In message <9589916361.4194b5fb@uninhabited.net>, at 15:58:19 on Fri, 29
Nov 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 14:22:37 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
snip
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt >>> the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token
woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it >>> are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely >>> useful.
Did you forget that they often become hysterical?
Does this ever happen when inappropriate men are appointed, or are these
epithets almost exclusively applied to women?
Shrill and hysterical men don't get very far either.
Is it possible that the structure of meetings has grown up to subtly
favour the men who were the almost-exclusive designers of the
conventions? Or is the standard way of doing things actually following
natural laws which are immutable?
It's long standing etiquette and behaving reasonably, whichever sexes
are involved on either side of the table.
Some women tasked with it are very bad, though
On 29/11/2024 12:07, kat wrote:
On 27/11/2024 19:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov >>>2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Which was because that defeats the whole object of the 2018 Act. Which >>>> was to ensure better representation on such Boards by people who'd
actually had lived experience as women, who could give a woman's point >>>> of view (not that they would all necessarily agree but that's not the
point).
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Having been married to a strong independent feminist woman for 25yrs
I found myself helping to pilot legislation through Parliament to,
for example, secure the passage of the Stalking and "Coercive Control" laws.
I have never assumed that a man could not advocate for women, but
would suggest your marriage to that strong independent feminist woman >>would have helped you to do it, to recognise the need. Not all men
have that.
So the point is that those Boards need people with actual lived >>experience to advise the men on the Board of what it is, and has been,
like to be a woman.
I think if the job or post requires a person with a lifetime experience
of being a woman, of having to cope with the "glass ceiling", being
passed over for promotion because of pregnancy or childcare or because
of assumptions about whether being a woman means being less assertive
or committed to the business, then really it should not be a trans
woman in that post, but a person born as a woman who has not changed sex.
Whether this suggestion is universally accepted, I don't know.
I am strongly opposed to any discrimination against trans people. But
when I hear that the first trans woman has been elected to the US
senate or to a board of directors in the UK, I don't think this is a
cause for celebration. It should be a matter for total indifference. No
more significant than electing anyone else. Judge the person on their >performance, not on their identity politics. No need for an MP to
announce that they are gay or bisexual, or infertile, or trans, or
brought up in council housing, or that they want to represent everyone
in the nation who suffers from myalgic encephalomyelitis.
In message <8172852939.d1e8c32f@uninhabited.net>, at 12:02:08 on Fri, 29
Nov 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 11:34:29 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vic71q$1257g$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:03:15 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:1pYy3Nii7YSnFAiR@perry.uk...
In message <vic1sv$11ab4$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:21 on Fri, 29 Nov >>>>> 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:RZe7bYd5qXSnFA1b@perry.uk...
But you were then speaking as a "couple". Your views were the result >>>>>>>> of your exoperiences as a man and a woman having been "shared" as you >>>>>>>> say, and a consensus of some kind being arrived at. Unless you're >>>>>>>> claiming that is that before sharing your experiences, they were >>>>>>>> already both the same.
After hundreds of such experiences, one could I suppose describe it >>>>>>> as a consensus, but it was much more being very aware of each
other's world view [and agreeing with it]. It's not just one to >>>>>>> one experiences, we both went together to visit clients, attend or >>>>>>> speak at conferences, give training courses to support professionals >>>>>>> who were full of anecdotes about their clients etc etc.
One of the most important skills "anyone" needs,** is to ability to weigh
up strangers and decide whether they're being truthful or not, what >>>>>> they're really like.etc etc. For many couples** this can be a main topic >>>>>> of conversation, what did you think of "X" ? Didn't you notice they >>>>>> did "Y". Both actual people met socially etc and people on the TV. >>>>>> Politicians celebrities. It can be a main topic of conversation,
what are these people "really" like etc. etc.
The fact that you were dealing with clients, colleagues together. meant >>>>>> you will have been able to provide each other with valuable insights when
weighing up these people up, deciding whether they were being wholly >>>>>> truthful or not; which one person might have missed on their own. And >>>>>> will be able to confirm this or maybe not, for yourselves following >>>>>> subsequent encounters. A further topic of conversation in furthering >>>>>> you joint project together.
But again actual sex/gender has very little to do with this.
It does when a man then uses the knowledge and insight gained into
"women's issues"
when appointed to a company board or whatever.
Company name: "Goalposts R US "
You've forgotten what this subthread is about? Fair enough, but try not
to embarrass yourself any further.
"to ensure better representation on such Boards by people who'd
actually had lived experience as women"
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in your
opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into "womens'
issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, than
women themselves.
No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be better >>> at it than *most* women.
This just has to be wind up.
Although, there again.
Mr,later Sir, later Lord Grumpy (a man) wants to make 'puters.
So he needs boffins (all men). So he hires someone (guess what,
another man) who already knows a lot of these boffins, and
who knew which ones could be trusted to bring Mr Grumpy's
project in on time rather than spending all their time down
the pub with, guess who, other men.
Anyway, spot the missing word
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they
were just the tip of that iceberg).
Similarly, having spent the best part of 2yrs pushing my late wife
around in a wheelchair, I have much more insight into the
difficulties that particular subset of "disabled person" encounters. >>>>> And I could still very effectively advocate for that group, despite >>>>> not being in a wheelchair myself. Top tip, fit a cheap cycle horn to >>>>> request people stop staring at their phones and get out of the way!
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but
only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this
particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many
others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed
up. But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put
able-bodied persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users who
lack the skills in advocacy.
However true may be what you say, the skill of some men in advocating for
women is no substitute for equal representation of women on governing bodies.
You need the best person for the job, irrespective of gender.
Not least so that some women have the opportunity to acquire those skills, as
well as relevant employment opportunities.
Being on the board of a big organisation is not the place to start
acquiring skills.
Hence the objection to Apartheid, despite the fact that some white politicians
undoubtedly were able to fully represent the interests of black South
Africans.
Godwin, is that you?
On 28 Nov 2024 at 13:11:08 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 28/11/2024 00:08, Pancho wrote:
On 11/27/24 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vi6qbm$3e12f$6@dont-email.me...
The problem is many people - myself included - believe in science. And a >>>>> woman has XX chromosomes and that is that. No matter what twists of
semantics and make-up you chose to employ, a person who would present as >>>>> having XY chromosomes is a man. And that is that.
If you need to force people to abandon science, then you aren't very >>>>> tolerant are you ?
There is plenty of psychological evidence that not everybody with male >>>> chromosomes necessarily identifies themselves as male - at least as
defined by "current social norms". And vice versa.
How can forcing people who have male chromosomes - but for whatever
reason feel,themselves to have more in common with women -
to identify as male, be regarded as tolerant in any way ?
I'm a man, born in a man's body, however I suspect if I were born in a
woman's body I would live as a woman. Maybe a tomboy, maybe a lesbian,
but I know plenty of women like that. I would be happy to wear women's
cloths, etc. I would prefer that to the social stigma of being trans.
Gender isn't that important in my life.
I think people who transition have more going on than just a feeling
they are the wrong sex.
It seems to me that sexual dysmorphia is just a form of body dysmorphia.
If you thought that your healthy hand was somehow not "yours" you would
have difficulty finding a surgeon to amputate it, while it seems to be a
lot easier for a "trans woman" to find someone to castrate him, which is
a much more radical operation.
That is surely a matter of opinion. But in any case my understanding is that many of the current trans women (in opposition to the situation 40 years ago) have no intention of undergoing any surgery whatsoever. They just want to "live as" women, whatever that may mean.
On 28/11/2024 18:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Nov 2024 at 13:11:08 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 28/11/2024 00:08, Pancho wrote:
On 11/27/24 17:58, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:vi6qbm$3e12f$6@dont-email.me...
The problem is many people - myself included - believe in science. And a >>>>>> woman has XX chromosomes and that is that. No matter what twists of >>>>>> semantics and make-up you chose to employ, a person who would present as >>>>>> having XY chromosomes is a man. And that is that.
If you need to force people to abandon science, then you aren't very >>>>>> tolerant are you ?
There is plenty of psychological evidence that not everybody with male >>>>> chromosomes necessarily identifies themselves as male - at least as
defined by "current social norms". And vice versa.
How can forcing people who have male chromosomes - but for whatever
reason feel,themselves to have more in common with women -
to identify as male, be regarded as tolerant in any way ?
I'm a man, born in a man's body, however I suspect if I were born in a >>>> woman's body I would live as a woman. Maybe a tomboy, maybe a lesbian, >>>> but I know plenty of women like that. I would be happy to wear women's >>>> cloths, etc. I would prefer that to the social stigma of being trans.
Gender isn't that important in my life.
I think people who transition have more going on than just a feeling
they are the wrong sex.
It seems to me that sexual dysmorphia is just a form of body dysmorphia. >>> If you thought that your healthy hand was somehow not "yours" you would
have difficulty finding a surgeon to amputate it, while it seems to be a >>> lot easier for a "trans woman" to find someone to castrate him, which is >>> a much more radical operation.
That is surely a matter of opinion. But in any case my understanding is that >> many of the current trans women (in opposition to the situation 40 years ago)
have no intention of undergoing any surgery whatsoever. They just want to
"live as" women, whatever that may mean.
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the
"trans" issue.
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women
as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result
of this attitude.
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the
"trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them, including in women's prisons.
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women
as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all*
women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result
of this attitude.
Why on earth would you think that no thought was involved? Rather than,
as is vastly more likely, a very great deal of thought?
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
Perhaps you think "women-only spaces" should be renamed "spaces for
only some women"?
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the
"trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male.
Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite risky. And
there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them, including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women
as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all*
women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result
of this attitude.
Why on earth would you think that no thought was involved? Rather than,
as is vastly more likely, a very great deal of thought?
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
Perhaps you think "women-only spaces" should be renamed "spaces for
only some women"?
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't >>>> be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the
"trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male.
Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite risky. And >>> there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them, including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
What on earth are you talking about?
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:50:38 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women
as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all*
women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result
of this attitude.
Why on earth would you think that no thought was involved? Rather than,
as is vastly more likely, a very great deal of thought?
Little appropriate consideration for the views of women in general,
and the victims of male violence in particular.
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
Perhaps you think "women-only spaces" should be renamed "spaces for
only some women"?
Only women born as women in some cases? Obviously a complex issue with a complex solution. It is very generous of a male dominated society to give total permission to men to live as women in all respects, without
considering the edge cases where this is simply not appropriate.
But perhaps a society that oppresses women should have asked more of
them.
Are you just assuming the opinions of women without asking them?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvkk9o7.44gg.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2024-11-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvkk6oe.44gg.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women >>>>> as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all* >>>>> women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result >>>>> of this attitude.
Why on earth would you think that no thought was involved? Rather than, >>>> as is vastly more likely, a very great deal of thought?
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
Perhaps you think "women-only spaces" should be renamed "spaces for
only some women"?
Its simply a case of First World Aspirations in a country with Third
World Resources.
In a country which could actually afford to repair somewhewre like
Hammersmith Bridge, rather than being reduced to a laughing stock, one
might have thought respources could be made available and provision
made in statute requiring separate facilities be made available for
trans women, which cis women could also make use of if *they* so
chose.
