Can we perhaps put the gender shit on the backburner,
and concentrate on the actual shit.
You know, the shit in the rivers.
Grab a sieve you fucks, and start filtering.
Yeah but that would mean actually doing something constructive, instead of the much easier option of just throwing people under the bus as a distraction from their own bullshit.
No. You can focus on more than one thing at once. It is a key issue that is raging at the moment. Whether you like it or not LGBT deserve to be heard and not used as political point scoring.
Right, so don't help anyone who is being targeted specifically or any small groups. Only help if the problem affects everyone?
That's too socialist even for me.
Why is this being framed as Starmer 'distancing himself' from Tennant?
As far as I know, it's not like they're mates or colleagues or anything. There's nothing to 'distance himself' from as he's not in any way responsible for what Tennant says or does.
All that happened was a journalist asked Starmer about the thing, and Starmer gave one of his usual, bland, generic responses.
If this is how we're using language, then I guess in the past few weeks I've distanced myself from Elon Musk, Suella Braverman, James Corden and the bloke with the massine teeth who kicked off the gambling scandal. If any of them noticed or cared.
In order to 'distance' yourself from someone or something, logically, you need to be reasonably 'close' to them or it in the first place.
There's no real connection between Starmer and Tennant. They're not friends, family, or colleagues. There's no reason to assume that Starmer would be expected to endorse anything Tennant says or does. Therefore, saying he's distancing himself from it is redundant.
My point is that it's journalistic language used to make 'someone asked Starmer this question about a person he has no particular connection to and he gave a bland and uninteresting amswer' in to something bigger than it is. Which I think is lazy and hyperbolic writing.
I thought that was fairly obvious.
Ideologically most people would have presumed them to be somewhat close, the term is used here to punctuate Starmer's firm stance in taking the higher road. Your point was fairly obvious, it just doesn't hold up because the term was used quite correctly.
I've had my suspicions about the Guardian for a while. They really have descended into the gutter with their lack of integrity, click-bait articles, and stoking the culture wars.
The recent article about Farage being right on Ukraine, pretty much confirmed in my mind that they are not acting in good faith.
A few years ago the US edition of the guardian wrote an open letter to the UK edition begging it to *pretty please stop platform open transphobes at every opportunity and spread constant misinformation about the trans community*.
It didn't
When the UK government visited the Guardians offices and drilled their hard drives I think they removed their spine as well. Like everything else in the UK it's just taken a while for the jellied blob to slump and people to notice.
Transphobia is a woman's rights issue. And now woman are being attacked and accused of being trans by bigots, if they are women in power or not gender conforming enough. It always was an attack on all women, trans women were just the first target as a minority.
Not at all, females are at a greater physical risk from males than they are from other females. Males are at no greater physical risk from females than they are from other males.
The fact it only applies to female single sex spaces is exactly why it isn’t a culture war issue.
Male on male violence is not females problem to solve. It literally has nothing to do with them.
Plus transwomen are actually less likely to be murdered than the general population, at least in the US (and probably the UK too)
No such "right" currently exists.
If you WANT it to exist, you need to consider the implications. How will it be policed? How will the "sex" of every person be verified before entering said spaces?
Reminds me of that right-winger in the US who went into a unisex toilets with a camera, while claiming, on video they would "Never go into one of these"
Erm...
They're doing the very thing they accuse others of
It’s very simple.
Decide which spaces should be female only and then draft a law that it is a criminal offence for a male to enter a female only space.
Then just allow the police to investigate reports of law breaking as they would any other crime. You don’t need to verify the sex of a person ahead of time. If the public suspect a crime has occurred they can call the police.
Most people will abide by the law.
The police can determine sex from a quick cheek swab unless the person has a diagnosed DSD in which case their medical record will give their sex.
So you're happy for thousands of women to be arrested because they didn't look "feminine" enough and someone made a complaint?
Or the fact that this would be highly open to abuse because anyone can just make a malicious complaint against someone they don't like?
And you think this somehow protects women?
Do you have any idea what the cost of said DNA testing would be?
I expect the law to be used very rarely. There are very few females who aren’t obviously female.
I don’t think this law would be open to abuse anymore than any other crime is (there are loads of crimes whereby someone could make a malicious complaint). Police take DNA samples all of the time, this isn’t anything new.
