Also in the news

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

21 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Jesus Christ. What a rag 

Again, when I see stuff like this I just shake my head and try to hope that a solution is reached, quickly, whereby such counterproductive activism is no longer needed and a Trans Day of Remembrance no longer has to happen.

 

Because right now given social attitudes towards trans people it certainly does and what's going on here isn't productive in bringing a situation where it's no longer needed.

[urban.spaceman]

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The views in extremis help no one, that's for sure.

 

But I'm also at a loss as to how to best encourage the most marginalised demographic in the UK to become more socially accepted, and I grow tired of seeing friends of mine being subjected to abuse simply by experiencing dysphoria and wanting to correct it. And, with respect, sometimes that threat to their existence is real - again, more so than any other demographic.

 

21 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Probably the same way homosexuals have managed to become more socially accepted, time and education. 

 

These changes don't happen overnight and expecting it to correct itself by force in a short length of time, regardless of intent or fairness, is imo a bit misguided. 

 

21 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I can't disagree there, particularly the second paragraph.

 

It's just extremely unfortunate the cost that will have to be paid in the meantime, and I do wish there were another way.

@Innovindil unfortunately has the answer, it's just time. Gay rights took almost 50 years going from still being illegal to allowing same-sex marriages. Trans rights have an entirely different set of challenges which will take time to be fixed, but for the mean time acceptance and visibility of trans people is perhaps the best it has every been in the UK. Just my opinion but personally I think the behaviour of certain activists - trans activists, not trans people - is actually holding progress back, rather than progressing them. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

@Innovindil unfortunately has the answer, it's just time. Gay rights took almost 50 years going from still being illegal to allowing same-sex marriages. Trans rights have an entirely different set of challenges which will take time to be fixed, but for the mean time acceptance and visibility of trans people is perhaps the best it has every been in the UK. Just my opinion but personally I think the behaviour of certain activists - trans activists, not trans people - is actually holding progress back, rather than progressing them. 

I don't disagree with that opinion.

 

But I'm still wishing and willing to look for a solution to expedite the process given the cost that time takes. Probably because I do have a personal stake in the matter.

[Innovindil]

Councils across the UK are to be forced to care for some of the unaccompanied asylum seeker children who have arrived via the English Channel in small boats.

 

Immigration minister Kevin Foster said the decision was not taken lightly but was in the children's best interests.

 

The government will pay councils £143 per child per night under the scheme.

 

Should offer that 50 grand a year to people to take em in. Would be snatched up like doughnuts in the break room. 

[Buce]

15 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Councils across the UK are to be forced to care for some of the unaccompanied asylum seeker children who have arrived via the English Channel in small boats.

 

Immigration minister Kevin Foster said the decision was not taken lightly but was in the children's best interests.

 

The government will pay councils £143 per child per night under the scheme.

 

Should offer that 50 grand a year to people to take em in. Would be snatched up like doughnuts in the break room. 

 

Hmmm. Unaccompanied children...

 

What could possibly go wrong?

[Innovindil]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Hmmm. Unaccompanied children...

 

What could possibly go wrong?

Lots. But it's the same situation as abandoned children born in this country surely. Foster parents are pretty rigorously checked iirc. 

[Buce]

 

But we're not a laughing stock...

Post-Brexit scheme to lure Nobel winners to UK fails to attract single applicant

Programme to allow those with prestigious global prizes to get fast-track visas dismissed as ‘elitist’ and a ‘joke’

 

A post-Brexit scheme to draw the world’s most celebrated academics and other leading figures to the UK has failed to attract a single applicant in the six months since it opened, it has been reported.

The visa route open to Nobel laureates and other prestigious global prize winners in the fields of science, engineering, humanities and medicine – among others – was described as a joke by experts after ministers admitted its failure to garner any interest.

 

“Chances that a single Nobel or Turing laureate would move to the UK to work are zero for the next decade or so,” the Nobel prize winner Andre Geim told New Scientist magazine, which first reported the news.

The University of Manchester academic, who was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 2010 for his work on graphene, added: “The scheme itself is a joke – it cannot be discussed seriously. The government thinks if you pump up UK science with a verbal diarrhoea of optimism – it can somehow become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

As part of the scheme, announced in May, the winners of some of the most prestigious global prizes were offered a fast track to a global talent visa allowing them to live and work in the UK without having to fulfil other criteria.

For scientists, the programme covered Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry or medicine, and the Fyssen international prize, while for mathematics, just the Fields medal was listed. Those from computing, engineering and social science had a handful of eligible prizes, while a Brit award was also on the list.