You really haven't thought this through, have you...
Whereas as a man, (I assume) who feels himself somehow qualified to tell
cis women how they "should" feel, rather than how many of them apparently *do* feel, you have ?
And you really are happy with that situation, are you ?
A man dictating to women ?
As per usual.
On 2024-11-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvkk6oe.44gg.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women >>>> as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all* >>>> women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result
of this attitude.
Why on earth would you think that no thought was involved? Rather than,
as is vastly more likely, a very great deal of thought?
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
Perhaps you think "women-only spaces" should be renamed "spaces for
only some women"?
Its simply a case of First World Aspirations in a country with Third
World Resources.
In a country which could actually afford to repair somewhewre like
Hammersmith Bridge, rather than being reduced to a laughing stock, one
might have thought respources could be made available and provision
made in statute requiring separate facilities be made available for
trans women, which cis women could also make use of if *they* so
chose.
You really haven't thought this through, have you...
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:What on earth are you talking about?
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't >>>>> be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their >>>>> dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the >>>>> "trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male.
Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite risky. And >>>> there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them, including in women's prisons. >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described
as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card anyway.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't >>>>>> be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their >>>>>> dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the >>>>>> "trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male.
Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite
risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential,
group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the
purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them,
including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition
certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described
as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender
recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card
anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by his (and Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not
have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people,
so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to
continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any aspirant woman her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish
government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Just as you are not obliged to value my opinion. Others are not obliged to accept the
trans argument that it is intolerable for them to live with the biological sex they
were born with
Well no. That isn't an "argument" it's just how they feel about themselves. And they themselves can be the only judges of that.
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't >>>>>>> be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their >>>>>>> dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the >>>>>>> "trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male.
Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite
risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential,
group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the
purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them,
including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition
certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described
as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender >>> recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card
anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by his (and >> Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish
government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who
self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not
have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people,
so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to
continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the
absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any aspirant woman >> her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish
government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such
men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were "disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
On 2024-11-29, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvkk6oe.44gg.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women >>>> as a somewhat frivolous optional extra. The thoughtless award of *all* >>>> women's rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result
of this attitude.
Why on earth would you think that no thought was involved? Rather than,
as is vastly more likely, a very great deal of thought?
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to
trans-women is not an important issue like Apartheid?
Perhaps you think "women-only spaces" should be renamed "spaces for
only some women"?
Its simply a case of First World Aspirations in a country with Third
World Resources.
In a country which could actually afford to repair somewhewre like
Hammersmith Bridge, rather than being reduced to a laughing stock, one
might have thought respources could be made available and provision
made in statute requiring separate facilities be made available for
trans women, which cis women could also make use of if *they* so
chose.
You really haven't thought this through, have you...
In message <lqtp3nF9upeU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:07:19 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 27/11/2024 19:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov 2024, >>> billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Which was because that defeats the whole object of the 2018 Act. Which >>>> was to ensure better representation on such Boards by people who'd I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women. Having >>> been married to a strong independent feminist woman for 25yrs I found myself
actually had lived experience as women, who could give a woman's point >>>> of view (not that they would all necessarily agree but that's not the
point).
helping to pilot legislation through Parliament to, for example, secure the
passage of the Stalking and "Coercive Control" laws.
I have never assumed that a man could not advocate for women, but would
suggest your marriage to that strong independent feminist woman would have >> helped you to do it, to recognise the need. Not all men have that.
So the point is that those Boards need people with actual lived experience to
advise the men on the Board of what it is, and has been, like to be a woman.
Something that men can acquire from working closely with women (possibly for many years).
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in your
opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into "womens'Â issues,
is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, than women themselves.
 No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be better at
it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most women?
Again, that wasn't what I said.
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't need more >> than a few?
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely useful.
On 29/11/2024 22:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't >>>>>>>> be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their >>>>>>>> dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the >>>>>>>> "trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. >>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite
risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, >>>>>>> group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the >>>>>>> purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them,
including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition
certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described
as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender >>>> recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card >>>> anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by his (and >>> Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish
government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who
self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not
have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people,
so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to
continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the
absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any aspirant woman >>> her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish
government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such
men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were
"disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary
bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
The notion that there are predatory men who describe themselves as trans women and prey upon vulnerable women is, surely, sufficiently popular in
the Press that campaigners for women's rights tend to focus
disproportionatly on this largely mythical problem. Rowling and
Forstater and Duffield portray women as extremely vulnerable people who
are easy prey and need protection from all trans women.
I don't believe that a trans woman in a prison, who has a history of
sexual offending, cannot be supervised and secluded from other
prisoners. And no doubt some women in a prison prey upon other weaker
women for sexual favours anyway.
The real problem is men, biological men who identify as male and
sexually assault women, spike their drinks, commit acts of domestic
violence, stalk them when they have been rejected.
Demonising trans women is very much in the realm of witch-hunting.
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29
Nov 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in
your opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into
"womens'Â issues, is a better qualified to represent womens'
interests, than women themselves.
 No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be
better at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most
women?
Again, that wasn't what I said.
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't need
more than a few?
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've
learnt the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than
a token woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women
tasked with it are very bad, though - can be very shrill and
indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience,
because in the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed
by his strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing
at all.  A woman stands a better chance of knowing something, from her friends' experiences, if not her own.
On 30 Nov 2024 at 11:00:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 29/11/2024 22:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their >>>>>>>>> dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the >>>>>>>>> "trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. >>>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite
risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, >>>>>>>> group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the >>>>>>>> purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them, >>>>>>>> including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition
certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described >>>>> as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender >>>>> recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card >>>>> anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by his (and >>>> Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish
government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who
self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not
have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people,
so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to
continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the
absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any aspirant woman
her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish
government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such
men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were
"disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary
bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
The notion that there are predatory men who describe themselves as trans
women and prey upon vulnerable women is, surely, sufficiently popular in
the Press that campaigners for women's rights tend to focus
disproportionatly on this largely mythical problem. Rowling and
Forstater and Duffield portray women as extremely vulnerable people who
are easy prey and need protection from all trans women.
I don't believe that a trans woman in a prison, who has a history of
sexual offending, cannot be supervised and secluded from other
prisoners. And no doubt some women in a prison prey upon other weaker
women for sexual favours anyway.
The real problem is men, biological men who identify as male and
sexually assault women, spike their drinks, commit acts of domestic
violence, stalk them when they have been rejected.
Demonising trans women is very much in the realm of witch-hunting.
Some may demonise trans women. OTOH, some may accept that trans women are statistically less likely to molest them than other men. But they may still not want people with normal male bodies to be around them in certain situations where they can reasonably expect to be in the company only of people born female. While trans women may be statistically less likely to assault them that does not mean none of them ever do. The exact situation, whether it is individual or group rape counselling, public toilets or communal
changing rooms, is a matter for debate. And not only fear of rape, but simple
discomfort at seeing and being seen by people with male bodies may be a concern. We are generally, men and women, a somewhat prudish society.
The rules for trans women have been set up to ignore the real fears and discomforts of many women and more nuanced rules are needed than the current GRA.
On 30/11/2024 11:25, kat wrote:
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29 Nov >>> 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in your >>>>>> opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into "womens' >>>>>> issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, than women
themselves.
 No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be better
at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most women?
Again, that wasn't what I said.
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't need more >>>> than a few?
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt the
industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token woman, put
there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it are very bad, >>> though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, because in
the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed by his
strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at all.  A
woman stands a better chance of knowing something, from her friends'
experiences, if not her own.
Well, in the legal profession women are not necessarily "better advocates" but
certainly there is no apparent quality difference between a male barrister and a
female barrister, or solicitor. Some of the best judges and barristers are female.
I think when anyone is "shrill and indignant" (and I've never seen that in a court or in a workplace setting) it usually means that they are not being listened to or are being disrespected.
On 30 Nov 2024 at 11:00:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 29/11/2024 22:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their >>>>>>>>> dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the >>>>>>>>> "trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. >>>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite
risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, >>>>>>>> group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the >>>>>>>> purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them, >>>>>>>> including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition
certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described >>>>> as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender >>>>> recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card >>>>> anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by his (and >>>> Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish
government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who
self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not
have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people,
so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to
continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the
absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any aspirant woman
her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish
government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such
men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were
"disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary
bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
The notion that there are predatory men who describe themselves as trans
women and prey upon vulnerable women is, surely, sufficiently popular in
the Press that campaigners for women's rights tend to focus
disproportionatly on this largely mythical problem. Rowling and
Forstater and Duffield portray women as extremely vulnerable people who
are easy prey and need protection from all trans women.
I don't believe that a trans woman in a prison, who has a history of
sexual offending, cannot be supervised and secluded from other
prisoners. And no doubt some women in a prison prey upon other weaker
women for sexual favours anyway.
The real problem is men, biological men who identify as male and
sexually assault women, spike their drinks, commit acts of domestic
violence, stalk them when they have been rejected.
Demonising trans women is very much in the realm of witch-hunting.
Some may demonise trans women. OTOH, some may accept that trans women are statistically less likely to molest them than other men. But they may still not want people with normal male bodies to be around them in certain situations where they can reasonably expect to be in the company only of people born female. While trans women may be statistically less likely to assault them that does not mean none of them ever do. The exact situation, whether it is individual or group rape counselling, public toilets or communal
changing rooms, is a matter for debate. And not only fear of rape, but simple
discomfort at seeing and being seen by people with male bodies may be a concern. We are generally, men and women, a somewhat prudish society.
The rules for trans women have been set up to ignore the real fears and discomforts of many women and more nuanced rules are needed than the current GRA.
On 30/11/2024 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 11:00:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 29/11/2024 22:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at >>>>>>>>>> their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more >>>>>>>>>> to the
"trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. >>>>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite >>>>>>>>> risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, >>>>>>>>> group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the >>>>>>>>> purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them, >>>>>>>>> including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition
certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described >>>>>> as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And
gender
recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free"
card
anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by
his (and
Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish >>>>> government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who >>>>> self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not
have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people, >>>>> so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to
continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the >>>>> absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any
aspirant woman
her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish
government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who
acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining
access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such >>>> men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were
"disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary >>>> bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
The notion that there are predatory men who describe themselves as trans >>> women and prey upon vulnerable women is, surely, sufficiently popular in >>> the Press that campaigners for women's rights tend to focus
disproportionatly on this largely mythical problem. Rowling and
Forstater and Duffield portray women as extremely vulnerable people who
are easy prey and need protection from all trans women.
I don't believe that a trans woman in a prison, who has a history of
sexual offending, cannot be supervised and secluded from other
prisoners. And no doubt some women in a prison prey upon other weaker
women for sexual favours anyway.
The real problem is men, biological men who identify as male and
sexually assault women, spike their drinks, commit acts of domestic
violence, stalk them when they have been rejected.
Demonising trans women is very much in the realm of witch-hunting.