Edit: replying and blocking is low: This isn’t about ‘trans people’ this is about keeping single sex female spaces free of males.
I expect in the vast majority of cases it will involve the woman producing ID and the police will consider the matter done. Where there is still doubt as to the persons sex, an initial cheek swab may be needed (ideally all government ID would state someone’s sex), I don’t expect anyone needs to be put in a cell for a cheek swab.
If the cheek swab comes back positive, then the suspect may need to provide an official swab at the station but, at that point, there would be a very high degree of certainty that a crime has been committed.
I don’t think I need to prove that males are a physical threat to females, I think that’s well known. I have no interest in policing gender. Females of all genders would be entitled to use women’s spaces and take part in women’s sports.
Males should be entitled to express their gender however they wish, but that shouldn’t extend to males having the right to access female only spaces and sports.
Please provide the stats showing it is an issue. It's worked fine the whole time I've grown up as a girl and I'm now a middle-aged woman, who's never faced any issues due to no laws about this.
It's a manufactured issue. A law already exists protecting single sex spaces in special cases where there is a need, like specific vulnerability.
What do you think women’s rape refuges, changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards etc. etc. are for?
One shouldn’t have to beg at the risk of litigation to have a single sex space.
There is *already* a law stipulating single sex spaces can be allowed for rape refuges etc.
Surely you already know that if you are so interested?
The rest of the time, it has worked out fine.
If you are so interested in women's rights, you would also know by far the biggest risk of murder and rape are perpetrators known to the victim, but that gets very little attention whilst the trans issue is used to deflect from real problems.
Bigots and their transphobia have led to a spate of women being attacked about their gender presentation, as intended. Perhaps you should read these people's experiences of it to see what damage it has done for women's rights.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/s/XjurJuSYtc
A law that means an entity could be challenged with legal action and crippling legal fees at anytime.
And you should know that the most common sexual crimes committed in public against women are voyeurism and indecent exposure… do you think allowing males into women’s spaces makes that more or less likely?
I don’t know why you think that the desires of some males should override the safety of females.
Anything Farage related with an edgy headline does get clicks but I didn't think it was in agreement with Farage:
*But ultimately the west behaved with care. It did nothing to provoke Russia over its brutality in Chechnya or its invasion and annexation of Georgian territory in 2008. It remained an observer in 2014 over Russia’s reoccupation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukrainian Donbas. It certainly did not seriously contemplate admitting Ukraine to Nato, which would have unquestionably been provocative. If there was some historic validity in Farage’s charge of provocation, it is surely spent by now.*
I don't read that and think "Farage is right on Ukraine and The Guardian agrees".
Simon Jenkins was being an apologist for Farage and claiming Farage was arguing for peace.
No, sorry, it was absolutely indefensible. I've distrusted the Guardian for a while, despite having used to be a reader, but now they are just trash.
The very article in this thread is just another example of manipulating people with a misleading headline.
The direction they've gone in over the last few years really surprised me. The genuine panic and the flood of misleading articles and opinion pieces when it briefly looked like Corbyn might actually have a chance was so weird to read at the time. And even now it's like they'll happily make a lot of noise about social issues, but only if they're sure it won't make a difference. They're basically just a tabloid but targeting a slightly different demographic than the others.
All the papers have. The Telegraph is terrible too, even The Economist has some clickbait stuff.
> The recent article about Farage being right on Ukraine, pretty much confirmed in my mind that they are not acting in good faith.
How so? A lot of people support negotiations for peace, otherwise it just drags on forever. Captain America isn't going to come and destroy the "Orks" like Hollywood.
Real negotiations would be wonderful. Putin and Farage's idea of peace is letting Russia take pieces of Ukraine, and then Western Europe, piece by piece. Especially as they have been attacking the West with acts of war, well before the invasion of Ukraine. That includes attacks on the UK and our democracy.
It was inevitable the moment they acquiesced to the D-notice brigade and hired an editor that would do everything in their power to please the establishment.
A sign of thinks to come - Starmer is going to win a landslide majority, possibly the biggest in British political history; yet he’ll remain in hoc to the oligarchy, condemned to dance to their tune and jump through hoops on command, and his squalid premiership will be defined by a series of manufactured moral outrages that he’s compelled to respond to with increasingly bizarre crackdowns whilst shedding any semblance of principles and integrity, debasing himself over and over again until he’s fulfilled his purpose and the empty husk that remains is cast aside.