The Home Office said at the time of the announcement that people on the global talent visa route had to apply to one of six endorsing bodies, whereas the prestigious award route would “allow applicants who hold a qualifying prize to fast-track the endorsement application and instead make a single visa application”.

The home secretary, Priti Patel, hailed it as a way of allowing “the best and brightest” to come to the UK. She said: “These important changes will give them the freedom to come and work in our world-leading arts, sciences, music, and film industries as we build back better. This is exactly what our new point-based immigration system was designed for – attracting the best and brightest based on the skills and talent they have, not where they’ve come from.”

But, six months later, New Scientist has reported – citing a government response to its freedom of information request – that not one person working in science, engineering, the humanities or medicine has applied.

“Frankly, having precisely zero people apply for this elitist scheme doesn’t surprise me at all,” the magazine quoted Jessica Wade, a leading scientist at Imperial College London, as saying. “UK scientists’ access to European funding is uncertain, we’re not very attractive to European students as they have to pay international fees, our pensions are being cut and scientific positions in the UK are both rare and precarious.”

The shadow science minister, Labour’s Chi Onwurah, added: “It’s clear this is just another gimmick from a government that over-spins and under-delivers. It is not surprising that the government has failed so comprehensively to attract scientists from abroad, given their lack of consistent support for scientists here.”

The Home Office told New Scientist the programme makes it easier for those at the “pinnacle of their career” to come to the UK.

“It is just one option under our global talent route, through which we have received thousands of applications since its launch in February 2020 and this continues to rise.”

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

@Innovindil unfortunately has the answer, it's just time. Gay rights took almost 50 years going from still being illegal to allowing same-sex marriages. Trans rights have an entirely different set of challenges which will take time to be fixed, but for the mean time acceptance and visibility of trans people is perhaps the best it has every been in the UK. Just my opinion but personally I think the behaviour of certain activists - trans activists, not trans people - is actually holding progress back, rather than progressing them. 

Yes - the behaviour and demands of some of the more extreme trans activists have very likely made life much harder for ordinary transgender folk.

 

Your point about trans rights having a very different set of challenges to gay rights is important, I think. People often seem to cite the gay rights movement as a template for transgender rights, but I think this oversimplifies the issue. Some of the things that trans rights activists want - transwomen being allowed to access female spaces, transwomen participating in women's sports, self-ID and an easier route to transition for children and young people - present complex, real-world problems to which there are no easy solutions. So far, the tactic of some trans activists has been to aggressively label anybody who disagrees with them as transphobes - and to be fair, this tactic has probably succeeded quite well in that it has stifled debate. You get the sense it's going to work less well in future, though.

 

My sense is that we'll eventually go down the route of ensuring that all venues of any size have some gender-neutral toilets and changing facilities in addition to gendered spaces, so that transgender people can go to the loo/get changed without fear of harassment or mockery. That seems a sensible solution. As things stand I can't see a way to allow transwomen to compete in female sports in a way that maintains the integrity and fairness of those sports, so I suspect that transwomen will likely have to continue competing in men's sports.

 

On the issue of gender reassignment, my personal preference would be for puberty blockers to be banned and for surgery to only be permissable after a very careful psychiatric asseessment, but I appreciate there are others who feel very differently about this.

 

I look forward to the day that these issues are settled and that transgender people can just go about their business like everybody else. 

 

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Yes - the behaviour and demands of some of the more extreme trans activists have very likely made life much harder for ordinary transgender folk.

 

Your point about trans rights having a very different set of challenges to gay rights is important, I think. People often seem to cite the gay rights movement as a template for transgender rights, but I think this oversimplifies the issue. Some of the things that trans rights activists want - transwomen being allowed to access female spaces, transwomen participating in women's sports, self-ID and an easier route to transition for children and young people - present complex, real-world problems to which there are no easy solutions. So far, the tactic of some trans activists has been to aggressively label anybody who disagrees with them as transphobes - and to be fair, this tactic has probably succeeded quite well in that it has stifled debate. You get the sense it's going to work less well in future, though.

 

My sense is that we'll eventually go down the route of ensuring that all venues of any size have some gender-neutral toilets and changing facilities in addition to gendered spaces, so that transgender people can go to the loo/get changed without fear of harassment or mockery. That seems a sensible solution. As things stand I can't see a way to allow transwomen to compete in female sports in a way that maintains the integrity and fairness of those sports, so I suspect that transwomen will likely have to continue competing in men's sports.

 

On the issue of gender reassignment, my personal preference would be for puberty blockers to be banned and for surgery to only be permissable after a very careful psychiatric asseessment, but I appreciate there are others who feel very differently about this.