Some may demonise trans women. OTOH, some may accept that trans women
are
statistically less likely to molest them than other men. But they may
still
not want people with normal male bodies to be around them in certain
situations where they can reasonably expect to be in the company only of
people born female. While trans women may be statistically less likely to
assault them that does not mean none of them ever do. The exact
situation,
whether it is individual or group rape counselling, public toilets or
communal
changing rooms, is a matter for debate. And not only fear of rape,
but simple
discomfort at seeing and being seen by people with male bodies may be a
concern. We are generally, men and women, a somewhat prudish society.
There aspects of being a woman that trans women do not experience. They
maybe understanding and sympathetic, but women, and particularly the
younger ones, might prefer not to have male bodied people around at such times.
That some might not care doesn't change that for the others.
On 30/11/2024 13:29, kat wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 11:00:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 29/11/2024 22:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there >>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at >>>>>>>>>>> their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more >>>>>>>>>>> to the
"trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. >>>>>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite >>>>>>>>>> risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, >>>>>>>>>> group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the >>>>>>>>>> purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them, >>>>>>>>>> including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition >>>>>>> certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described >>>>>>> as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And >>>>>>> gender
recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" >>>>>>> card
anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by
his (and
Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish >>>>>> government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who >>>>>> self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not >>>>>> have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people, >>>>>> so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to >>>>>> continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the >>>>>> absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any
aspirant woman
her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish >>>>>> government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who >>>>> acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining >>>>> access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such >>>>> men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were
"disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary >>>>> bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
The notion that there are predatory men who describe themselves as trans >>>> women and prey upon vulnerable women is, surely, sufficiently popular in >>>> the Press that campaigners for women's rights tend to focus
disproportionatly on this largely mythical problem. Rowling and
Forstater and Duffield portray women as extremely vulnerable people who >>>> are easy prey and need protection from all trans women.
I don't believe that a trans woman in a prison, who has a history of
sexual offending, cannot be supervised and secluded from other
prisoners. And no doubt some women in a prison prey upon other weaker
women for sexual favours anyway.
The real problem is men, biological men who identify as male and
sexually assault women, spike their drinks, commit acts of domestic
violence, stalk them when they have been rejected.
Demonising trans women is very much in the realm of witch-hunting.
Some may demonise trans women. OTOH, some may accept that trans women
are
statistically less likely to molest them than other men. But they may
still
not want people with normal male bodies to be around them in certain
situations where they can reasonably expect to be in the company only of >>> people born female. While trans women may be statistically less likely to >>> assault them that does not mean none of them ever do. The exact
situation,
whether it is individual or group rape counselling, public toilets or
communal
changing rooms, is a matter for debate. And not only fear of rape,
but simple
discomfort at seeing and being seen by people with male bodies may be a
concern. We are generally, men and women, a somewhat prudish society.
There aspects of being a woman that trans women do not experience. They
maybe understanding and sympathetic, but women, and particularly the
younger ones, might prefer not to have male bodied people around at such
times.
That some might not care doesn't change that for the others.
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair that they do not trim. Women who are flat chested.
Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you
make me feel uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could
you go away, please, and find somewhere for people like you? Or, no
offence intended, but can I look in your pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
On 29/11/2024 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated against.)
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please, and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 11:32:28 +0000, kat wrote:
On 29/11/2024 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated
against.)
If trans men suddenly got paid the same as women, a lot of this nonsense would disappear.
As soon as "Roberta" (who was Robert on Friday) realises that from Monday they are paid 20% less in order to "live their life as a woman" we'd be
back to talking about parking tickets.
If that seems gratuitously offensive, maybe it is. Or maybe it's a slight shaft of light into the fog around this. The moment I heard that the
gender bill (or whatever it was called) specifically prevented woman who transed into men from inheriting titles, I decided it was a crock.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or
congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial >> hair that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice. >>
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me
feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away,
please, and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look >> in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women
might feel in a particular situation.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings
and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So that when encountering an unknown man, it's not necessarily a case of "all men are rapists" but rather a case of if this chap really is a potential rapist, what exactly am I going to be able to do about it?. Which is a situation
which men simply never find themselves in. Yes some individual men may be physically
stronger; but they don't comprise 50%.of the population.
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Which is all the more reason why cis women (formerly known as women) still require exclusive access to those safe spaces which they've always relied on .
Women's Refuges, would I imagine also be another bone of contention,
bb
*Inasmuch I doubt it requires any confirmation by way of unverifiable anecdotal evidence.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice. >>
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please, and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women
might feel in a particular situation.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings
and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So that when encountering an unknown man, it's not necessarily a case of "all men are rapists" but rather a case of if this chap really is a potential rapist, what exactly am I going to be able to do about it?. Which is a situation
which men simply never find themselves in. Yes some individual men may be physically
stronger; but they don't comprise 50%.of the population.
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Which is all the more reason why cis women (formerly known as women) still require exclusive access to those safe spaces which they've always relied on .
Women's Refuges, would I imagine also be another bone of contention,
On 30 Nov 2024 at 14:01:17 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or
congenital conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with
excess facial hair that they do not trim. Women who are flat chested.
Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you
make me feel uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could
you go away, please, and find somewhere for people like you? Or, no
offence intended, but can I look in your pants to see whether you have a
proper vulva?"
This seems to some extent a valid point, and it would be unfortunate if it was
a real problem. It could become a real problem if half-baked ideas about defining women according to chromosomes etc were adopted. But in real life even women with disorders of sexual development and untypical anatomy simply do not have the build of men, let alone the fully developed male genitalia, and I do not believe that it is a real risk that any women who was born and brought up as a woman will be mistaken for a man, other than for a few moments. Equally, there may be some post genital surgery trans women of very slender build who can actually pass as women, and then they probably wouldn't cause anyone any problems in practice.
The fact remains that most trans women can be identified as men from across the street, and most nowadays have intact male genitalia.
So I don't think that your point is actually a relevant one in practice.
On 30 Nov 2024 at 15:12:24 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or
congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial >>> hair that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice. >>>
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me
feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, >>> please, and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look >>> in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women
might feel in a particular situation.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters >> will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically
stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual
violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings
and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So that when encountering an unknown man, it's not necessarily a case of "all
men are rapists" but rather a case of if this chap really is a potential
rapist, what exactly am I going to be able to do about it?. Which is a
situation
which men simply never find themselves in. Yes some individual men may be
physically
stronger; but they don't comprise 50%.of the population.
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical
threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Which is all the more reason why cis women (formerly known as women) still >> require exclusive access to those safe spaces which they've always relied on .
Women's Refuges, would I imagine also be another bone of contention,
bb
*Inasmuch I doubt it requires any confirmation by way of unverifiable
anecdotal evidence.
My OCD forces me to say that men do get raped not uncommonly. But as you say most men do not live in apprehension of getting into a situation where they might be raped and my pedantic correction should not detract from the point you are making. And this is still of course male violence.
--
Roger Hayter
On 11/28/24 21:06, billy bookcase wrote:
Just as you are not obliged to value my opinion. Others are not obliged to accept the
trans argument that it is intolerable for them to live with the biological sex they
were born with
Well no. That isn't an "argument" it's just how they feel about themselves. >> And they themselves can be the only judges of that.
We have to judge other people's feelings, and compare them.
anyone could claim their feelings were most important and had to be given precedence
over everyone else.
We might not be that good at judging, but we have to try.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 11:32:28 +0000, kat wrote:
On 29/11/2024 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated
against.)
If trans men suddenly got paid the same as women, a lot of this nonsense would disappear.
As soon as "Roberta" (who was Robert on Friday) realises that from Monday they are paid 20% less in order to "live their life as a woman" we'd be
back to talking about parking tickets.
If that seems gratuitously offensive, maybe it is.
On 2024-11-30, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 11:32:28 +0000, kat wrote:
On 29/11/2024 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated
against.)
If trans men suddenly got paid the same as women, a lot of this
nonsense would disappear.
I think you've mixed up "trans men" and "trans women".
As soon as "Roberta" (who was Robert on Friday) realises that from
Monday they are paid 20% less in order to "live their life as a woman"
we'd be back to talking about parking tickets.
If that seems gratuitously offensive, maybe it is.
It's gratuitously offensive because it's utterly, ludicrously false and you've made it up out of whole cloth from a position of complete
ignorance.
On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 00:37:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-30, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 11:32:28 +0000, kat wrote:
On 29/11/2024 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated
against.)
If trans men suddenly got paid the same as women, a lot of this
nonsense would disappear.
I think you've mixed up "trans men" and "trans women".
As soon as "Roberta" (who was Robert on Friday) realises that from
Monday they are paid 20% less in order to "live their life as a woman"
we'd be back to talking about parking tickets.
If that seems gratuitously offensive, maybe it is.
It's gratuitously offensive because it's utterly, ludicrously false and
you've made it up out of whole cloth from a position of complete
ignorance.
Can I ask you to act as a sponsor for my application to be a Reform candidate, please ?
I stand by my observation that this entire gender saga managed to ensure
that a woman who transitioned to a man was still not eligible to inherit
a title in much the same way as a first born man who transitioned to
woman was.
I'm actually *more* of a feminist because of 35yrs living with one,
than if I'd had a less feisty partner.
So never mind the current thread title.
What is a feminist?
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they
were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but
only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this >>>particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many
others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is
almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied >>persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users
who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
So the point is that those Boards need people with actual lived >>>experience to advise the men on the Board of what it is, and has
been, like to be a woman.
Something that men can acquire from working closely with women
(possibly for many years).
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated >against.)
I would point out I am not suggesting you are, have done, or ever do,
but you are only one man .And, as a man, you are not living the whole
life of the women with whom you are working.
I think when anyone is "shrill and indignant" (and I've never seen that
in a court or in a workplace setting) it usually means that they are
not being listened to or are being disrespected.
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29
Nov 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in >>>>>your opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into >>>>>"womens' issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' >>>>>interests, than women themselves.
No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be >>>>better at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most women? >> Again, that wasn't what I said.
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't
need more than a few?
learnt the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than
a token woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women
tasked with it are very bad, though - can be very shrill and
indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience,
because in the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed
by his strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing
at all.
A woman stands a better chance of knowing something, from her friends' >experiences, if not her own.
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they
were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project
proceeded "at pace".
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are actually a troll.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, isWhich again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but
only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this
particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many
others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up. >>
almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied
persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users
who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women
can advocate for women.
On 30/11/2024 14:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 14:01:17 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or
congenital conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with
excess facial hair that they do not trim. Women who are flat chested.
Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you
make me feel uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could >>> you go away, please, and find somewhere for people like you? Or, no
offence intended, but can I look in your pants to see whether you have a >>> proper vulva?"
This seems to some extent a valid point, and it would be unfortunate
if it was
a real problem. It could become a real problem if half-baked ideas about
defining women according to chromosomes etc were adopted. But in real
life
even women with disorders of sexual development and untypical anatomy
simply
do not have the build of men, let alone the fully developed male
genitalia,
and I do not believe that it is a real risk that any women who was
born and
brought up as a woman will be mistaken for a man, other than for a few
moments. Equally, there may be some post genital surgery trans women
of very
slender build who can actually pass as women, and then they probably
wouldn't
cause anyone any problems in practice.
The fact remains that most trans women can be identified as men from
across
the street, and most nowadays have intact male genitalia.
So I don't think that your point is actually a relevant one in practice.
I think it is a relevant one. Trans women are being judged on the basis
of their appearance, whether it conforms to society's notion of what a typical woman would look like. And typical men or women do not display
their genitals when entering a social situation.
We should not encourage people to accept or exclude people from their
social circle based only on their physical appearance. Still less to attribute unworthy motives to people based on their physical appearance.
We should be over all that. The nineteenth century depiction in fiction
of the cripple who is evil.
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colour
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such attention.
On 11/30/24 20:30, The Todal wrote:
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colour
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such attention.
But what is an off colour remark? How does it differ from off gender dressing? Is a man who is bare chested wrong, compared to a man who
wears women's clothing?
To me a lot of it doesn't seem to be about tolerance or acceptance,
instead it is a fight about what if regarded as proper, what is
acceptable. They just want to replace old taboos and intolerance with
new taboos and intolerance. Animal farm or Dr Zhivago style.
A lot of the new dogma seems to be about closing down free speech.
Stopping people from asking questions, it is about censorship.
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/30/24 20:30, The Todal wrote:
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colourBut what is an off colour remark? How does it differ from off gender
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such attention. >>
dressing? Is a man who is bare chested wrong, compared to a man who
wears women's clothing?
To me a lot of it doesn't seem to be about tolerance or acceptance,
instead it is a fight about what if regarded as proper, what is
acceptable. They just want to replace old taboos and intolerance with
new taboos and intolerance. Animal farm or Dr Zhivago style.
A lot of the new dogma seems to be about closing down free speech.
Stopping people from asking questions, it is about censorship.
That just means you've bought into the lies of the far right.
On 1 Dec 2024 at 19:02:41 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/30/24 20:30, The Todal wrote:
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colour
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such
attention.
But what is an off colour remark? How does it differ from off gender
dressing? Is a man who is bare chested wrong, compared to a man who
wears women's clothing?
To me a lot of it doesn't seem to be about tolerance or acceptance,
instead it is a fight about what if regarded as proper, what is
acceptable. They just want to replace old taboos and intolerance with
new taboos and intolerance. Animal farm or Dr Zhivago style.
A lot of the new dogma seems to be about closing down free speech.
Stopping people from asking questions, it is about censorship.
That just means you've bought into the lies of the far right.
Indeed; and they're too remarkably keen on "cancelling" people they
don't like for their championship of free speech to have much
credibility.
On 2024-12-01, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 00:37:07 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-30, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 11:32:28 +0000, kat wrote:
On 29/11/2024 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
[quoted text muted]
As a woman I worked with men. One soon learns when one is being
patronised. (Not to mention being undepaid and otherwise discrimated >>>>> against.)
If trans men suddenly got paid the same as women, a lot of this
nonsense would disappear.
I think you've mixed up "trans men" and "trans women".
As soon as "Roberta" (who was Robert on Friday) realises that from
Monday they are paid 20% less in order to "live their life as a woman" >>>> we'd be back to talking about parking tickets.
If that seems gratuitously offensive, maybe it is.
It's gratuitously offensive because it's utterly, ludicrously false and
you've made it up out of whole cloth from a position of complete
ignorance.
Can I ask you to act as a sponsor for my application to be a Reform
candidate, please ?
I stand by my observation that this entire gender saga managed to ensure
that a woman who transitioned to a man was still not eligible to inherit
a title in much the same way as a first born man who transitioned to
woman was.
The "entire gender saga" came about because Lord Corbett didn't want to
pay maintenance to his wife April Ashley when his marriage broke down
in the 1960s.
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/30/24 20:30, The Todal wrote:
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colourBut what is an off colour remark? How does it differ from off gender
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such attention. >>
dressing? Is a man who is bare chested wrong, compared to a man who
wears women's clothing?
To me a lot of it doesn't seem to be about tolerance or acceptance,
instead it is a fight about what if regarded as proper, what is
acceptable. They just want to replace old taboos and intolerance with
new taboos and intolerance. Animal farm or Dr Zhivago style.
A lot of the new dogma seems to be about closing down free speech.
Stopping people from asking questions, it is about censorship.
That just means you've bought into the lies of the far right.
On 12/1/24 19:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
The fact that some censorious authoritarian people are dishonest
shouldn't surprise anyone. However the existence of a few bad actors
doesn't invalidate the large number of normal people who do advocate for
more free speech.
On 12/1/24 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/30/24 20:30, The Todal wrote:
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colour
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such attention.
But what is an off colour remark? How does it differ from off gender
dressing? Is a man who is bare chested wrong, compared to a man who
wears women's clothing?
To me a lot of it doesn't seem to be about tolerance or acceptance,
instead it is a fight about what if regarded as proper, what is
acceptable. They just want to replace old taboos and intolerance with
new taboos and intolerance. Animal farm or Dr Zhivago style.
A lot of the new dogma seems to be about closing down free speech.
Stopping people from asking questions, it is about censorship.
That just means you've bought into the lies of the far right.
Not really there clearly are people be shunned. People are frightened to express opinions. It isn't just the imagination of the right wing press.
But you seem to be avoiding the main point of my post. Which is why are "off-colour" remarks unacceptable? Why is discussing sex unacceptable?
Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
On 12/1/24 19:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 11/30/24 20:30, The Todal wrote:
By all means exclude people who behave badly, who make off-colour
remarks, who touch or fondle other people who don't welcome such
attention.
But what is an off colour remark? How does it differ from off gender
dressing? Is a man who is bare chested wrong, compared to a man who
wears women's clothing?
To me a lot of it doesn't seem to be about tolerance or acceptance,
instead it is a fight about what if regarded as proper, what is
acceptable. They just want to replace old taboos and intolerance with
new taboos and intolerance. Animal farm or Dr Zhivago style.
A lot of the new dogma seems to be about closing down free speech.
Stopping people from asking questions, it is about censorship.
That just means you've bought into the lies of the far right.
Not really there clearly are people be shunned. People are frightened to express opinions. It isn't just the imagination of the right wing press.
But you seem to be avoiding the main point of my post.
Which is why are "off-colour" remarks unacceptable? Why is discussing
sex unacceptable? Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:ILAd$L2AHfSnFAXs@perry.uk...
Some women tasked with it are very bad, though
"Tasked with it" by whom I wonder ?
On 29 Nov 2024 at 16:54:24 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9589916361.4194b5fb@uninhabited.net>, at 15:58:19 on Fri, 29
Nov 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 14:22:37 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
snip
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt >>>> the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token >>>> woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it >>>> are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely >>>> useful.
Did you forget that they often become hysterical?
Does this ever happen when inappropriate men are appointed, or are these >>> epithets almost exclusively applied to women?
Shrill and hysterical men don't get very far either.
Is it possible that the structure of meetings has grown up to subtly
favour the men who were the almost-exclusive designers of the
conventions? Or is the standard way of doing things actually following
natural laws which are immutable?
It's long standing etiquette and behaving reasonably, whichever sexes
are involved on either side of the table.
I accept it is a matter of opinion, and probably further debate is futile >(that's not to say we shouldn't do it!) but I think those answers reveal a >startling lack of insight into the lived experience of women in our society.
Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
What's the context?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbett_v_Corbett
Did the good lord really spend 14 days trying to consummate the marriage?
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 12/1/24 19:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
The fact that some censorious authoritarian people are dishonest
shouldn't surprise anyone. However the existence of a few bad actors
doesn't invalidate the large number of normal people who do advocate for
more free speech.
I'm not sure there *are* any "normal people" advocating for "more free speech". There are sometimes important fights to be had to prevent the government from *reducing* free speech (e.g. when the Tories were
considering introducing state control of university debates). But apart
from that, it's mostly right-wing rags lying to people about what the
current situation is, and people therefore getting alarmed that we don't
have the free speech rights that we do in fact already have.
You need the best person for the job, irrespective of gender.
Affirmative action not something you approve of?
Not least so that some women have the opportunity to acquire those skills, as
well as relevant employment opportunities.
Being on the board of a big organisation is not the place to start
acquiring skills.
Well no, but if women don't have equal opportunities at every promotion on the >way up to board level they will never have equal representation on boards.
Hence the objection to Apartheid, despite the fact that some white politicians
undoubtedly were able to fully represent the interests of black South
Africans.
Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a >somewhat frivolous optional extra.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's
rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result of this attitude.
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women
is not an important issue like Apartheid?
But you seem to be avoiding the main point of my post. Which is why are "off-colour" remarks unacceptable? Why is discussing sex unacceptable?
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 12/1/24 19:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
The fact that some censorious authoritarian people are dishonest
shouldn't surprise anyone. However the existence of a few bad actors
doesn't invalidate the large number of normal people who do advocate for
more free speech.
I'm not sure there *are* any "normal people" advocating for "more free speech".
There are sometimes important fights to be had to prevent the
government from *reducing* free speech (e.g. when the Tories were
considering introducing state control of university debates).
In message <slrnvkpmnf.7bpt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
21:53:51 on Sun, 1 Dec 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> remarked:
Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
What's the context?
You must have seen hospitality venues (often at the seaside) which have
signs saying "No shirt - No service".
In message <9238659473.c41b0468@uninhabited.net>, at 14:59:46 on Fri, 29
Nov 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
You need the best person for the job, irrespective of gender.
Affirmative action not something you approve of?
That's a non-sequitur.
Not least so that some women have the opportunity to acquire those skills, as
well as relevant employment opportunities.
Being on the board of a big organisation is not the place to start
acquiring skills.
Well no, but if women don't have equal opportunities at every promotion on the
way up to board level they will never have equal representation on boards.
They (just like men) can acquire the skills I'm talking about in their everyday lives, and *then* be appointed.
Hence the objection to Apartheid, despite the fact that some white politicians
undoubtedly were able to fully represent the interests of black South
Africans.
Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a >> somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best
person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved"
for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired
some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's
rights to trans-women is a rather nice example of the result of this attitude.
Perhaps you think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women >> is not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women.
But you seem to be avoiding the main point of my post. Which is why are
"off-colour" remarks unacceptable? Why is discussing sex unacceptable?
Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
None of them are unacceptable in general. When they are done by people in power to people whose living depends on meekly putting up with them most of them would be unacceptable to many people.
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they were just the
tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project proceeded "at
pace".
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are actually a
troll.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is >>almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but >>>>only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this >>>>particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many
others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up. >>
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied persons in a
better position to advocate, than random other able-bodied people off the street, or
even random wheelchair users who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women can advocate for
women.
On 12/2/24 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <slrnvkpmnf.7bpt.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, at
21:53:51 on Sun, 1 Dec 2024, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>remarked:
Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
What's the context?
You must have seen hospitality venues (often at the seaside) which
have signs saying "No shirt - No service".
I was thinking of a TV personality who is currently in the news.