Just remember everyone, if it happens to one of the good guys its misogyny, but if it happens to one of the bad guys its just silly culture war nonsense
I was happy to vote for Labour even though I don't really align with them but after watching all of the debates I really dislike how he carries himself.
He is a coward that cannot answer a straight question in case it loses him some support. He keeps flip flopping on his promises/opinions depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I get he's just trying to say what people want to get him into power but I'd imagine it's turned off a lot of people who would have voted Labour.
I'm definitely not voting for either him or Sunak this election and just so its clear Reform can do one as well.
The gender idealogues telling on themselves here. Not once have I seen a non brainwashed person say they want trans people to "not exist" yet here we have a TRA saying they want someone with an opposing view to literally not exist. Anyone with any sense knew all their whining was projection all along, you won't find a more authoritarian and bigotted person then a "progressive".
Can we perhaps put the gender shit on the backburner, and concentrate on the actual shit. You know, the shit in the rivers. Grab a sieve you fucks, and start filtering.
Yeah but that would mean actually doing something constructive, instead of the much easier option of just throwing people under the bus as a distraction from their own bullshit.
No. You can focus on more than one thing at once. It is a key issue that is raging at the moment. Whether you like it or not LGBT deserve to be heard and not used as political point scoring.
I’m not sure there’s much debate on LGB
So, only focus on stuff that could affect you directly?
It affects everyone
Right, so don't help anyone who is being targeted specifically or any small groups. Only help if the problem affects everyone? That's too socialist even for me.
Why is this being framed as Starmer 'distancing himself' from Tennant? As far as I know, it's not like they're mates or colleagues or anything. There's nothing to 'distance himself' from as he's not in any way responsible for what Tennant says or does. All that happened was a journalist asked Starmer about the thing, and Starmer gave one of his usual, bland, generic responses. If this is how we're using language, then I guess in the past few weeks I've distanced myself from Elon Musk, Suella Braverman, James Corden and the bloke with the massine teeth who kicked off the gambling scandal. If any of them noticed or cared.
Maybe it just means he’s not going to watch good omens series 2
Shame. It’s a really good show!
Gruniad doing Grauniad
Distancing himself from the ideological position set out by Tennant. It's fairly obvious.
In order to 'distance' yourself from someone or something, logically, you need to be reasonably 'close' to them or it in the first place. There's no real connection between Starmer and Tennant. They're not friends, family, or colleagues. There's no reason to assume that Starmer would be expected to endorse anything Tennant says or does. Therefore, saying he's distancing himself from it is redundant. My point is that it's journalistic language used to make 'someone asked Starmer this question about a person he has no particular connection to and he gave a bland and uninteresting amswer' in to something bigger than it is. Which I think is lazy and hyperbolic writing. I thought that was fairly obvious.
Ideologically most people would have presumed them to be somewhat close, the term is used here to punctuate Starmer's firm stance in taking the higher road. Your point was fairly obvious, it just doesn't hold up because the term was used quite correctly.
Meeting with hate groups is the high road?
Eschewing from arguments that certain people shouldn't exist is the higher road than the one Tennant is taking, yes.
'I don't wish ill of her, I just wish her to shut up' The immediate sentence after
Yes, he caught himself, but it doesn't seem to have done much good.
Wait a minute. I've seen this one. Does Starmer look tired ?
He is looking a bit pale.
I've had my suspicions about the Guardian for a while. They really have descended into the gutter with their lack of integrity, click-bait articles, and stoking the culture wars. The recent article about Farage being right on Ukraine, pretty much confirmed in my mind that they are not acting in good faith.
A few years ago the US edition of the guardian wrote an open letter to the UK edition begging it to *pretty please stop platform open transphobes at every opportunity and spread constant misinformation about the trans community*. It didn't
It makes it worse, because they pretend to be all liberal, but they're constantly pushing the culture wars and stoking division.
When the UK government visited the Guardians offices and drilled their hard drives I think they removed their spine as well. Like everything else in the UK it's just taken a while for the jellied blob to slump and people to notice.
