General News

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Given that PhD's (or MDs) tend to rely on scientific citations rather than soundbites and innuendo for their arguments and that is rather ably being demonstrated here, it looks that way.

it's not technically the case, but ask again in about 6 months (going through final edits to my thesis at the moment)

[blabyboy]

16 hours ago, The Doctor said:

it's genuinely ridiculous, no woman is safer as a result of that verdict that she was at the start of the week, in fact a lot of women are far less safe than they were. As a verdict it's going to embolden more harassment of trans women, that should be bad enough for people to care but I know it's not for too many, so let's consider the impact on cis women.

 

We know full well that cis women get mistaken for trans women and harassed on that basis regularly, you can find a ton of news reports to that end, predominantly targeting butch lesbians, but let's suppose for a second that "we can always tell", so no trans woman passes, and let's assume a 1% false positive rate (identifying a cis woman as trans). Per the census we know there are 48,000 trans women in the UK, and 30.4m women in the UK. For fairness, let's deduct 48k from that number, assuming all trans women were registered as women in that. that leaves us with 30,352,000 cis women in the UK, with our 1% false positive rate, that's 303,520 cis women who'd be falsely considered to be a trans woman, or 6.3 cis women who'll face harassment as a result for every trans woman. Anti trans rhetoric endangers all women.

So I can understand a little more..

Are you referring to harassment via police mis-identifying cis women? Or by the UK populace as a whole?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

it's not technically the case, but ask again in about 6 months (going through final edits to my thesis at the moment)

Best of luck with that one, mate.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, blabyboy said:

So I can understand a little more..

Are you referring to harassment via police mis-identifying cis women? Or by the UK populace as a whole?

The latter. It happens very frequently as is. I've already mentioned a few pages back about the woman who was sacked by walmart in the US because a man suspected she was trans, followed her into the toilets and created a scene, but it is a common experience for in particular butch lesbians. Increasing the panic around trans people and legislative outcomes like this embolden people, like the man in walmart, to increase that harassment, and from a purely numerical stance, more of that is going to fall on the heads of gender non-conforming cis women than on trans women, because trans women are a tiny tiny minority.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo

 

Social media influencers are fuelling an increase in misogyny and sexism in schools, according to a new poll by a teaching union.

Almost three in five teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on behaviour in schools, the NASUWT poll of 5,800 teachers in the UK found.

Influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was named by a number of teachers in the poll.

The Department for Education (DfE) said it was supporting the teachers to tackle the "damaging impact" on children caused by "the rise of dangerous influencers".

 

If this isn't dealt with, there will be a really serious incident at a school somewhere, and soon.

 

Exactly how it's dealt with is unfortunately a much more complex question.

[Zear0]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo

 

Social media influencers are fuelling an increase in misogyny and sexism in schools, according to a new poll by a teaching union.

Almost three in five teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on behaviour in schools, the NASUWT poll of 5,800 teachers in the UK found.

Influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was named by a number of teachers in the poll.

The Department for Education (DfE) said it was supporting the teachers to tackle the "damaging impact" on children caused by "the rise of dangerous influencers".

 

If this isn't dealt with, there will be a really serious incident at a school somewhere, and soon.

 

Exactly how it's dealt with is unfortunately a much more complex question.

Make them accountable for the content on their platform.

Edited Saturday at 12:16 by Zear0

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Make then accountable for the content on their platform.

Totally agree, though the nuts and bolts of that might be tricky.

[Torquay Gunner]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo

 

Social media influencers are fuelling an increase in misogyny and sexism in schools, according to a new poll by a teaching union.

Almost three in five teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on behaviour in schools, the NASUWT poll of 5,800 teachers in the UK found.

Influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was named by a number of teachers in the poll.

The Department for Education (DfE) said it was supporting the teachers to tackle the "damaging impact" on children caused by "the rise of dangerous influencers".

 

If this isn't dealt with, there will be a really serious incident at a school somewhere, and soon.

 

Exactly how it's dealt with is unfortunately a much more complex question.

I would suggest this is just as worrying.  

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/02/i-hate-my-school-why-are-more-british-teenagers-plotting-shooting-attacks

[bovril]

24 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo

 

Social media influencers are fuelling an increase in misogyny and sexism in schools, according to a new poll by a teaching union.

Almost three in five teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on behaviour in schools, the NASUWT poll of 5,800 teachers in the UK found.

Influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was named by a number of teachers in the poll.