 

I look forward to the day that these issues are settled and that transgender people can just go about their business like everybody else. 

 

I know this is probably not the way this post was meant to be phrased, but this sounds an awful lot like transwomen (and not transmen) are the big problem here, which seems to me to be playing to a stereotype somewhat.

 

And the issues regarding gay and trans folks are similar in that similar arguments have been used against both to deny them rights.

 

Sorry if this appears overly confrontational.

[ClaphamFox]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I know this is probably not the way this post was meant to be phrased, but this sounds an awful lot like transwomen (and not transmen) are the big problem here, which seems to me to be playing to a stereotype somewhat.

 

And the issues regarding gay and trans folks are similar in that similar arguments have been used against both to deny them rights.

 

Sorry if this appears overly confrontational.

Not confrontational at all - happy to respond.

 

The reason I focused on transwomen rather than transmen is that allowing biological males access to female spaces and sports is very different to allowing biological females access to male spaces and sports. It is a completely asymmetric situation. Lots of women do not want biological males in their spaces for reasons of privacy and safety. I think that's fair enough because, as crime stats overwhelmingly show, women are at risk from men. Supposedly between 60-70% of transwomen are sexually attracted to women, and there is no evidence that identifying as a transwoman magically erases male patterns of behaviour. That's why I sympathise with those who want to maintain gendered spaces.

 

It's not the same the other way around - women do not present anything like the same risk to men. I personally couldn't care less whether a biological woman used the same bathrooms and changing facilitiies as me, and I suspect most men feel the same way. It's because we have no reason to fear them. 

Yes, the same arguments have been used against gay and trans folk. But that doesn't change the fact that the two issues present completely different challenges. Gay people wanted acceptance and the right to have same-sex relationships - that didn't really require much of other people apart from tolerance. By contrast, many women strongly believe that some of the demands of trans rights activists directly infringe upon their sex-based rights. That's why the transgender issue is more complex. 

Edited 23 November 2021 by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Not confrontational at all - happy to respond.

 

The reason I focused on transwomen rather than transmen is that allowing biological males access to female spaces and sports is very different to allowing biological females access to male spaces and sports. It is a completely asymmetric situation. Lots of women do not want biological males in their spaces for reasons of privacy and safety. I think that's fair enough because, as crime stats overwhelmingly show, women are at risk from men. Supposedly between 60-70% of transwomen are sexually attracted to women, and there is no evidence that identifying as a transwoman magically erases male patterns of behaviour. That's why I sympathise with those who want to maintain gendered spaces.

 

It's not the same the other way around - women do not present anything like the same risk to men. I personally couldn't care less whether a biological woman used the same bathrooms and changing facilitiies as men, and I suspect most men feel the same way. It's because we have no reason to fear them. 

Yes, the same arguments have been used against gay and trans folk. But that doesn't change the fact that the two issues present completely different challenges. Gay people wanted acceptance and the right to have same-sex relationships - that didn't really require much of other people than tolerance. By contrast, many women strongly believe that some of the demands of trans rights activists directly infringe upon their sex-based rights. That's why the transgender issue is more complex. 

With respect, the bolded is an awful lot of conjecture presented as fact in a couple of paragraphs - in particular the inference that trans women maintain the same behaviours as men do, or even that they exhibited "male" behaviour in the first place. Still, all of this is a pretty subjective discussion in any case.

 

I don't disagree that there is more to all this than the old arguments ("bathroom predator", "mentally unstable") people used against gay people and now use again against trans people, but a fact (or rather, a considered and educated opinion) is that trans folks remain at or near the bottom of the ladder of "social acceptance" in the UK, the numbers of events of abuse they get bear this out, and as such I'm inclined to consider rectifying that as the higher priority issue here - not that the corollaries aren't important and that it should be done in a way that as as acceptable and beneficial to as many interested parties as possible.

Edited 23 November 2021 by leicsmac

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59355019

 

Perhaps some civil as well as criminal responsibility might be held for the events of Charlottesville.

[Finnegan]

18 hours ago, leicsmac said:

With respect, the bolded is an awful lot of conjecture presented as fact in a couple of paragraphs - in particular the inference that trans women maintain the same behaviours as men do, or even that they exhibited "male" behaviour in the first place. Still, all of this is a pretty subjective discussion in any case.

 

Possibly true on the conjecture, feigning quotation of data without sources is always a bit of a dick move (although we've probably all done it on the Internet, where we're too lazy to go Google our research) but he's still not inherently wrong. 

