flops more than Nicky

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bots

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sir Keir told the Times, external that "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law".

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

The spokesman added: "That is set out clearly by the court judgment."

Pressed over when the PM had changed his mind, his spokesman insisted the Labour government had been consistent that single-sex spaces "are protected in law".

The ruling also makes it clear that a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have the right to use spaces or services designated as for women-only.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro


---------------------------------

Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?

The answer to your question is no.

[arista]

"Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?"

Yes great point,
I assume it depends on the Wind blowing
directions

[arista]

Well the SNP are Crazy

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

Good on Radio5 Live

Telling a Labour MP
that Starmer is a Coward (headline)


Starmer Kicked out Rosie Duffield MP
over this

[user104658]

JK Rowling really is off down the pipeline at this point which is a shame. She really didn't need to go full Lozza Fox, it's not a good look and cheapens her platform if anything.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

JK Rowling really is off down the pipeline at this point which is a shame. She really didn't need to go full Lozza Fox, it's not a good look and cheapens her platform if anything.

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

It's not just the one moment and I'm not sure why that moment would be sitting with drink and cigar in hand, it's a slight right-wing dog whistle, like I said it's a bit Laurence Fox. I'm not saying she shouldn't have had her say or even gloated. The cigar is odd imagery.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

Everyone's a critic... After all she's had to take you'd think people would lay off the criticism, but no...

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

JK Rowling really is off down the pipeline at this point which is a shame. She really didn't need to go full Lozza Fox, it's not a good look and cheapens her platform if anything.

I think it's going to be hard for almost anyone to be like Laurence Fox.

That man is nearly as bad as Andrew Tate imo.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I think it's going to be hard for almost anyone to be like Laurence Fox.

That man is nearly as bad as Andrew Tate imo.

I don't know if he's as bad as Tate because he isn't an actual pimp/sex trafficker, but the really amazing talent he has, is that he's managed to be just as gross and unappealing a human being as Tate without doing those things. He's just so... snivelling...

[arista]

Clive Lewis MP Labour Party
on the BBC2HD Politics Live

Said he does not agree with his Prime Minister,
and he will not obey the Judge

One of many.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by arista

Clive Lewis MP Labour Party
on the BBC2HD Politics Live

Said he does not agree with his Prime Minister,
and he will not obey the Judge

One of many.

So he's fine with people not obeying court rulings in general? Not a good look for an MP surely? What's the point in courts in that case?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So he's fine with people not obeying court rulings in general? Not a good look for an MP surely? What's the point in courts in that case?

Yes he stated he does not agree with the Judge or PM Starmer
on this topic.



We need a list of these Labour MP's

[bots]

Simple comparisons i look at are things like the wearing seatbelt mandate or the smoking ban, where overnight it enforces a behaviour change

Having experienced them both, there was push back initially, but within a month or 2 people basically fall into line. I expect this to be similar, people will express their opposition, but for the overwhelming majority they will fall into line

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bots

Simple comparisons i look at are things like the wearing seatbelt mandate or the smoking ban, where overnight it enforces a behaviour change

Having experienced them both, there was push back initially, but within a month or 2 people basically fall into line. I expect this to be similar, people will express their opposition, but for the overwhelming majority they will fall into line

Pushback against the smoking ban I understand the reasons for, but a pushback against mandatory car safety is wild. "How DARE you tell me not to die in a car crash??" .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Pushback against the smoking ban I understand the reasons for, but a pushback against mandatory car safety is wild. "How DARE you tell me not to die in a car crash??" .

It's not just telling you not to die either, I was only talking to my son about this ad that used to be on TV in the 90's for car safety it was pretty grim viewing and the "tag line" was "The guy without the seatbelt did the damage"


Contains car accident scenes (fake ones obviously)

Spoiler:

Youtube video

[bots]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

Pushback against the smoking ban I understand the reasons for, but a pushback against mandatory car safety is wild. "How DARE you tell me not to die in a car crash??" .

they had all sorts of devices that made it look like you were wearing a belt if the police passed by. It was crazy

[Maru]

The trans issue was never a 2-way conversation, so that's why I don't spend a ton of energy trying to argue about it.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Maru

The trans issue was never a 2-way conversation, so that's why I don't spend a ton of energy trying to argue about it.

Very true, all I saw from the little bit of the video I watched was transwomen whining about themselves..no empathy for women who have lost their jobs, their places on podiums, been driven out of the political party they supported, been put at risk in prisons, in refuges, they are making it all about bathrooms....

[Jessica.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Very true, all I saw from the little bit of the video I watched was transwomen whining about themselves..no empathy for women who have lost their jobs, their places on podiums, been driven out of the political party they supported, been put at risk in prisons, in refuges, they are making it all about bathrooms....

Where's the empathy for the trans people losing rights, taking their own lives, being abused, being molested, being murdered. The ones who don't know how they'll go on after this law has been passed? What refuge will they feel safe in?

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

Where's the empathy for the trans people losing rights, taking their own lives, being abused, being molested, being murdered. The ones who don't know how they'll go on after this law has been passed? What refuge will they feel safe in?

You've made it sound like they're living in war conditions. The law is not a fun fun toy to just apply labels haphazardly without giving any sound thought as to what processes that would have to entail for that to reasonably apply to every scenario across society.

The problem there is we already have seen how that plays out in incarceration setting with self-ID, which is practically de facto without the spirit of laws (due to legal liability concerns which governs most policies in "empathy"-backed governing). Just as mental health is being accommodated at every step even when it is obviously an abuse of the system.

When a system tries to accommodate too much, it slows things down, denies the most vulnerable people who don't have access to good doctors or lawyers access to needed services here in the States because of all the false claims. It's become a huge problem in incarceration settings where people are being held for really long periods of time in deplorable conditions hoping to get paperwork through to get into a facility, largely due to lack of space. When there is no space, new rules are invented out of thin air under the guise of "empathy" to suddenly dump hundreds of mentally ill and even potentially dangerous back out onto the street because there's just no way to accommodate them. The system can only work so fast.

Do we really need to tie up the courts with more additional nonsense because Jerry thinks wearing a dress and someone making fun of how he looks is akin to rights being violated? There has to be a point where reasonable lines have to be drawn and people learn to self-manage. And in an era where people don't really agree on very much, at least we can agree on what is biology. Otherwise we can't function even basic services without rampant abuse without standards becoming so unreasonable that nobody can reasonably apply them without lawyers or judges having to be involved at every step. This dream world where all things can magically come together and be accommodated at the same time without very significant drawbacks doesn't exist. Government knows this, but continues to sell people on that false dream because it expands their hold on power. This is one of the primary reasons why mental health is so jacked up in the States and has gone nearly for profit. It's also why we are seeing many major rollbacks on these policies now because people are starting to realize they've been lied to about the availability and ability to reallocate resources.

People using labels and classification systems to their advantage themselves with extra perks happens all the time, every single day, every minute. Our culture at this point does very little to penalize this, so there's no reason to pretend that this attitude is very occasional. Just take a brief look at any social service that offers an easy, obstacle-free application process.

What's also normal in a setting where victims are common are perverts and predators. They particularly love getting into the mental health areas where vulnerable people are housed because of 1) perks, 2) easier access to victims and their resources so they can to exploit. When a non-verbal family member ends up raped in the corner out of camera view not able to defend themselves it's because every doctor in that facility has been told if they don't pass that individual through the checks without adequate enough proof to keep them out (good luck), they're out of a job. I know it happens because my husband used to have to do the paperwork and take the statements to get people like that out regularly. Incarcerations is packed with this abuse because we are throwing entire populations of society's most troubled individuals sometimes, which by most people's descriptions includes trans folk (even yours, apparently), into the same bucket and expecting that this will all just work out fine because either the system shows "empathy" or all those folk who just want to do their part are out of a job.

A vast majority of people are not trying to put trans-people into harsher situations if they can help it. If anything, common sense people want to prevent that plight from expanding. But the activists don't really care about the above because they're far more concerned with breaking the system further with more random experiments (usually incarcerated are the first...because "gotta help trans people or else", all because it is keeping them and their interests advantaged. Making a country a bigger hellhole for all people to live in just to a few more feel more accommodated is not real empathy in my book. And from experience, most activists are assholes not really caring about the end result of the damage being done, but rather they're more interested in making sure everyone in whose hand is in the pot is getting some credit for it. There's a reason that their behavioral habit is to become incredibly hostile or thin-skinned when their credibility and intentions comes under even minor question. Many more people work in social services or other needed facilities without major complaint but will tend to take the blame and be forced to put up with all kinds of scrutiny just for simply existing and doing their job, just as a comparison to supposed "activism".

Nobody wants to be on the "wrong" side and be part of doing more evil. Obviously, it's the opposite or so many services or parts of governing would not have gotten as bad as they have in the past few decades.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Maru

You've made it sound like they're living in war conditions. The law is not a fun fun toy to just apply labels haphazardly without giving any sound thought as to what processes that would have to entail for that to reasonably apply to every scenario across society.

The problem there is we already have seen how that plays out in incarceration setting with self-ID, which is practically de facto without the spirit of laws (due to legal liability concerns which governs most policies in "empathy"-backed governing). Just as mental health is being accommodated at every step even when it is obviously an abuse of the system.

When a system tries to accommodate too much, it slows things down, denies the most vulnerable people who don't have access to good doctors or lawyers access to needed services here in the States because of all the false claims. It's become a huge problem in incarceration settings where people are being held for really long periods of time in deplorable conditions hoping to get paperwork through to get into a facility, largely due to lack of space. When there is no space, new rules are invented out of thin air under the guise of "empathy" to suddenly dump hundreds of mentally ill and even potentially dangerous back out onto the street because there's just no way to accommodate them. The system can only work so fast.

Do we really need to tie up the courts with more additional nonsense because Jerry thinks wearing a dress and someone making fun of how he looks is akin to rights being violated? There has to be a point where reasonable lines have to be drawn and people learn to self-manage. And in an era where people don't really agree on very much, at least we can agree on what is biology. Otherwise we can't function even basic services without rampant abuse without standards becoming so unreasonable that nobody can reasonably apply them without lawyers or judges having to be involved at every step. This dream world where all things can magically come together and be accommodated at the same time without very significant drawbacks doesn't exist. Government knows this, but continues to sell people on that false dream because it expands their hold on power. This is one of the primary reasons why mental health is so jacked up in the States and has gone nearly for profit. It's also why we are seeing many major rollbacks on these policies now because people are starting to realize they've been lied to about the availability and ability to reallocate resources.

People using labels and classification systems to their advantage themselves with extra perks happens all the time, every single day, every minute. Our culture at this point does very little to penalize this, so there's no reason to pretend that this attitude is very occasional. Just take a brief look at any social service that offers an easy, obstacle-free application process.

What's also normal in a setting where victims are common are perverts and predators. They particularly love getting into the mental health areas where vulnerable people are housed because of 1) perks, 2) easier access to victims and their resources so they can to exploit. When a non-verbal family member ends up raped in the corner out of camera view not able to defend themselves it's because every doctor in that facility has been told if they don't pass that individual through the checks without adequate enough proof to keep them out (good luck), they're out of a job. I know it happens because my husband used to have to do the paperwork and take the statements to get people like that out regularly. Incarcerations is packed with this abuse because we are throwing entire populations of society's most troubled individuals sometimes, which by most people's descriptions includes trans folk (even yours, apparently), into the same bucket and expecting that this will all just work out fine because either the system shows "empathy" or all those folk who just want to do their part are out of a job.

A vast majority of people are not trying to put trans-people into harsher situations if they can help it. If anything, common sense people want to prevent that plight from expanding. But the activists don't really care about the above because they're far more concerned with breaking the system further with more random experiments (usually incarcerated are the first...because "gotta help trans people or else", all because it is keeping them and their interests advantaged. Making a country a bigger hellhole for all people to live in just to a few more feel more accommodated is not real empathy in my book. And from experience, most activists are assholes not really caring about the end result of the damage being done, but rather they're more interested in making sure everyone in whose hand is in the pot is getting some credit for it. There's a reason that their behavioral habit is to become incredibly hostile or thin-skinned when their credibility and intentions comes under even minor question. Many more people work in social services or other needed facilities without major complaint but will tend to take the blame and be forced to put up with all kinds of scrutiny just for simply existing and doing their job, just as a comparison to supposed "activism".

Nobody wants to be on the "wrong" side and be part of doing more evil. Obviously, it's the opposite or so many services or parts of governing would not have gotten as bad as they have in the past few decades.

Great post Maru