But you give a good example.
On 29 Nov 2024 at 14:22:37 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt
the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token
woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it
are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely
useful.
I know! Shrill women should really learn urbanity! Aggressive and overbearing >men are just showing their natural masculinity, useful for chairing meetings.
In message <vicu61$168vf$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:38:03 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>news:ILAd$L2AHfSnFAXs@perry.uk...
Some women tasked with it are very bad, though
"Tasked with it" by whom I wonder ?
By appointments committees who are filling a quota, rather than picking
the best person for the job.
On 29 Nov 2024 15:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 14:22:37 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt >>> the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token
woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it >>> are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely >>> useful.
I know! Shrill women should really learn urbanity! Aggressive and overbearing
men are just showing their natural masculinity, useful for chairing meetings.
I think Roland has a point, albeit possibly expressed rather clumsily. The skills necessary to be an effective advocate for a community aren't necessarily the same as the experiences which qualifies them as members of that community. For example, you don't need to have (or have had) cancer in order to advocate for better cancer research and support services, you don't need to have been a victim of crime to advocate for better policing and judicial services, and you don't need to be a bus user to advocate for
better public transport. And you don't, necessarily, need to be a woman in order to advocate for better protections and services for women. Elsewhere
in this thread, you're actually doing a pretty good job of it yourself.
Where it does become problematic is where there's an inherent underlying assumption that a particular community can't (or, at least, is less able to) advocate for themselves. In some cases that's necessary; we need adults to speak on behalf of children because children don't, yet, have the skills to speak effectively for themselves. And some communities may be too small, or too focussed on other things, to be likely to contain enough people with effective advocacy skills. Cancer sufferers, for example, may well prefer to concentrate on their treatment and recovery rather than spend time and
energy campaigning. But women are not one of those groups. Women are plentiful (fortunately!), and, on average, are as intelligent and well-educated as men. So there ought to be enough women who are skilled enough to act as advocates for women's issues without needing men to speak
on their behalf. And if there are not, then that's probably a structural issue rather than a failing on the part of the female community.
FWIW, I do also agree with Roland that tokenism is almost always a bad
thing; putting someone into a position of representing a particular
community just because they happen to be a member of that community rather than because of their advocacy skills will, in most cases, be a disservice
to that community rather than a benefit to it. But tokenism is a failure on the part of those running the appointment system, not a failing on the part of those being appointed. "We need a woman's voice on the panel, this person is a woman, therefore we will appoint this person" is a perfect example of the out-group homogenity fallacy. So the mere presence of a token woman (as opposed to a suitably skilled woman) on the panel is itself an example of sexism in practice, even if those making the appointment think they are
being inclusive by appointing her.
Mark
On 12/1/24 22:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
But you seem to be avoiding the main point of my post. Which is why are
"off-colour" remarks unacceptable? Why is discussing sex unacceptable?
Why is a bare chested man unacceptable?
None of them are unacceptable in general. When they are done by
people in power to people whose living depends on meekly putting up
with them most of them would be unacceptable to many people.
I'm comparing like with like. People are expected to interact with
trans people at work. Why shouldn't they interact with a bare chested
man. I can't see any intrinsic difference, just changing fashion in
taboo.
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice. >>>
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please, and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women
might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual
violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings
and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her looks and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget seems able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman? Wouldn't that put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. She hasn't yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't be too
careful.
So that when encountering an unknown man, it's not necessarily a case of "all
men are rapists" but rather a case of if this chap really is a potential
rapist, what exactly am I going to be able to do about it?. Which is a situation
which men simply never find themselves in. Yes some individual men may be physically
stronger; but they don't comprise 50%.of the population.
I'm assuming you're a man, guessing how women think. They join the Labour Party or one
of the other parties. They meet male party members and have to assess whether they are
likely to be raped. Can't be complacent, even if he seems nice. Can I use my door key
as a weapon and poke him in the eye with it?
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Which is all the more reason why cis women (formerly known as women) still >> require exclusive access to those safe spaces which they've always relied on .
Women's Refuges, would I imagine also be another bone of contention,
There are always going to be timid nervous women, and for that matter timid nervous
men. Would you use the showers in your local gym, or would you be fearful that the
burly man with lots of body hair might grab you and rape you up the arse? Best not to
risk it. Get dressed quickly and go home and shower there.
In some circumstances the tables can be turned, if a young man
is alone in a hotel room with a superior, and that lady starts
taking her clothes off.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 11:53:22 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
FWIW, I do also agree with Roland that tokenism is almost always a bad
thing; putting someone into a position of representing a particular
community just because they happen to be a member of that community rather >> than because of their advocacy skills will, in most cases, be a disservice >> to that community rather than a benefit to it. But tokenism is a failure on >> the part of those running the appointment system, not a failing on the part >> of those being appointed. "We need a woman's voice on the panel, this person >> is a woman, therefore we will appoint this person" is a perfect example of >> the out-group homogenity fallacy. So the mere presence of a token woman (as >> opposed to a suitably skilled woman) on the panel is itself an example of
sexism in practice, even if those making the appointment think they are
being inclusive by appointing her.
100% agree on every part of this. But the context of Roland's remarks appears >to be that the presence of skilled male advocates makes quotas for women on >supervisory boards not only unnecessary but counter productive. Crucially, >equal representation must sometimes mean that the very best (male) candidate >is passed over; but it should never mean that a woman appointed is >insufficiently competent to carry out the role. This excluded middle fallacy, >that not appointing the best candidate must mean appointing an unqualified >candidate, is used world-wide to oppose equal opportunities rules and >legislation.
On 12/1/24 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 12/1/24 19:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
The fact that some censorious authoritarian people are dishonest
shouldn't surprise anyone. However the existence of a few bad actors
doesn't invalidate the large number of normal people who do advocate for >>> more free speech.
I'm not sure there *are* any "normal people" advocating for "more free
speech".
You should get out more. I think most people would like more free
speech. The populist anti-woke politicians, are populist, because an
anti censorship theme is popular.
There are sometimes important fights to be had to prevent the
government from *reducing* free speech (e.g. when the Tories were
considering introducing state control of university debates).
The most serious of these fights was under Blair, Terrorism Act 2006, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Indeed we see journalists like Asa Winstanley harassed and Richard Medhurst arrested using the terrorism act.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice. >>>>
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please, and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women
might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual >>> violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings >>> and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her looks and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget seems able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman? Wouldn't that put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. She hasn't yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't be too
careful.
Its very simple. We mainly base our behaviour on averages. Not on exceptions. Otherwise we'd never get anything done. Same as most business and trade
is conducted on the basis that most people are honest
But this doesn't mean there might no be excaptions.
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
In message <lr0erhFn6nqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:41 on Sat, 30
Nov 2024, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think when anyone is "shrill and indignant" (and I've never seen
that in a court or in a workplace setting) it usually means that they
are not being listened to or are being disrespected.
No, it means they don't know how to debate without simply repeating the
same bogus argument over and over again.
On 02/12/2024 10:09, Pancho wrote:
On 12/1/24 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 12/1/24 19:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
The fact that some censorious authoritarian people are dishonest
shouldn't surprise anyone. However the existence of a few bad actors
doesn't invalidate the large number of normal people who do advocate for >>>> more free speech.
I'm not sure there *are* any "normal people" advocating for "more free
speech".
You should get out more. I think most people would like more free
speech. The populist anti-woke politicians, are populist, because an
anti censorship theme is popular.
I'm in favour of less free speech. We are inundated with misleading and dishonest information in social media.
We have far more freedom of speech in the UK than in, say, Russia.
What's the benefit, though? It's an illusory freedom. The freedom to
have a whinge and not actually change anything.
Here's the reality of life in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/02/swansea-mother-traumatised-by-arrest-under-terrorism-act
A Swansea woman has said she was left traumatised after being arrested
under the Terrorism Act and held incommunicado for five days because her daughter was allegedly involved in an action against an Israeli arms
company.
There are sometimes important fights to be had to prevent the
government from *reducing* free speech (e.g. when the Tories were
considering introducing state control of university debates).
The most serious of these fights was under Blair, Terrorism Act 2006,
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Indeed we see journalists like Asa
Winstanley harassed and Richard Medhurst arrested using the terrorism act. >>
On 2 Dec 2024 at 11:53:22 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 15:05:56 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 14:22:37 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt >>>> the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token >>>> woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it >>>> are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely >>>> useful.
I know! Shrill women should really learn urbanity! Aggressive and overbearing
men are just showing their natural masculinity, useful for chairing meetings.
I think Roland has a point, albeit possibly expressed rather clumsily. The >> skills necessary to be an effective advocate for a community aren't
necessarily the same as the experiences which qualifies them as members of >> that community. For example, you don't need to have (or have had) cancer in >> order to advocate for better cancer research and support services, you don't >> need to have been a victim of crime to advocate for better policing and
judicial services, and you don't need to be a bus user to advocate for
better public transport. And you don't, necessarily, need to be a woman in >> order to advocate for better protections and services for women. Elsewhere >> in this thread, you're actually doing a pretty good job of it yourself.
Where it does become problematic is where there's an inherent underlying
assumption that a particular community can't (or, at least, is less able to) >> advocate for themselves. In some cases that's necessary; we need adults to >> speak on behalf of children because children don't, yet, have the skills to >> speak effectively for themselves. And some communities may be too small, or >> too focussed on other things, to be likely to contain enough people with
effective advocacy skills. Cancer sufferers, for example, may well prefer to >> concentrate on their treatment and recovery rather than spend time and
energy campaigning. But women are not one of those groups. Women are
plentiful (fortunately!), and, on average, are as intelligent and
well-educated as men. So there ought to be enough women who are skilled
enough to act as advocates for women's issues without needing men to speak >> on their behalf. And if there are not, then that's probably a structural
issue rather than a failing on the part of the female community.
FWIW, I do also agree with Roland that tokenism is almost always a bad
thing; putting someone into a position of representing a particular
community just because they happen to be a member of that community rather >> than because of their advocacy skills will, in most cases, be a disservice >> to that community rather than a benefit to it. But tokenism is a failure on >> the part of those running the appointment system, not a failing on the part >> of those being appointed. "We need a woman's voice on the panel, this person >> is a woman, therefore we will appoint this person" is a perfect example of >> the out-group homogenity fallacy. So the mere presence of a token woman (as >> opposed to a suitably skilled woman) on the panel is itself an example of
sexism in practice, even if those making the appointment think they are
being inclusive by appointing her.
Mark
100% agree on every part of this. But the context of Roland's remarks appears to be that the presence of skilled male advocates makes quotas for women on supervisory boards not only unnecessary but counter productive. Crucially, equal representation must sometimes mean that the very best (male) candidate is passed over; but it should never mean that a woman appointed is insufficiently competent to carry out the role. This excluded middle fallacy, that not appointing the best candidate must mean appointing an unqualified candidate, is used world-wide to oppose equal opportunities rules and legislation.
On 01/12/2024 17:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0erhFn6nqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:41 on Sat, 30
Nov 2024, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
I think when anyone is "shrill and indignant" (and I've never seen
that in a court or in a workplace setting) it usually means that they
are not being listened to or are being disrespected.