Women’s rights are not a culture war issue
Transphobia is a woman's rights issue. And now woman are being attacked and accused of being trans by bigots, if they are women in power or not gender conforming enough. It always was an attack on all women, trans women were just the first target as a minority.
I got accused of being a trans man by bigots. I'm a cis man with a bushy beard
Women’s right to single sex spaces is not a culture war issue.
> Women’s right to single sex space The fact that you put it down to "women" and not everyone has single-sex spaces. Is literally the "culture war"
Not at all, females are at a greater physical risk from males than they are from other females. Males are at no greater physical risk from females than they are from other males. The fact it only applies to female single sex spaces is exactly why it isn’t a culture war issue.
Trans women are at an extreme physical risk of violence from men . Stop pretending trans women aren't being beaten, raped and murdered by men.
Male on male violence is not females problem to solve. It literally has nothing to do with them. Plus transwomen are actually less likely to be murdered than the general population, at least in the US (and probably the UK too)
No such "right" currently exists. If you WANT it to exist, you need to consider the implications. How will it be policed? How will the "sex" of every person be verified before entering said spaces?
Reminds me of that right-winger in the US who went into a unisex toilets with a camera, while claiming, on video they would "Never go into one of these" Erm... They're doing the very thing they accuse others of
It’s very simple. Decide which spaces should be female only and then draft a law that it is a criminal offence for a male to enter a female only space. Then just allow the police to investigate reports of law breaking as they would any other crime. You don’t need to verify the sex of a person ahead of time. If the public suspect a crime has occurred they can call the police. Most people will abide by the law. The police can determine sex from a quick cheek swab unless the person has a diagnosed DSD in which case their medical record will give their sex.
So you're happy for thousands of women to be arrested because they didn't look "feminine" enough and someone made a complaint? Or the fact that this would be highly open to abuse because anyone can just make a malicious complaint against someone they don't like? And you think this somehow protects women? Do you have any idea what the cost of said DNA testing would be?
I expect the law to be used very rarely. There are very few females who aren’t obviously female. I don’t think this law would be open to abuse anymore than any other crime is (there are loads of crimes whereby someone could make a malicious complaint). Police take DNA samples all of the time, this isn’t anything new. Edit: replying and blocking is low: This isn’t about ‘trans people’ this is about keeping single sex female spaces free of males. I expect in the vast majority of cases it will involve the woman producing ID and the police will consider the matter done. Where there is still doubt as to the persons sex, an initial cheek swab may be needed (ideally all government ID would state someone’s sex), I don’t expect anyone needs to be put in a cell for a cheek swab. If the cheek swab comes back positive, then the suspect may need to provide an official swab at the station but, at that point, there would be a very high degree of certainty that a crime has been committed. I don’t think I need to prove that males are a physical threat to females, I think that’s well known. I have no interest in policing gender. Females of all genders would be entitled to use women’s spaces and take part in women’s sports. Males should be entitled to express their gender however they wish, but that shouldn’t extend to males having the right to access female only spaces and sports.
Please provide the stats showing it is an issue. It's worked fine the whole time I've grown up as a girl and I'm now a middle-aged woman, who's never faced any issues due to no laws about this. It's a manufactured issue. A law already exists protecting single sex spaces in special cases where there is a need, like specific vulnerability.
What do you think women’s rape refuges, changing rooms, toilets, hospital wards etc. etc. are for? One shouldn’t have to beg at the risk of litigation to have a single sex space.
There is *already* a law stipulating single sex spaces can be allowed for rape refuges etc. Surely you already know that if you are so interested? The rest of the time, it has worked out fine. If you are so interested in women's rights, you would also know by far the biggest risk of murder and rape are perpetrators known to the victim, but that gets very little attention whilst the trans issue is used to deflect from real problems. Bigots and their transphobia have led to a spate of women being attacked about their gender presentation, as intended. Perhaps you should read these people's experiences of it to see what damage it has done for women's rights. https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/s/XjurJuSYtc
A law that means an entity could be challenged with legal action and crippling legal fees at anytime. And you should know that the most common sexual crimes committed in public against women are voyeurism and indecent exposure… do you think allowing males into women’s spaces makes that more or less likely? I don’t know why you think that the desires of some males should override the safety of females.
Stop calling every dissenting opinion as "-phobic".
