Popular Post Stevo985 Posted August 8, 2022 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted August 8, 2022 Sport is such a distraction in these types of dicussions. It's always brought up. It should be almost irrelevant in the overall discussion 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 8, 2022 Share Posted August 8, 2022 2 hours ago, CVByrne said: No offence, but who gives a shit about sport? The welfare of the people who suffer from Gender Dysphoria and what is right in relation to children and treatment, consequences of treatment at a young age vs post puberty and the mental health issue that would have etc.. All of that trump what small % of trans people go on to be elite sports people, frankly I don't really care much about that. It's a fraction of a fraction of people and overall it's rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's just sport. But as we're on that topic, I can see the arguments on both sides have merit. It is inherently unfair to exclude a trans athlete from competing when unlike actual drug cheats they're not living their lives to gain a competitive advantage in a sport. They're just being who they are. While on the flip side having gone through male puberty can give a trans athlete an advantage vs cis gender woman. I don't know what the answer to the problem is. It's a really difficult one. 7 or 8 pages over the course of a week discussing Sharon Davies and victim blaming and all that, with you contributing that debate should be more civilised and we end up at ‘who gives a shit?’ Is it possible that whilst Sharon Davies is publicising that vanishingly small issue, it actually reflects across the whole debate and gives some people the green light to be mean about trans more generally, and just settle in to their prejudices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted August 9, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted August 9, 2022 18 hours ago, CVByrne said: You can fully be of the view a grown adult should be able to make any life decisions or decisions about their body as long as they don't harm others. Unfortunately 6 of the 9 members of the US Supreme Court are not of that view. At least for 50% of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted August 9, 2022 Share Posted August 9, 2022 34 minutes ago, TheAuthority said: Unfortunately 6 of the 9 members of the US Supreme Court are not of that view. At least for 50% of the population. Well technically that's not true, 6 of 9 judges believe the interpretation of the constitution that was made in the 1970s by the Supreme court at that time was incorrect. It's possible (though probably unlikely) that the judges could be pro a woman's choice on her own body in relation to abortion, but believe that the constitution doesn't directly enshrine that right. Really it goes to show how much of a failure the US is as a democracy that they can't just pass laws that the majority of the population support. Why are a handful of judges deciding things based off a document written hundreds of years ago? In Ireland it was actually written into the constitution that Abortion was illegal. We had a referendum to remove that and then the government legislated as they're elected to do. In the US they brough in the 18th Amendment and then repealed it. So changing the constitution by repealing articles of it is a thing. So the 2nd Amendment can be altered for example. But even simpler than that, Congress can pass abortion laws if they want to return the Roe v Wade state of things for abortion rights. The sheer idea that there is a way to block any legislation via filibuster despite one side holding a majority in both houses and the white house, it's totally preposterous to people in Europe. We just elect a government and they pass laws. It's as simple as that. But anyway that's a topic for another thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted August 9, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted August 9, 2022 7 hours ago, CVByrne said: Well technically that's not true, 6 of 9 judges believe the interpretation of the constitution that was made in the 1970s by the Supreme court at that time was incorrect. It's possible (though probably unlikely) that the judges could be pro a woman's choice on her own body in relation to abortion, but believe that the constitution doesn't directly enshrine that right. Really it goes to show how much of a failure the US is as a democracy that they can't just pass laws that the majority of the population support. Why are a handful of judges deciding things based off a document written hundreds of years ago? In Ireland it was actually written into the constitution that Abortion was illegal. We had a referendum to remove that and then the government legislated as they're elected to do. In the US they brough in the 18th Amendment and then repealed it. So changing the constitution by repealing articles of it is a thing. So the 2nd Amendment can be altered for example. But even simpler than that, Congress can pass abortion laws if they want to return the Roe v Wade state of things for abortion rights. The sheer idea that there is a way to block any legislation via filibuster despite one side holding a majority in both houses and the white house, it's totally preposterous to people in Europe. We just elect a government and they pass laws. It's as simple as that. But anyway that's a topic for another thread. Are you @snowychap in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted August 9, 2022 Share Posted August 9, 2022 7 hours ago, CVByrne said: It's possible (though probably unlikely) that the judges could be pro a woman's choice on her own body in relation to abortion, but believe that the constitution doesn't directly enshrine that right. I am not a 100 % sure, but I get the sense that the six judges thought whether a woman has a right to an abortion is a state issue and not a federal one. This was the issue and not whether a woman has a right to an abortion or not. One of the dissenting judges forcefully pointed it out back in Roe vs Wade. I suspect you are right, the authors of the original constitution likely did not foresee this situation two-hundred years after the fact. Probably did not even cross their minds being men and all. Didn't bother giving women a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icouldtelltheworld Posted August 11, 2022 Share Posted August 11, 2022 (edited) Posted in here a while ago about some of my concerns about safeguarding issues arising from the move to affirmative care and gender self-ID, both of which have been advocated by groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids. For context: affirmative care in relation to gender dysphoria means that anyone appearing at a gender clinic claiming a transgender identity should be automatically affirmed in that, while self-ID means that anyone who claims to be the opposite gender should be treated as such socially, legally etc. regardless of whether or not that they intend to undergo any