No, it means they don't know how to debate without simply repeating the
same bogus argument over and over again.
Ah. Have you therefore been in the position of being a man trying to
debate with a shrill and indignant woman? I never have. It may be that I
am quite good at demonstrating in arguments that the other person is
being listened to and not disrespected. Or that you've been in
situations where the chairman of the meeting is incompetent and failing
to do his job properly.
On 12/1/24 21:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-01, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote:
On 12/1/24 19:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Yes, far too often the "champions of free speech" actually mean
"people should be forced to listen to things we agree with, and
prevented from saying things we disagree with".
The fact that some censorious authoritarian people are dishonest
shouldn't surprise anyone. However the existence of a few bad actors
doesn't invalidate the large number of normal people who do advocate for >>> more free speech.
I'm not sure there *are* any "normal people" advocating for "more free
speech".
You should get out more. I think most people would like more free
speech. The populist anti-woke politicians, are populist, because an
anti censorship theme is popular.
There are sometimes important fights to be had to prevent the
government from *reducing* free speech (e.g. when the Tories were
considering introducing state control of university debates).
The most serious of these fights was under Blair, Terrorism Act 2006,
Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Indeed we see journalists like Asa Winstanley harassed and Richard Medhurst arrested using the terrorism act.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 12:01:53 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Oh, and for the record, there is also a strong possibility that sexist >assumptions about what should go in the job description and sexist assumptions >about the relative value of various qualifications may mean that the >particular men favoured by the current people in power may objectively not be >the best candidates; in a patriarchal system affirmative action may in fact >get *better* candidates favoured. Because in practice female candidates are >indirectly discriminated against.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are >>>> still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
--
Max Demian
On 2 Dec 2024 14:10:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 12:01:53 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Oh, and for the record, there is also a strong possibility that sexist
assumptions about what should go in the job description and sexist assumptions
about the relative value of various qualifications may mean that the
particular men favoured by the current people in power may objectively not be
the best candidates; in a patriarchal system affirmative action may in fact >> get *better* candidates favoured. Because in practice female candidates are >> indirectly discriminated against.
Yes, that's very true. At least, I don't think it's necessarily sexism per se. It's just that a lot of job descriptions and role specifications tend to be aimed at getting "someone who's a direct replacement for the person whose departure created the vacancy", or, more simplisitically, "someone like the rest of us", without stopping to think whether the specification could benefit from being redrafted and a different set of abilities being prioritised. And it's even worse if it's exactly the same role specification that has been used unchanged for the last ten, twenty or fifty years.
Mark
Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a >>> somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best
person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved"
for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired
some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a >>>rather nice example of the result of this attitude. Perhaps you
think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women is
not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women.
That, as I am sure you realise, is severely question-begging.
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:PF+8coX9YJTnFAed@perry.uk...
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov >>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and
they were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Nothing. Nada
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately
suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ?
That as with Hugh Hefner, before you came along this was just a group
of anonymous women, but as soon as you, a man, came along they
were finally given a real identity as "Rolands Angels"
But not sufficient to get themselves a Wikipedia entry
unfortunately
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project >>proceeded "at pace".
A bit like the Air Transport Auxiliary then. Except they weren't called >"Cuurchill's Angels" of course.
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you
are actually a troll.
Indeed. The idea of Mr Grumpy actually lashing out on any sort of uniforms
is a bit of a stretch. Come to think of it.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is >>>almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but >>>>>only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this >>>>>particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many >>>>>others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up. >>>
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put
able-bodied persons in a better position to advocate, than random >>>>able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users
who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women
can advocate for women.
Play a lot of hopscotch yourself then did you ?
Take you dollies to school with you, to swap with the other boys ?
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:42:42 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
If you can't see the analogy between the GRA and Caligula appointing
his horse as consul, regardless of the wishes of the exising consuls,
then fair enough.
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
On 2024-12-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:42:42 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
If you can't see the analogy between the GRA and Caligula appointing
his horse as consul, regardless of the wishes of the exising consuls,
then fair enough.
It's certainly up there as a late but strong contender for "most obscenely offensive comment of the year".
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are >>>>> still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name those who are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In message <3375094083.d4f6da67@uninhabited.net>, at 10:02:31 on Mon, 2
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a
somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best
person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved"
for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired
some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a
rather nice example of the result of this attitude. Perhaps you
think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women is
not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women.
That, as I am sure you realise, is severely question-begging.
What question?
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair
that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please,
and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women >>>> might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual >>>> violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings >>>> and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her looks and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget seems able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman? Wouldn't that put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. She hasn't
yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't be too
careful.
Its very simple. We mainly base our behaviour on averages. Not on exceptions.
Otherwise we'd never get anything done. Same as most business and trade
is conducted on the basis that most people are honest
But this doesn't mean there might no be excaptions.
To say "we mainly base our behaviour on averages" means (doesn't it?) that prejudice,
conscious bias and unconscious bias are ways of protecting ourselves from possible
danger, and are therefore good and healthy instincts.
If a black man is walking behind you on a pavement after dark, assume that he intends
to rob you or stab you. That sort of thing.
In most educational institutions and workplaces, people are taught how to recognise
their unconscious bias and stop themselves from being discriminatory. So a fat
candidate should not be rejected because of an assumption that fat people are lazy.
Women who look dowdy and choose not to wear makeup should not be assumed to be out of
place, failing to make an effort with their appearance, maybe mentally ill.
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are >>>> still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
Provide *whom* with separate facilities? And, assuming that these separate facilities
are toilet doors marked with "Trans", would you insist that all trans people must
declare themselves to be trans in case they are dishonest enough to use the ordinary
facilities?
In message <vijuso$384k1$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:33:11 on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:PF+8coX9YJTnFAed@perry.uk...
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they were just the
tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Nothing. Nada
You need to hone your searching skills.
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately
suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ?
Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented ladies who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
That as with Hugh Hefner, before you came along this was just a group
of anonymous women, but as soon as you, a man, came along they
were finally given a real identity as "Rolands Angels"
Until I came along they weren't hired.
They say it was probably the best, most fun, job they ever had. And I'm still in touch
(maybe having lunch with one this Sunday).
But not sufficient to get themselves a Wikipedia entry
unfortunately
There's more to the Interwebs than Wikipedia.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project proceeded "at
pace".
A bit like the Air Transport Auxiliary then. Except they weren't called >>"Cuurchill's Angels" of course.
Yes, similar; and in WW2 the TV series had not yet been commissioned.
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are actually a
troll.
Indeed. The idea of Mr Grumpy actually lashing out on any sort of uniforms >>is a bit of a stretch. Come to think of it.
Uniforms? What on earth are you talking about.
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but >>>>>>only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this >>>>>>particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many >>>>>>others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is >>>>almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied persons in a
better position to advocate, than random able-bodied people off the street, or
even random wheelchair users who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women can advocate
for women.
Play a lot of hopscotch yourself then did you ?
Take you dollies to school with you, to swap with the other boys ?
Bizarre!
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:lr5rh8Fj5naU3@mid.individual.net...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair
that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please,
and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women >>>>> might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual >>>>> violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings >>>>> and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her looks and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget seems able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman? Wouldn't that put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. She hasn't
yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't be too
careful.
Its very simple. We mainly base our behaviour on averages. Not on exceptions.
Otherwise we'd never get anything done. Same as most business and trade
is conducted on the basis that most people are honest
But this doesn't mean there might no be excaptions.
To say "we mainly base our behaviour on averages" means (doesn't it?) that prejudice,
conscious bias and unconscious bias are ways of protecting ourselves from possible
danger, and are therefore good and healthy instincts.
If a black man is walking behind you on a pavement after dark, assume that he intends
to rob you or stab you. That sort of thing.
So a black man is more likely to rob you, or stab you on average is he ?
Do you have any statistics to support that claim ?
Or possibly you're reading the wrong newspapers.
Whereas on average overall, a man is more physically strong than a woman
While an average a man of a particular age is stronger than a woman of the same age
etc. etc. etc.
Spot the difference ?
In most educational institutions and workplaces, people are taught how to recognise
their unconscious bias and stop themselves from being discriminatory. So a fat
candidate should not be rejected because of an assumption that fat people are lazy.
But if they're say policemen, being fat, would be distinct disadvantage
when chasing thin criminals such as "ratboys" wouldn;t you say ?
Women who look dowdy and choose not to wear makeup should not be assumed to be out of
place, failing to make an effort with their appearance, maybe mentally ill.
But women who look dowdy could certainly be discriminated against for public facing roles. Or at least used to be. If you're afraid of flying, when boarding an
aircraft would you prefer to be meat by a happy smiling person dolled up to the nines/neatly turned out ah "Hello Mr Todal welcome on board" or some miserable
looking individual who looks as if they just fell out of bed - "Oh, hello"
An honest answer, if you please
Basically if large numbers of cis women either prominent individuals
or in groups declare themselves to be in favour of transwomen
having equal access to shared spaces and on committees etc.
and I were provided with irrefutable evidence of this, then I'm quite prepared to change my position.
On 02/12/2024 18:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr5rh8Fj5naU3@mid.individual.net...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or >>>>>>> congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair
that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you >>>>>>> make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away,
please,
and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I >>>>>>> look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women >>>>>> might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make >>>>> my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such >>>>>> matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically
stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual >>>>>> violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings >>>>>> and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her >>>>> looks and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget
seems able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it >>>>> means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our
suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman?
Wouldn't that put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. >>>>> She hasn't
yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't >>>>> be too
careful.
Its very simple. We mainly base our behaviour on averages. Not on exceptions.
Otherwise we'd never get anything done. Same as most business and trade >>>> is conducted on the basis that most people are honest
But this doesn't mean there might no be excaptions.
To say "we mainly base our behaviour on averages" means (doesn't it?) that >>> prejudice,
conscious bias and unconscious bias are ways of protecting ourselves from >>> possible
danger, and are therefore good and healthy instincts.
If a black man is walking behind you on a pavement after dark, assume that >>> he intends
to rob you or stab you. That sort of thing.
So a black man is more likely to rob you, or stab you on average is he ?
According to some people, yes. When you say "we" mainly base our
behaviour on averages, you make sweeping assumptions about whether
everyone has the same prejudices and assumptions.
Do you have any statistics to support that claim ?
Or possibly you're reading the wrong newspapers.
Whereas on average overall, a man is more physically strong than a woman
You miss the point that when you see a person who happens to be a trans woman, in a social situation and fully clothed, you have absolutely no
idea how physically strong that person is (hence my sarcastic remark
about lifting a heavy teapot) and how that corresponds with the
"average" strength of the average woman.
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are >>>>>> still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name those who >> are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years, the toilets are
unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person only who then can use the toilet, a
washbasin and towel and a sanitary towel receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such places. But the
toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do have a line of cubicles, urinals (if
the facility is for men) and washbasins. I don't think any woman would want to glimpse
a man using a urinal. But the notion that a trans woman in a female toilet would strip
off and have a washdown seems extremely far-fetched. And it would obviously be
inappropriate for a trans woman to use the men's toilets. So I think your question is,
"what's so difficult" about providing dedicated toilet facilities for trans people in
railway stations and pubs and hotels? A big and quite unnecessary investment of money
and maybe the need to move walls or repurpose cupboards. And then make a decision about
whether non-trans people can use the trans facilities if there is a queue outside the
other toilets.
On 02/12/2024 18:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr5rh8Fj5naU3@mid.individual.net...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair
that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you make me
feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away, please,
and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I look in
your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women >>>>>> might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual >>>>>> violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings >>>>>> and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her looks
and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget seems
able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman? Wouldn't that
put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. She hasn't
yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't be too
careful.
Its very simple. We mainly base our behaviour on averages. Not on exceptions.
Otherwise we'd never get anything done. Same as most business and trade >>>> is conducted on the basis that most people are honest
But this doesn't mean there might no be excaptions.
To say "we mainly base our behaviour on averages" means (doesn't it?) that prejudice,
conscious bias and unconscious bias are ways of protecting ourselves from possible
danger, and are therefore good and healthy instincts.
If a black man is walking behind you on a pavement after dark, assume that he intends
to rob you or stab you. That sort of thing.
So a black man is more likely to rob you, or stab you on average is he ?
According to some people, yes. When you say "we" mainly base our behaviour on averages,
you make sweeping assumptions about whether everyone has the same prejudices and
assumptions.
Do you have any statistics to support that claim ?
Or possibly you're reading the wrong newspapers.
Whereas on average overall, a man is more physically strong than a woman
You miss the point that when you see a person who happens to be a trans woman, in a
social situation and fully clothed, you have absolutely no idea how physically strong
that person is (hence my sarcastic remark about lifting a heavy teapot) and how that
corresponds with the "average" strength of the average woman.
While an average a man of a particular age is stronger than a woman of the >> same age
etc. etc. etc.
Spot the difference ?
As above.
In most educational institutions and workplaces, people are taught how to recognise
their unconscious bias and stop themselves from being discriminatory. So a fat
candidate should not be rejected because of an assumption that fat people are lazy.
But if they're say policemen, being fat, would be distinct disadvantage
when chasing thin criminals such as "ratboys" wouldn;t you say ?
I think you're assuming that all policemen are required to chase criminals rather than
work at desks or interview witnesses. You are probably not the best person to interview
candidates for any job, actually.
Women who look dowdy and choose not to wear makeup should not be assumed to be out ofBut women who look dowdy could certainly be discriminated against for public >> facing roles. Or at least used to be. If you're afraid of flying, when boarding an
place, failing to make an effort with their appearance, maybe mentally ill. >>
aircraft would you prefer to be meat by a happy smiling person dolled up to >> the nines/neatly turned out ah "Hello Mr Todal welcome on board" or some miserable
looking individual who looks as if they just fell out of bed - "Oh, hello" >>
An honest answer, if you please
You have failed to address your many unconscious biases, and ought now to find a
suitable training course. That's my honest opinion.
Basically if large numbers of cis women either prominent individuals
or in groups declare themselves to be in favour of transwomen
having equal access to shared spaces and on committees etc.
and I were provided with irrefutable evidence of this, then I'm quite
prepared to change my position.
Who are you? The Home Secretary? The manager of a pub, or what? What gives you the
right to demand a poll of women, followed by "irrefutable evidence" before you change
your mind about humiliating trans people?
In message <vijuso$384k1$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:33:11 on Mon, 2 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>news:PF+8coX9YJTnFAed@perry.uk...
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov >>>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>>news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and >>>>>they were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Nothing. Nada
You need to hone your searching skills.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:07:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 14:10:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 12:01:53 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Oh, and for the record, there is also a strong possibility that sexist
assumptions about what should go in the job description and sexist assumptions
about the relative value of various qualifications may mean that the
particular men favoured by the current people in power may objectively not be
the best candidates; in a patriarchal system affirmative action may in fact >>> get *better* candidates favoured. Because in practice female candidates are >>> indirectly discriminated against.
Yes, that's very true. At least, I don't think it's necessarily sexism per >> se. It's just that a lot of job descriptions and role specifications tend to >> be aimed at getting "someone who's a direct replacement for the person whose >> departure created the vacancy", or, more simplisitically, "someone like the >> rest of us", without stopping to think whether the specification could
benefit from being redrafted and a different set of abilities being
prioritised. And it's even worse if it's exactly the same role specification >> that has been used unchanged for the last ten, twenty or fifty years.
I'm not sure what you mean to imply by "sexism per se"; a decision is no less >sexist because the people making the decision are not aware that it is sexist.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:42:42 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3375094083.d4f6da67@uninhabited.net>, at 10:02:31 on Mon, 2
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
That, as I am sure you realise, is severely question-begging.Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a
somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best
person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved" >>>> for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired
some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a
rather nice example of the result of this attitude. Perhaps you
think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women is
not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women. >>>
What question?
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
Ok, let me spell it out. Trans women are only a "kind of woman"
because of the GRA (and to some extent previous legislation).
You imply that one cannot discriminate between trans women and women
born women because they are the same thing. They are only the same
thing because of the man(sic)-made GRA law which says they are.
Whether trans women are women for all purposes is precisely the
question being begged. Many think that they should not both be
equally women *for all purposes*, so therefore to believe that it is "unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women" is very
much a matter of opinion depending on what you think of the GRA as it
stands.
So not an axiomatic fact. Laws can be changed, and not all are sensible.
On 2 Dec 2024 18:34:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:07:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 14:10:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 12:01:53 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>
Oh, and for the record, there is also a strong possibility that sexist >>>> assumptions about what should go in the job description and sexist assumptions
about the relative value of various qualifications may mean that the
particular men favoured by the current people in power may objectively not be
the best candidates; in a patriarchal system affirmative action may in fact
get *better* candidates favoured. Because in practice female candidates are
indirectly discriminated against.
Yes, that's very true. At least, I don't think it's necessarily sexism per >>> se. It's just that a lot of job descriptions and role specifications tend to
be aimed at getting "someone who's a direct replacement for the person whose
departure created the vacancy", or, more simplisitically, "someone like the >>> rest of us", without stopping to think whether the specification could
benefit from being redrafted and a different set of abilities being
prioritised. And it's even worse if it's exactly the same role specification
that has been used unchanged for the last ten, twenty or fifty years.
I'm not sure what you mean to imply by "sexism per se"; a decision is no less
sexist because the people making the decision are not aware that it is sexist.
My point is that it's not, even unconsciously, a specific bias against
women. The people drawing up those specifications would, on the whole, be entirely content should there be a woman who met them. They simply don't realise that the specifications are unnecessarily excluding people who would actually be very good for the role.
Mark
On 2 Dec 2024 18:34:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:07:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 14:10:06 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 12:01:53 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>
Oh, and for the record, there is also a strong possibility that sexist >>>> assumptions about what should go in the job description and sexist assumptions
about the relative value of various qualifications may mean that the
particular men favoured by the current people in power may objectively not be
the best candidates; in a patriarchal system affirmative action may in fact
get *better* candidates favoured. Because in practice female candidates are
indirectly discriminated against.
Yes, that's very true. At least, I don't think it's necessarily sexism per >>> se. It's just that a lot of job descriptions and role specifications tend to
be aimed at getting "someone who's a direct replacement for the person whose
departure created the vacancy", or, more simplisitically, "someone like the >>> rest of us", without stopping to think whether the specification could
benefit from being redrafted and a different set of abilities being
prioritised. And it's even worse if it's exactly the same role specification
that has been used unchanged for the last ten, twenty or fifty years.
I'm not sure what you mean to imply by "sexism per se"; a decision is no less
sexist because the people making the decision are not aware that it is sexist.
My point is that it's not, even unconsciously, a specific bias against
women. The people drawing up those specifications would, on the whole, be entirely content should there be a woman who met them. They simply don't realise that the specifications are unnecessarily excluding people who would actually be very good for the role.
Mark
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:34:50 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vijuso$384k1$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:33:11 on Mon, 2 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:PF+8coX9YJTnFAed@perry.uk...
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov >>>>2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>>>news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and >>>>>>they were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Nothing. Nada
You need to hone your searching skills.
My Google-fu (and Bing-fu, and DuckDuckGo-fu) is usually pretty good, but I can't find any reference either. At least, not in relation to you. There's a character called Roland in a D&D type card game which throws up a lot of references to angels, and Roland's Angels also feature in a Deadpool fanfic publication. And there are some links which I suspect would not have shown
up if I had safe search turned on, and therefore chose not to click. But nothing which seemed relevant.
On 2024-12-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:42:42 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3375094083.d4f6da67@uninhabited.net>, at 10:02:31 on Mon, 2
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
That, as I am sure you realise, is severely question-begging.Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a
somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best
person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved" >>>>> for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired >>>>> some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a >>>>>> rather nice example of the result of this attitude. Perhaps you
think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women is >>>>>> not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women. >>>>
What question?
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
Ok, let me spell it out. Trans women are only a "kind of woman"
because of the GRA (and to some extent previous legislation).
Ok, let me spell it out too. That is false. Trans women are women
regardless of what the law says. They do not magically change from
one thing to another if they cross national borders with different
laws.
You imply that one cannot discriminate between trans women and women
born women because they are the same thing. They are only the same
thing because of the man(sic)-made GRA law which says they are.
No, that is false. They are the same thing because they are. Short
women and tall women are both women. Blue-eyed women and brown-eyed
women are both women. Cis women and trans women are both women.
Whether trans women are women for all purposes is precisely the
question being begged. Many think that they should not both be
equally women *for all purposes*, so therefore to believe that it is
"unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women" is very
much a matter of opinion depending on what you think of the GRA as it
stands.
The GRA has nothing to do with it.
So not an axiomatic fact. Laws can be changed, and not all are sensible.
Laws can be changed, but facts remain the same.
In message <lr0b1bFmmjdU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:25:31 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29 Nov >>> 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:Â Again, that wasn't what I said.
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in your >>>>>> opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into "womens' >>>>>> issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, than women
themselves.
 No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be better
at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most women?
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't need more >>>> than a few? Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt >>> the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token >>> woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it are
very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, because in
the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed by his
strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at all.
That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
A woman stands a better chance of knowing something, from her friends'
experiences, if not her own.
And why not men, from their female friends.
On 30/11/2024 13:29, kat wrote:
On 30/11/2024 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 Nov 2024 at 11:00:01 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 29/11/2024 22:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 20:37:20 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 19:53:00 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-11-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Nov 2024 at 18:06:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
If it was just a matter of men wearing women's dresses, there wouldn't
be a problem (so long as they didn't mind people poking fun at their
dress sense). But, you must realise, there's a whole lot more to the
"trans" issue.
Indeed, but they don't all want to become anatomically not-male. >>>>>>>>>> Unsurprisingly, as such operations are very painful and quite >>>>>>>>>> risky. And there is a tiny, but disproportionately influential, >>>>>>>>>> group of men who acquire gender recognition certificates for the >>>>>>>>>> purpose of obtaining access to women in order to assault them, >>>>>>>>>> including in women's prisons.