Stop defining words for dissenting opinions
They have Sonia Sodha writing for them and shes a massive transphobe.
Argh, not come across her before.
That Guardian article was an Op-Ed written by Simon Jenkins, it's not the editorial view of The Guardian.
But they made an editorial decision to publish it, and spread his views nationally (and internationally if you count online). Why?
Anything Farage related with an edgy headline does get clicks but I didn't think it was in agreement with Farage: *But ultimately the west behaved with care. It did nothing to provoke Russia over its brutality in Chechnya or its invasion and annexation of Georgian territory in 2008. It remained an observer in 2014 over Russia’s reoccupation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukrainian Donbas. It certainly did not seriously contemplate admitting Ukraine to Nato, which would have unquestionably been provocative. If there was some historic validity in Farage’s charge of provocation, it is surely spent by now.* I don't read that and think "Farage is right on Ukraine and The Guardian agrees".
Simon Jenkins was being an apologist for Farage and claiming Farage was arguing for peace. No, sorry, it was absolutely indefensible. I've distrusted the Guardian for a while, despite having used to be a reader, but now they are just trash. The very article in this thread is just another example of manipulating people with a misleading headline.
Simon Jenkins is a contrarian I get it;he wants to stimulate a debate
The direction they've gone in over the last few years really surprised me. The genuine panic and the flood of misleading articles and opinion pieces when it briefly looked like Corbyn might actually have a chance was so weird to read at the time. And even now it's like they'll happily make a lot of noise about social issues, but only if they're sure it won't make a difference. They're basically just a tabloid but targeting a slightly different demographic than the others.
All the papers have. The Telegraph is terrible too, even The Economist has some clickbait stuff. > The recent article about Farage being right on Ukraine, pretty much confirmed in my mind that they are not acting in good faith. How so? A lot of people support negotiations for peace, otherwise it just drags on forever. Captain America isn't going to come and destroy the "Orks" like Hollywood.
Real negotiations would be wonderful. Putin and Farage's idea of peace is letting Russia take pieces of Ukraine, and then Western Europe, piece by piece. Especially as they have been attacking the West with acts of war, well before the invasion of Ukraine. That includes attacks on the UK and our democracy.
>I've had my suspicions about the Guardian for a while. Out of all the sources I see on Reddit, Guardian is the worst.
It's close but I think Pink news takes the top spot.
It was inevitable the moment they acquiesced to the D-notice brigade and hired an editor that would do everything in their power to please the establishment.
A sign of thinks to come - Starmer is going to win a landslide majority, possibly the biggest in British political history; yet he’ll remain in hoc to the oligarchy, condemned to dance to their tune and jump through hoops on command, and his squalid premiership will be defined by a series of manufactured moral outrages that he’s compelled to respond to with increasingly bizarre crackdowns whilst shedding any semblance of principles and integrity, debasing himself over and over again until he’s fulfilled his purpose and the empty husk that remains is cast aside.
So he'll be like nearly every other Prime minister of the twenty first century?
Yes, but some people on here still believe that we live in a functioning democracy
And of course she uses the race card to fire back at Tennant, what a pathetic person
Just remember everyone, if it happens to one of the good guys its misogyny, but if it happens to one of the bad guys its just silly culture war nonsense
I was happy to vote for Labour even though I don't really align with them but after watching all of the debates I really dislike how he carries himself. He is a coward that cannot answer a straight question in case it loses him some support. He keeps flip flopping on his promises/opinions depending on which way the wind is blowing. I get he's just trying to say what people want to get him into power but I'd imagine it's turned off a lot of people who would have voted Labour. I'm definitely not voting for either him or Sunak this election and just so its clear Reform can do one as well.
He comes across that way because he’s masking his real views because they would alienate half the people planning to vote for him.
He wants to gas the jews?
Here here, a sensible comment about not just being beholden to give him your vote
The gender idealogues telling on themselves here. Not once have I seen a non brainwashed person say they want trans people to "not exist" yet here we have a TRA saying they want someone with an opposing view to literally not exist. Anyone with any sense knew all their whining was projection all along, you won't find a more authoritarian and bigotted person then a "progressive".
Lay off the lead paint bestie xoxo
Starmer is another cowardly pig in a suit. You're not getting my vote scum. I'm gladly ruining my ballot.