form of medical transition. It looks as though another large lawsuit is going to be brought against the Tavistock from people who claim to have been rushed onto puberty blockers and other life-changing treatments. It will be interesting to follow this case, and it may well highlight flaws with a purely affirmative approach to transgender identities. From The Times (As with all reporting on this issue, which has obviously become a major culture war argument, expect some editorial license having been used by the newspaper or some sensationalism engaged in by the lawyer - will obviously be important to wait until any future trial to draw conclusions) Quote The Tavistock gender clinic is facing mass legal action from youngsters who claim they were rushed into taking life-altering puberty blockers. Lawyers expect about 1,000 families to join a medical negligence lawsuit alleging vulnerable children have been misdiagnosed and placed on a damaging medical pathway. They are accusing the gender identity development service [GIDS] at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust of multiple failures in its duty of care. This includes allegations it recklessly prescribed puberty blockers with harmful side effects and adopted an “unquestioning, affirmative approach” to children identifying as transgender. Edit: Archived version available here where people can read the whole article Edited August 11, 2022 by icouldtelltheworld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a m ole Posted August 15, 2022 Share Posted August 15, 2022 Everyone should watch Leo Baker documentary on Netflix. A skateboarder formerly known as Lacey Baker. https://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81018205?s=i&trkid=13747225&vlang=en&clip=81582032 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted August 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted August 18, 2022 interesting setting in outlook that i've just been made aware of i'm not searching but presumably the daily heil hasn't found out about this because they'd be having kittens no doubt about how microsoft has "Gone woke" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 28, 2022 Share Posted August 28, 2022 At a Pride march yesterday, a group protesting against trans rights tried to join the front of the march. The police, once they’d stopped wasting their time and our tax money by integrating with the local community, removed them from the parade as they were not a pre registered participant. Whole incident done and dusted in under 10 minutes due to some decent policing, decent stewarding, decent drums and decent crowd intervention all acting pretty much in calm non aggressive unison. Meanwhile, at the tail end of the parade, a group with a ‘**** the tories’ rainbow banner also joined the parade without the proper paperwork, but the police, probably now high on samba rhythms and free boiled sweets, did nothing about it. I don’t pay the police their wages for this kind of reading of the room. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted October 8, 2022 Share Posted October 8, 2022 Latest episode of The Problem with Jon Stewart was a good watch. Also featured one of the most painful interviews I've ever watched. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 17, 2022 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 17, 2022 Rowling's new friends are... problematic. Including people happy to be part of, or ally with, far right Christian conservative anti-LGBT anti abortionists, generally fash-y groups, racist and people that advocate the 'reduction' of numbers of transpeople (including those that have happily transitioned and got on with their lives). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuwabatake Sanjuro Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 She and her demented followers have hounded Graham Norton off social media now too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
His Name Is Death Posted October 17, 2022 Share Posted October 17, 2022 (edited) Edit: More fool me for believing the Times. Edited October 17, 2022 by His Name Is Death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 17, 2022 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 17, 2022 Rowling's got in further hot water for penning an article against Sturgeon's position on trans matters that includes a line that says society should not presume innocence in any groups. Which is a bit shocking. She's saying that in a civil context, i.e. things like DBS checking, but she's put it in such a cack handed way it reads like she's suggesting you can't have a presumption of innocence in any matter for any one or group, which for someone who is a professional writer is either indicative of being a really bad at your job or is malicious - i.e. all the trans people are dodgy, y'know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted October 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 18, 2022 15 hours ago, Kuwabatake Sanjuro said: She and her demented followers have hounded Graham Norton off social media now too Can you give the cliff notes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted October 18, 2022 VT Supporter Share Posted October 18, 2022 @Eidolon Are you around? I hope everything is good? Is anyone in touch with her through FB or instagram? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 18, 2022 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 18, 2022 5 hours ago, TheAuthority said: Can you give the cliff notes? Norton was interviewed at a literature festival and made some (frankly pretty spot on) comments on cancel culture and then the trans debate. He criticised the likes of John Cleese whinging about cancel culture by pointing out a) if you've got a platform to whinge about it, and people are looking to hear your views, you've not been cancelled and b) it's better described as accountability. He was then asked for his thoughts on the trans debate in light of Rowling's being hammered, and he said, to paraphrase, he's not trans and he's not an expert so his comments would be useless, the discussion should be focused on and amplify the thoughts of trans people, their families and experts in the field rather than parrot celebrities thoughts. That was praised by Billy Bragg, who Rowling bit back at by suggesting these thoughts supported rape and death threats (...?), which in turn fed back to the original source of the comments, Norton, and he ditched Twitter as a result, to the sound of loads of anti-trans activists cheering. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 It's odd how admitting you don't know much about a subject, so cannot really comment on it can still land you in hot water isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 18, 2022 Share Posted October 18, 2022 (edited) I find myself constantly baffled as to why people give so much of a shit about what JK Rowling thinks about anything but kids/young adult literature. Edited October 18, 2022 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts