Indyref 2 (2)

[phart]

One of the craziest things is the folk going mental about how many species do change their sex, as if across the whole spectrum of life it is immutable. I remember seeing it on Blue planet ages ago as well.

You can create definitions that cover ~99% of people when employing a binary system. However that leaves out tens of millions of people. When taken as a statistical demograph faces a huge disproportionate amount of harm in various forms.

[duncan II]

7 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Having to use a story, whether genuine or not, to try and reinforce her pish is awful

She a lunatic.

[ParisInAKilt]

19 minutes ago, phart said:

One of the craziest things is the folk going mental about how many species do change their sex, as if across the whole spectrum of life it is immutable. I remember seeing it on Blue planet ages ago as well.

You can create definitions that cover ~99% of people when employing a binary system. However that leaves out tens of millions of people. When taken as a statistical demograph faces a huge disproportionate amount of harm in various forms.

Agreed. Using dsd conditions in the context Blackman and others do doesn’t seem helpful though. 

[aaid]

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Wow - how insidious 

It is fucking obvious why that shite got the reaction it did

I wouldn’t really be paying too much attention to what you think is obvious today.  

[Ally Bongo]

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

I wouldn’t really be paying too much attention to what you think is obvious today.  

Not just me that sees it though ....and that's your argument's problem

When you have to lie you are on the losing side

[aaid]

15 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Not just me that sees it though ....and that's your argument's problem

When you have to lie you are on the losing side

Who’s lying?   Well maybe you are in saying the Nottingham is “obviously” a terrorist act.

[Ally Bongo]

12 minutes ago, aaid said:

Who’s lying?   Well maybe you are in saying the Nottingham is “obviously” a terrorist act.

The people saying that Cherry and Hanvey were making faces about someone "contemplating" suicide for not "being accepted"

And it has not yet been confirmed that it wasnt despite several hours of Counter-Terrorism officers being on the scene

[aaid]

9 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

The people saying that Cherry and Hanvey were making faces about someone "contemplating" suicide for not "being accepted"

And it has not yet been confirmed that it wasnt despite several hours of Counter-Terrorism officers being on the scene

What were they making faces about then?

[Ally Bongo]

10 minutes ago, aaid said:

What were they making faces about then?

That after listening to her 5 minutes of gibberish she used that as a denouement

I( would focus on the individual in the letter stating "they were not accepted" than "i might as well commit suicide"

[ParisInAKilt]

16 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

That after listening to her 5 minutes of gibberish she used that as a denouement

I( would focus on the individual in the letter stating "they were not accepted" than "i might as well commit suicide"

Weaponising suicidal ideation is par for the course with some trans rights extremists but to see it in this context is actually quite disgusting, especially the way she pauses for effect at the end. 

[aaid]

38 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Weaponising suicidal ideation is par for the course with some trans rights extremists but to see it in this context is actually quite disgusting, especially the way she pauses for effect at the end. 

The pause for effect as you describe it is actually her finishing her speech as you can see by her closing her folder.

I see the Met Police didn’t take long to throw out Cherry’s complaint.  

It’s all about Joanna.  

[Dave78]

18 minutes ago, aaid said:

 

I see the Met Police didn’t take long to throw out Cherry’s complaint.  

It’s all about Joanna.  

"The contents were assessed and it was deemed this did not meet the criminal threshold for an offence."

 

What is the threshold? Has it be clarified? Is it because it was made publicly, and not via a private DM? 

[Ally Bongo]

50 minutes ago, aaid said:

The pause for effect as you describe it is actually her finishing her speech as you can see by her closing her folder.

 

There is always a pause for effect after emotional blackmail

[glasgow jock]

On 6/12/2023 at 9:42 PM, Ally Bongo said:

 

What an absolute zoomer, no wonder she gets that reaction from the back bench, she only has a fair idea of what her genitalia looks like ?? really, from a woman who has had a family.........totally lost the plot, sad to say but this lot are in for a shock at the next elections if they don't get their act together !!

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

 

I see the Met Police didn’t take long to throw out Cherry’s complaint.  

It’s all about Joanna.  

wow

 

[Alibi]

22 hours ago, aaid said:

If it is so obvious, then why is there such a raging debate about it?
 

Because there are a lot of people who don't appear to understand science.  Seems to me though that the idea of making rules based on "gender" rather than sex is the root of most of the problems.

[aaid]

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

"The contents were assessed and it was deemed this did not meet the criminal threshold for an offence."

 

What is the threshold? Has it be clarified? Is it because it was made publicly, and not via a private DM? 

I’d imagine there’s a number of different factors that come into play and whether or not it was something that could be considered a legitimate threat would be big on that.

So for example, that’s a response to a third party regarding Cherry, that she -  Cherry - wouldn’t have normally been aware of.  That would be much more different than if she’d replied directly to one of Cherry’s tweets and threatened her.

To use the “Twitter as a pub” analogy, it’s the equivalent of being in a pub, seeing Harry Kane come on TV and turning to your mate and saying, I’d break his legs if I ever saw him”.  Chances of ever seeing Harry Kane, zero. Chances of being in a position to break his legs, zero. Chances of you actually doing that, zero.

Still it allows Joanna to play the victim card, invoke a pile on and put herself at the centre of things - which was what the pulling faces and mock horror was all about as well - which is always her agenda. 

I’m not condoning this sort of abuse but let’s see it for what it is and not blowing things out of all proportion.  

[aaid]

13 minutes ago, Alibi said:

Because there are a lot of people who don't appear to understand science.  Seems to me though that the idea of making rules based on "gender" rather than sex is the root of most of the problems.

Okay, answer me this question.  Why should “single sex” spaces be limited to an arbitrary designator as sex, why should they not be open to people who are most likely to use them or who have the most need.

Let’s take the example of toilets.  Should a trans-man, who to all intents and cases dresses and looks male be forced to use the toilet designated to their biological sex, i.e. a women’s toilet.   Would women who are troubled by men accessing women’s spaces be more uncomfortable with that than they would with a trans-woman, who to all intents looks female?

I saw a leading gender critical activist, Maya Forsatter being asked this yesterday and her answer was “err, um - well they can use a gender neutral toilet” which really isn’t an answer at all. 

[phart]

I think both things can be true, those tweets are fucked up and Cherry is a self absorbed grievance monger, shock horror politics is full of them. Also Twitter is full of folk saying fucked up shit too.

 

I think the most telling clue of anyone who doesn't understand science is to speak in absolute terms. Everywhere you look rules break down under certain conditions. Indeterminism is built into reality. Approximations no matter greater precision are still approximations.

It's then a case as a society how people deal with folk that fall outside the venn diagrams.

[Dave78]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

I’d imagine there’s a number of different factors that come into play and whether or not it was something that could be considered a legitimate threat would be big on that.

So for example, that’s a response to a third party regarding Cherry, that she -  Cherry - wouldn’t have normally been aware of.  That would be much more different than if she’d replied directly to one of Cherry’s tweets and threatened her.

To use the “Twitter as a pub” analogy, it’s the equivalent of being in a pub, seeing Harry Kane come on TV and turning to your mate and saying, I’d break his legs if I ever saw him”.  Chances of ever seeing Harry Kane, zero. Chances of being in a position to break his legs, zero. Chances of you actually doing that, zero.

Ok, understood. 

I see the difference between making a direct and indirect threat. Still, you'd have thought the police would issue a warning to the sender, given the recent climate of violence toward MPs.

 

 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, phart said:

I think both things can be true, those tweets are fucked up and Cherry is a self absorbed grievance monger, shock horror politics is full of them. Also Twitter is full of folk saying fucked up shit too.

 

I think the most telling clue of anyone who doesn't understand science is to speak in absolute terms. Everywhere you look rules break down under certain conditions. Indeterminism is built into reality. Approximations no matter greater precision are still approximations.

It's then a case as a society how people deal with folk that fall outside the venn diagrams.

I couldn’t agree with this more. 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, Dave78 said:

Ok, understood. 

I see the difference between making a direct and indirect threat. Still, you'd have thought the police would issue a warning to the sender, given the recent climate of violence toward MPs.

 

 

Is there a climate of violence towards MPs?

I know there’s an increased perception, but are things actually worse now than they’ve been over time.   In fact, historically the biggest threat to British MPs has been from the island on which you live.  

[Dave78]

13 minutes ago, aaid said:

Is there a climate of violence towards MPs?

I know there’s an increased perception, but are things actually worse now than they’ve been over time.   In fact, historically the biggest threat to British MPs has been from the island on which you live.  

Well, i can't remember a time (before Brexit) where MPs were murdered in the street or their surgeries by ideologues.

Take your point re the IRA, but that threat was removed in the 90s.

[aaid]

13 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Well, i can't remember a time (before Brexit) where MPs were murdered in the street or their surgeries by ideologues.

Take your point re the IRA, but that threat was removed in the 90s.

I guess the point I’d make is that MPs don’t routinely get attacked, I found this article from 2021.  You know, one is too many but let’s not lose the sense of scale.

https://www.ndtv.com/people/attacks-on-british-mps-in-last-two-decades-2576819

[PapofGlencoe]

1 hour ago, phart said:

I think both things can be true, those tweets are fucked up and Cherry is a self absorbed grievance monger, shock horror politics is full of them. Also Twitter is full of folk saying fucked up shit too.

 

I think the most telling clue of anyone who doesn't understand science is to speak in absolute terms. Everywhere you look rules break down under certain conditions. Indeterminism is built into reality. Approximations no matter greater precision are still approximations.

It's then a case as a society how people deal with folk that fall outside the venn diagrams.

I don't think the .001% or whatever it is of real cases of abnormally chromosomed birthed people is really what this is about.  By this judgement nothing can be determined because it can never be 100% proven.  It may be true on a philosophical level but girls know who a boy is when they're playing against them at football.  I'm more than willing to admit to changes but some things are just what they are and are being overthought, in my book.

Clearly people feel different to the stereotype of the sex they are; outside the venn diagram.  What needs to happen is degendering personalites surely.  we've degendered everthing else (colours, toys, legal speak "workmanship" came up recently in a contract dispute I'm aware of haha, jobs....all quite a rightly and a giant leap) but seem caught up on this and have got mixed up.  I think it's a total miscommunication that's got out of hand, both sides talking at cross purposes; with a few nut jobs and bad actors in between. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by PapofGlencoe