 

It's about privilege and about power. It will always be an asymmetrical relationship because when you're born biologically male, you're born privileged and with the power weighted in your favour. Those female only safe spaces have been hard fought for and when they see what they perceive to be encroachment on those spaces by folk born with that privilege then anxiety comes with it. 

 

The black and white morality of social media is a carefully constructed tool to get the working populace arguing with each other. It's a trap we fall in to on party politics, covid, race, religion, gender, sexuality, anything to keep us divided. 

 

Buying in to it isn't helpful whatever your position and there's a certain obligation on the Liberal/Progressive movement on social media to remember that.

 

Britain and America have seen their white working classes seduced by conservative politics in part because increasingly "the Left" ignored their anxiety and their fears about migration threatening their livelihoods. Sure, the mass media was undertaking a multi billion dollar campaign to stoke those fears (and still is) but where "the Left" as an institution failed was in falling in to the trap (and again, we've all done this at times - myself included) of belittling those fears and arbitrarily dismissing it as bigotry. 

 

Now a version of the same phenomena is present when we discuss gender. The TERF movement comes from a place of fear and of anxiety, of feeling under threat. There's an opportunity here to be sympathetic to that, to recognise that and to appease it. Not to pander to it but certainly not to attack it either. Dismissing the concerns of Rowling and Co only as bigotry won't help anyone's cause, it'll just create more division. 

[yorkie1999]

Hope this doesn't get blamed on covid

 

https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/24/oldest-woman-in-the-world-believed-to-be-124-years-old-dies-15655772/?ito=push-notification&ci=7RqWh0xDDC&cri=57wLl5FO8T&si=50935825&xi=903f413e-15e0-437e-bb7c-de859dc0a630&ai=15655772

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Possibly true on the conjecture, feigning quotation of data without sources is always a bit of a dick move (although we've probably all done it on the Internet, where we're too lazy to go Google our research) but he's still not inherently wrong. 

 

It's about privilege and about power. It will always be an asymmetrical relationship because when you're born biologically male, you're born privileged and with the power weighted in your favour. Those female only safe spaces have been hard fought for and when they see what they perceive to be encroachment on those spaces by folk born with that privilege then anxiety comes with it. 

 

The black and white morality of social media is a carefully constructed tool to get the working populace arguing with each other. It's a trap we fall in to on party politics, covid, race, religion, gender, sexuality, anything to keep us divided. 

 

Buying in to it isn't helpful whatever your position and there's a certain obligation on the Liberal/Progressive movement on social media to remember that.

 

Britain and America have seen their white working classes seduced by conservative politics in part because increasingly "the Left" ignored their anxiety and their fears about migration threatening their livelihoods. Sure, the mass media was undertaking a multi billion dollar campaign to stoke those fears (and still is) but where "the Left" as an institution failed was in falling in to the trap (and again, we've all done this at times - myself included) of belittling those fears and arbitrarily dismissing it as bigotry. 

 

Now a version of the same phenomena is present when we discuss gender. The TERF movement comes from a place of fear and of anxiety, of feeling under threat. There's an opportunity here to be sympathetic to that, to recognise that and to appease it. Not to pander to it but certainly not to attack it either. Dismissing the concerns of Rowling and Co only as bigotry won't help anyone's cause, it'll just create more division. 

You're spot on, of course.

 

Do need to put aside the frustration at the bigotry that does exist and the effect it has (as hard as that can be at times, you do know that) and engage as a first choice rather than demonising.

[LiberalFox]

A lot of people on the left are the bigoted ones when it comes to transphobia. It is not driven by "white working class" people, but by middle class people who often self identify as on the left. I can't think of another protected characteristic who are treated worse in the current climate than trans people. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59406355

 

Tragic.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59411030

 

Good to see justice was served here.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59406355

 

Tragic.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59411030

 

Good to see justice was served here.

Absolutely. The thing is, the coverage I have seen from those who supported a Rittenhouse acquittal has either been heavily in favour of convictions in the Arbery case or at the very least very skeptical about the McMichaels defence. They did exactly what the media and many others claimed Rittenhouse did. They had some vague idea that Arbery had burgled their property almost 2 weeks prior and had no evidence (and admitted so in court) that he was in the commission of or had just committed a crime when they decided to pursue him in their trucks. They chased him for 5 minutes and, in their own words "cornered him like a rat", at which point they pointed a gun at him. I can't recall whether it was the judge or the prosecution who said that trying to claim self defence here while in the commission of a felony (it was false imprisonment given that they were not able to lawfully perform a citizen's arrest on him) would be like a person robbing a liquor store at gun point and then shooting the clerk when they reach for the gun you're pointing at them. Contrast that to the Rittenhouse case; he was legally able to carry the gun, he was running away while being chased, and was not in the commission of any felony which led to his gun being reached for. In my opinion these 2 cases show that if you just look at the facts and take race and politics out of it, the truth will come out and the result will be a fair and just verdict. 