The Department for Education (DfE) said it was supporting the teachers to tackle the "damaging impact" on children caused by "the rise of dangerous influencers".

 

 

12 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

I would suggest this is just as worrying.  

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/02/i-hate-my-school-why-are-more-british-teenagers-plotting-shooting-attacks

This kind of stuff can only thrive in a morally bankrupt culture

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

I would suggest this is just as worrying.  

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/02/i-hate-my-school-why-are-more-british-teenagers-plotting-shooting-attacks

Different head of the same hydra, yeah.

 

There needs to be more focus on this particular ideology - that of self-interest and "infamy" - along with the more traditional ideologies that such terrible acts are committed in the name of.

 

1 minute ago, bovril said:

 

This kind of stuff can only thrive in a morally bankrupt culture

While I'd agree, I'm not sure there's ever been a time where there wasn't at least a hint of moral bankruptcy in human society.

[MaidstoneFox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm3x92mpdxo

 

Social media influencers are fuelling an increase in misogyny and sexism in schools, according to a new poll by a teaching union.

Almost three in five teachers said they believe social media use has had a negative effect on behaviour in schools, the NASUWT poll of 5,800 teachers in the UK found.

Influencer and self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate was named by a number of teachers in the poll.

The Department for Education (DfE) said it was supporting the teachers to tackle the "damaging impact" on children caused by "the rise of dangerous influencers".

 

If this isn't dealt with, there will be a really serious incident at a school somewhere, and soon.

 

Exactly how it's dealt with is unfortunately a much more complex question.

As a teacher who is nearing the end of my career and who has taught in all sectors and all types of educational environments, I don't think it's new that female members of staff can be treated appallingly by boys. The issue is to what extent they are allowed to get away with it and how strong the leadership team is and how consistent policies are implemented. In lots of ways education is much better 'then when I were at school', and there is much better surveillance, procedures and accountability than there was in the past. My personal take is that overall it is a minority and that the young people I teach are generally very enlightened and liberal in their overall views. That's not to diminish the experiences of some teachers, but i think it needs a strong, united response, along with support and training and whenever I've encountered prejudice in  my classroom I've been fairly uncompromising and clear that it was unacceptable.

[Parafox]

23 hours ago, Danizen said:

 

 

 

I've never seen that before but it is, from a Foxes fan point of view, absolutely outstanding.  

 

So many names and incidents and memories resurrected.

[Parafox]

38 minutes ago, MaidstoneFox said:

As a teacher who is nearing the end of my career and who has taught in all sectors and all types of educational environments, I don't think it's new that female members of staff can be treated appallingly by boys. The issue is to what extent they are allowed to get away with it and how strong the leadership team is and how consistent policies are implemented. In lots of ways education is much better 'then when I were at school', and there is much better surveillance, procedures and accountability than there was in the past. My personal take is that overall it is a minority and that the young people I teach are generally very enlightened and liberal in their overall views. That's not to diminish the experiences of some teachers, but i think it needs a strong, united response, along with support and training and whenever I've encountered prejudice in  my classroom I've been fairly uncompromising and clear that it was unacceptable.

 

There is definitely an element of tarring all with the same brush in regards to our young people and there can be no doubt that schools in the sink estates are of particular concern.

 

Fortunately there are many other schools and loads of young people who are more intelligent and savvy than we give them credit for.

 

It's unfair to generalise the "youth of today" based on emotive headlines and shock horror reporting.

 

It might be better for our understanding of young people if there was less focus on the negative elements an more on the positive.

 

It seems to me that those who deliberately focus and film themselves doing something outrageous just to get clicks and likes on SM are a sad minority who are ignorant about society as a whole and it's all about them.

 

As I write this, BGT is on TV and that whole "wannabe" circus is a strong driving force behind what modern society sees as a necessity to be popular and liked and "important".

 

I'd rather revere a war veteran or a lifesaving doctor personally, but those types aren't pushing themselves on SM. They have dignity.

 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

On 18/04/2025 at 15:41, The Doctor said:

This isn't making women "responsible for solving the problem of male violence", rather what you're doing is stating that you think there should be a sacrifical group of women to pacify men, and that's a dangerous road to go down, because when you start divvying up people who are and aren't acceptable targets for violence, you invariably create a slippery slope where more and more groups are designated acceptable targets.

 

There's no reliable evidence that trans women have male pattern criminality to start with, the common citation for this is Dhejne et al, and it's a gross misinterpretation of the research. The study doesn't look at conviction types, it's not a male or female pattern criminality (in terms of offences) study, it's a finding that a cohort of trans women between 1973 - 1988 has similar conviction rates to a cisgender male group, a pattern not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort. So, we then have to ask the simple question: why was this pattern seen in the older cohort but not the younger? could it have anything to do with the attitudes towards LGBT people as a whole in the 70s and 80s compared to the 90s?

 

So, I don't agree with the notion that there is significant masculinisation of the brain, because there's not solid evidence that significant differences between "male" and "female" brains exist, instead instead we can mostly discount it as an artefact of the average sizes of men and women, but let's suppose that 1% of difference is significant, well the research we've got suggests that the brains of trans women are significantly different from both cis men and cis women to start with, and that hormone therapy pushes the more neuroplastic regions towards that of acquired sex anyway. The notion of male and female brains is on shaky ground generally, and the idea that trans women have male brains (and trans men female brains) is even less founded.

 

As for the idea that post transition trans women behave like men, cite your evidence - and make sure it's actual evidence, not speculative crap from anti-trans campaign groups like Sex Matters who take half the available information to justify the conclusion they've already started at.

 

Apologies for the late response - mad weekend looking after the kids.

 

Your description of the Dhejne report is not accurate. This is a direct quote from the report

 

“In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females.”

As is this:

”Male-to-females…retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true for violent crime.”

 

This is unambiguous. The report does not state anywhere that M-toF patterns of criminality were different from 1989-2003 than in 1973-1988. Some activists have claimed it does, but there is no data in the report to back the claim up. Dhejne herself clarified this point in a 2017 interview when she said:

 

“Regarding criminality there are only results from either both trans women and trans men and displayed for the whole period 1973-2003 and for the periods of 1973-1988 and the 1989-2003. If one is only interested in transwomen data is only available for the whole period.” (My italics).

 

So there aren’t any specific findings for M-to-F patterns of criminality for the 1989-2003 period to support your theory about “changing attitudes to LGBT people”.

 

As for other evidence, a Freedom of Information request in 2019 resulted in the UK Ministry of Justice releasing figures that compared sex offence convictions among male prisoners, female prisoners and male-born prisoners identifying as transgender. It showed that trans women in custody had sexual offence conviction rates far exceeding those of both male and female prisoners - reflecting a male pattern of offending within the M-to-F transgender cohort.

 

There are obviously limitations to the data available and that more research is needed. But there is no evidence that transgender women assume the criminal behaviour of biological women, and the limited data we do have suggests they retain male patterns of criminality. At the very least there is currently no basis to believe that a man who says he identifies as a woman can be safely assumed to be less of a risk than any other man.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 20:46 by ClaphamFox

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjn0pn830ko

 

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has said the government will "double down" on its environmental agenda and accused those against the move to net zero of "making up nonsense and lies".

Political opponents in the Conservatives and Reform UK - and some trade unions – have argued that his agenda is putting jobs in traditional industries at risk and have urged a change of course.

The UK is legally committed to moving to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – a goal set under a previous Conservative government.

Writing in the Observer, external, Miliband warned that an anti-net zero agenda would not only risk "climate breakdown" but "forfeit the clean energy jobs of the future".

 

It's not lies to those that tell them, Ed. They genuinely think that our species can continue the way that it is with no consequences that they should worry about.

 

Call it what it is - short term self interested ideology that will bear all responsibility for the loss of a great many lives, both human and otherwise.

[Lionator]

So polls are increasingly in favour of Reform. One thing I’m interested in is how they would govern. Aiming to reduce migration into the country is fine, but there then has to be a consequence of that. Who will be doing those jobs? Are they prepared to reorientate the economy or will they reward the older generation who voted for them and destroy the future of this country even further, than any migration threats ever could? Interested in any thoughts or counter arguments. 

Edited Sunday at 08:40 by Lionator

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, Lionator said:

So polls are increasingly in favour of Reform. One thing I’m interested in is how they would govern. Aiming to reduce migration into the country is fine, but there then has to be a consequence of that. Who will be doing those jobs? Are they prepared to reorientate the economy or will they reward the older generation who voted for them and destroy the future of this country even further, than any migration threats ever could? Interested in any thoughts or counter arguments. 

The policy of the current Trump administration is their template.

 

That's about it, really - whether someone thinks that good or bad is clearly up to the beholder.

[blabyboy]

27 minutes ago, Lionator said:

So polls are increasingly in favour of Reform. One thing I’m interested in is how they would govern. Aiming to reduce migration into the country is fine, but there then has to be a consequence of that. Who will be doing those jobs? Are they prepared to reorientate the economy or will they reward the older generation who voted for them and destroy the future of this country even further, than any migration threats ever could? Interested in any thoughts or counter arguments. 

We need migration... desperately, if we're even going to try and maintain some sort of standard of living to now. If Reform do get into power, it'll most likely be as a coalition so they may have to temper some of their policies. IDK the make up of that party's base but removing the triple pension lock and removing low wage subsidy benefits has to be a goal of any incoming party of the next government 

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, MaidstoneFox said:

As a teacher who is nearing the end of my career and who has taught in all sectors and all types of educational environments, I don't think it's new that female members of staff can be treated appallingly by boys. The issue is to what extent they are allowed to get away with it and how strong the leadership team is and how consistent policies are implemented. In lots of ways education is much better 'then when I were at school', and there is much better surveillance, procedures and accountability than there was in the past. My personal take is that overall it is a minority and that the young people I teach are generally very enlightened and liberal in their overall views. That's not to diminish the experiences of some teachers, but i think it needs a strong, united response, along with support and training and whenever I've encountered prejudice in  my classroom I've been fairly uncompromising and clear that it was unacceptable.

Appreciate the viewpoint from "on the ground", as it were.

 

I hope that you're right in that the issue is manageable and is in the process of being managed.

[Lionator]

21 minutes ago, blabyboy said:

We need migration... desperately, if we're even going to try and maintain some sort of standard of living to now. If Reform do get into power, it'll most likely be as a coalition so they may have to temper some of their policies. IDK the make up of that party's base but removing the triple pension lock and removing low wage subsidy benefits has to be a goal of any incoming party of the next government 

I can’t imagine a scenario where Reform removes the triple pension lock, likewise raising minimum wages. I only see a scenario where inequality rises.

[Sampson]

20 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I can’t imagine a scenario where Reform removes the triple pension lock, likewise raising minimum wages. I only see a scenario where inequality rises.

You can see what happens in Japan and South Korea trying to deal with population ageing while maintaining low migration figures - people end up working 60+ hour weeks or crazy hours and a lot is in unpaid overtime. South Korea officially has a 40 hour work week but many people work a lot more than that and the government is currently trying to increase maximum work hours to 69 hours per week. 

Edited Sunday at 09:56 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Sampson said:

You can see what happens in Japan and South Korea trying to deal with population ageing while maintaining low migration figures - people end up working 60+ hour weeks or crazy hours and a lot is in unpaid overtime. South Korea officially has a 40 hour work week but many people work a lot more than that and the government is currently trying to increase maximum work hours to 69 hours per week. 

The working paradigm over there is deeply messed up, but then it's been that way for a while.

 

They simply can't figure out a good way to square the circle. Possibly because there is no good way.

[Sampson]

The biggest concern with Reform though is the same thing with Trump - a lot of their rhetoric is thinly disguised (and sometimes not even disguised at all) radical rhetoric about smashing the institutions, checks and balances and separations of powers that have helped hold up democracy in the west since WW2.
 

A lot of it when you read between the lines is about giving the PM more and more powers and the civil service and different offices of government less and less as well as constantly demonising “the mainstream media”, lawyers, education institutions etc. 

Edited Sunday at 10:18 by Sampson

[MaidstoneFox]

53 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I can’t imagine a scenario where Reform removes the triple pension lock, likewise raising minimum wages. I only see a scenario where inequality rises.

The tipping point that's coming very soon is that the new state pension (11,973) will exceed the personal allowance (12570). This might happen next year but will definitely happen in 2027.

Something will have to change as there's no point having pension increases if you are going to get taxed on it. Or...maybe it will just be left and that's how the issue of the triple lock will be dealt with. However, that would surely be a political own goal that Farage would seize: "Labour are now taking your hard-earned pensions, giving with one hand and taking with the other"

[MaidstoneFox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Appreciate the viewpoint from "on the ground", as it were.

 

I hope that you're right in that the issue is manageable and is in the process of being managed.

I think most of us try to do a good job of 'educating', but the point that the Unions are making is that social media is making things harder and they want more support from government and parents etc. Schools need to confront it and not all will be as good at that as others unfortunately. It does make boys feel a little empowered and they are pushing boundaries and being rebellious the way that teenagers always have - there's a certain thrill in that for them. Responsible adults need to push back against that and get them to question what they are doing to their mothers, sisters, grannies, friends etc. when you do that they tend to wither and have no argument.