[LCFCCHRIS]

2 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Absolutely. The thing is, the coverage I have seen from those who supported a Rittenhouse acquittal has either been heavily in favour of convictions in the Arbery case or at the very least very skeptical about the McMichaels defence. They did exactly what the media and many others claimed Rittenhouse did. They had some vague idea that Arbery had burgled their property almost 2 weeks prior and had no evidence (and admitted so in court) that he was in the commission of or had just committed a crime when they decided to pursue him in their trucks. They chased him for 5 minutes and, in their own words "cornered him like a rat", at which point they pointed a gun at him. I can't recall whether it was the judge or the prosecution who said that trying to claim self defence here while in the commission of a felony (it was false imprisonment given that they were not able to lawfully perform a citizen's arrest on him) would be like a person robbing a liquor store at gun point and then shooting the clerk when they reach for the gun you're pointing at them. Contrast that to the Rittenhouse case; he was legally able to carry the gun, he was running away while being chased, and was not in the commission of any felony which led to his gun being reached for. In my opinion these 2 cases show that if you just look at the facts and take race and politics out of it, the truth will come out and the result will be a fair and just verdict. 

Imagine saying that as part of your own defense, Jesus Christ 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Absolutely. The thing is, the coverage I have seen from those who supported a Rittenhouse acquittal has either been heavily in favour of convictions in the Arbery case or at the very least very skeptical about the McMichaels defence. They did exactly what the media and many others claimed Rittenhouse did. They had some vague idea that Arbery had burgled their property almost 2 weeks prior and had no evidence (and admitted so in court) that he was in the commission of or had just committed a crime when they decided to pursue him in their trucks. They chased him for 5 minutes and, in their own words "cornered him like a rat", at which point they pointed a gun at him. I can't recall whether it was the judge or the prosecution who said that trying to claim self defence here while in the commission of a felony (it was false imprisonment given that they were not able to lawfully perform a citizen's arrest on him) would be like a person robbing a liquor store at gun point and then shooting the clerk when they reach for the gun you're pointing at them. Contrast that to the Rittenhouse case; he was legally able to carry the gun, he was running away while being chased, and was not in the commission of any felony which led to his gun being reached for. In my opinion these 2 cases show that if you just look at the facts and take race and politics out of it, the truth will come out and the result will be a fair and just verdict. 

I surely agree, but unfortunately a large part of the legal history of the US is the predominant demographic *not* doing the bolded. And though it didn't happen here, it still does happen. It's something that can and must be taken into account.

 

Astute analysis that aside, though.

 

1 hour ago, LCFCCHRIS said:

Imagine saying that as part of your own defense, Jesus Christ 

You wonder what the defence counsel was thinking/doing to let it happen.

[yorkie1999]

On 23/11/2021 at 13:15, Innovindil said:

Councils across the UK are to be forced to care for some of the unaccompanied asylum seeker children who have arrived via the English Channel in small boats.

 

Immigration minister Kevin Foster said the decision was not taken lightly but was in the children's best interests.

 

The government will pay councils £143 per child per night under the scheme.

 

Should offer that 50 grand a year to people to take em in. Would be snatched up like doughnuts in the break room. 

That ain't a bad deal, i've got a spare room and i could do with someone to do the washing up.

[Facecloth]

BBC News - Ava White: Liverpool murder arrests after girl, 12, dies

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-59427833

 

Shocking. Its bad enough hearing about anyone being stabbed, but when it's between kids. It's just a senseless loss of live. 

 

4 boys arrested aged between 13 and 15.

[Corky]

5 hours ago, Facecloth said:

BBC News - Ava White: Liverpool murder arrests after girl, 12, dies

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-59427833

 

Shocking. Its bad enough hearing about anyone being stabbed, but when it's between kids. It's just a senseless loss of live. 

 

4 boys arrested aged between 13 and 15.

It's actually terrifying how quickly people think about sticking a knife in somebody else.

[Ian Nacho]

These protests at Amazon will have absolutely no impact on the company. Having worked for them I know they have contingency plans for protesters and they will move demand to a site which isn’t affected. 

[Parafox]

4 hours ago, Corky said:

It's actually terrifying how quickly people think about sticking a knife in somebody else.

I don't believe they actually "think", they just act. Thinking involves a process which these people don't have.