What on earth are you talking about?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420
As far as I'm aware Isla Bryson doesn't have a gender recognition >>>>>>> certificate. And there is no way a convicted rapist can be described >>>>>>> as "influential", let alone "disproportionately influential". And gender
recognition certificates are not a "get into [women's] jail free" card >>>>>>> anyway.
Highly influential over the sentiments of many women horrified by his (and
Tiffany on the same page) behaviour and placement.
There was a short period where a combination of the GRA and Scottish >>>>>> government policy appeared to mean, to the prison authorities at
least, that the prison authorities were obliged to put any person who >>>>>> self-identified as a woman in a women's prison. This period may not >>>>>> have lasted long, but it was long enough to frighten a lot of people, >>>>>> so the damage was done. Especially as they (obviously) are going to >>>>>> continue to put some trans women in women's prisons.
This is not the fault of trans women in general, but it does show the >>>>>> absurdities that can result if the principle of granting any aspirant woman
her wishes whatever they are is taken as literally as the Scottish >>>>>> government appeared to want to take it.
So I ask again: what on earth are you talking about?
Is it yet clear?
Well, yes. It's clear that when you said there is a "group of men who >>>>> acquire gender recognition certificates for the purpose of obtaining >>>>> access to women in order to assault them" you weren't aware of any such >>>>> men, let alone a group of them, and when you said they were
"disproportionately influential" you meant myths about these imaginary >>>>> bogeymen were disproportionately influential.
The notion that there are predatory men who describe themselves as trans >>>> women and prey upon vulnerable women is, surely, sufficiently popular in >>>> the Press that campaigners for women's rights tend to focus
disproportionatly on this largely mythical problem. Rowling and
Forstater and Duffield portray women as extremely vulnerable people who >>>> are easy prey and need protection from all trans women.
I don't believe that a trans woman in a prison, who has a history of
sexual offending, cannot be supervised and secluded from other
prisoners. And no doubt some women in a prison prey upon other weaker
women for sexual favours anyway.
The real problem is men, biological men who identify as male and
sexually assault women, spike their drinks, commit acts of domestic
violence, stalk them when they have been rejected.
Demonising trans women is very much in the realm of witch-hunting.
Some may demonise trans women. OTOH, some may accept that trans women are >>> statistically less likely to molest them than other men. But they may still >>> not want people with normal male bodies to be around them in certain
situations where they can reasonably expect to be in the company only of >>> people born female. While trans women may be statistically less likely to >>> assault them that does not mean none of them ever do. The exact situation, >>> whether it is individual or group rape counselling, public toilets or communal
changing rooms, is a matter for debate. And not only fear of rape, but simple
discomfort at seeing and being seen by people with male bodies may be a
concern. We are generally, men and women, a somewhat prudish society.
There aspects of being a woman that trans women do not experience. They maybe
understanding and sympathetic, but women, and particularly the younger ones, >> might prefer not to have male bodied people around at such times.
That some might not care doesn't change that for the others.
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or congenital conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess
facial hair that they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a
deep voice.
Ok, suppose I grant you that any man who expresses the intention to
"live as a woman" thereby becomes a woman.
Under the GRA he does not have to have, or even intend to have, any
kind of hormone treatment or gender reasignment surgery. But, as a
man, it costs me little or nothing to grant him status as a woman, so
fair enough.
I won't deal with the sincerity of his gender change, except to note
that humans are complex animals and their sincerity is neither binary
nor constant, more a continuum that varies from time to time. But lets
assume they are sincere in their desire to be a woman, and there is no ulterior motive.
There is no very exclusive biological definition of a women except by
what she is not, so the trans woman has some scope to be a woman,
though clearly not in elite sports where transwomen could otherwise
replace the born women overnight. But that is an aside.
However, many of the current trans women are actually more or less
fertile, more or less potent males biologically speaking.
So my position would be that we should by all means grant these people
to "be" women. But they should also *keep* the obligation of men
(which they are biologically)
not to intrude on female space,
and not to deliberately or inadvertently intimidate other women.
So, even if patriarchal society kindly grants them the right to be
women, they must, at least until certain conditions are met[1], accept
the obligations and (very limited) disadvantages of having male
bodies.
On 2 Dec 2024 at 21:47:22 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 02/12/2024 18:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr5rh8Fj5naU3@mid.individual.net...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr0k5dFo7ivU1@mid.individual.net...
There are some women who resemble men, because of hormonal problems or >>>>>>>> congenital
conditions. Women who are bald or virtually bald, maybe with excess facial hair
that
they do not trim. Women who are flat chested. Women who have a deep voice.
So, are they unwelcome in women-only spaces? "Sorry, Bridget, but you >>>>>>>> make me feel
uncomfortable. It's just because of the way you look. Could you go away,
please,
and
find somewhere for people like you? Or, no offence intended, but can I >>>>>>>> look in your
pants to see whether you have a proper vulva?"
I'm assuming you're a man. And you're now attempting to guess how women >>>>>>> might feel in a particular situation.
No, I think you have wholly missed my point, maybe because I didn't make >>>>>> my point
clearly enough.
At a wild guess* I would imagine that women's feelings on all such >>>>>>> matters will be
somewhat influenced by the incontrovertible fact, that men are physically
stronger
than women. Which is what enables all violence against women, and sexual
violence against women as well. (Yes there are the odd 7 stone weaklings
and wimps around but they're very much a minority)
So when Bridget joins the women-only book club, she will be judged on her
looks and,
apparently, on whether she seems physically stronger than average. Bridget
seems able
to lift a full teapot with relative ease. That's suspicious. Maybe it >>>>>> means she is
trans. Maybe that flat chest and the deep voice should add to our
suspicions. How
should we challenge her? Do we simply accept her as a fellow woman? >>>>>> Wouldn't that put
us all at risk? She seems to be interested in the same books as we read. >>>>>> She hasn't
yet
said anything that reveals her to be a male sexual predator. But we can't
be too
careful.
Its very simple. We mainly base our behaviour on averages. Not on exceptions.
Otherwise we'd never get anything done. Same as most business and trade >>>>> is conducted on the basis that most people are honest
But this doesn't mean there might no be excaptions.
To say "we mainly base our behaviour on averages" means (doesn't it?) that >>>> prejudice,
conscious bias and unconscious bias are ways of protecting ourselves from >>>> possible
danger, and are therefore good and healthy instincts.
If a black man is walking behind you on a pavement after dark, assume that >>>> he intends
to rob you or stab you. That sort of thing.
So a black man is more likely to rob you, or stab you on average is he ?
According to some people, yes. When you say "we" mainly base our
behaviour on averages, you make sweeping assumptions about whether
everyone has the same prejudices and assumptions.
Do you have any statistics to support that claim ?
Or possibly you're reading the wrong newspapers.
Whereas on average overall, a man is more physically strong than a woman
You miss the point that when you see a person who happens to be a trans
woman, in a social situation and fully clothed, you have absolutely no
idea how physically strong that person is (hence my sarcastic remark
about lifting a heavy teapot) and how that corresponds with the
"average" strength of the average woman.
But many women say they can judge that and find it intimidating.
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases are >>>>>> still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual "physical
threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate
represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name those who >> are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years, the toilets are unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person only who then can use the toilet, a washbasin and towel and a sanitary towel receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such places. But the
toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do have a line of cubicles, urinals
(if the facility is for men) and washbasins. I don't think any woman would want
to glimpse a man using a urinal. But the notion that a trans woman in a female
toilet would strip off and have a washdown seems extremely far-fetched. And it
would obviously be inappropriate for a trans woman to use the men's toilets.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 11:01:51 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
My point is that it's not, even unconsciously, a specific bias against
women. The people drawing up those specifications would, on the whole, be
entirely content should there be a woman who met them. They simply don't
realise that the specifications are unnecessarily excluding people who would >> actually be very good for the role.
You have just defined indirect discrimination! Like, for instance, chest >expansion minima for fireman, which used to exist. While it is true they >excluded from the job some weak men and squirrels, the overwhelming effect was >discrimination against women. Because virtually no women, even very fit and >athletic ones, met the specifications. Regardless of motives and who else >might be excluded, this was sexism; not sexism as a pejorative moral >judgement, but sexism as unnecessary exclusion of women. Because while chest >expansion limits excluded a few unfit men, they also excluded virtually all >women fit or otherwise. A bias against women does not have to be "specific" to >be sexism (a silly word perhaps but quicker than "unfair discrimination >against women"), it just has be putting women at a significant disadvantage.
On 2024-12-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Ok, suppose I grant you that any man who expresses the intention to
"live as a woman" thereby becomes a woman.
No, they were always a woman.
Under the GRA he does not have to have, or even intend to have, any
kind of hormone treatment or gender reasignment surgery. But, as a
man, it costs me little or nothing to grant him status as a woman, so
fair enough.
I'm not sure I follow that. Are you saying that trans men should not be recognised as men, because it would somehow be expensive?
I won't deal with the sincerity of his gender change, except to note
that humans are complex animals and their sincerity is neither binary
nor constant, more a continuum that varies from time to time. But lets
assume they are sincere in their desire to be a woman, and there is no
ulterior motive.
How very generous of you.
There is no very exclusive biological definition of a women except by
what she is not, so the trans woman has some scope to be a woman,
though clearly not in elite sports where transwomen could otherwise
replace the born women overnight. But that is an aside.
That "clearly not" is not in the slightest bit clear.
However, many of the current trans women are actually more or less
fertile, more or less potent males biologically speaking.
So my position would be that we should by all means grant these people
to "be" women. But they should also *keep* the obligation of men
(which they are biologically)
You're contradicting your earlier statement that "there is no very
exclusive biological definition of a [woman]".
not to intrude on female space,
They can't "intrude" on it, it's their space too.
and not to deliberately or inadvertently intimidate other women.
That is an obligation on all people, at least to whatever extent "inadvertently" is under a person's control.
So, even if patriarchal society kindly grants them the right to be
women, they must, at least until certain conditions are met[1], accept
the obligations and (very limited) disadvantages of having male
bodies.
But there's no definition of "male bodies". And even if you think
there is, it's not likely to be something that can be checked without instituting a full-on police state with genital and/or chromosome police around every corner. And having a body that is perceived as male is
a very great disadvantage indeed - at least in today's society - if one
is not a man and does not wish to be treated as one.
You may find the whole thing easier to understand if you realise that
your suggestions are not protecting women by imposing restrictions on
men, they are attacking women by imposing restrictions on women. And
even if you don't accept those definitions, the simple fact is that
any restrictions which are supposed to be imposed on trans women will inevitably in practice mostly cause harm to ("unconventional" looking)
cis women, because there are many, many more cis women than trans women.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 10:23:53 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:42:42 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3375094083.d4f6da67@uninhabited.net>, at 10:02:31 on Mon, 2 >>>> Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
That, as I am sure you realise, is severely question-begging.Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a
somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best >>>>>> person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved" >>>>>> for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired >>>>>> some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a >>>>>>> rather nice example of the result of this attitude. Perhaps you >>>>>>> think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women is >>>>>>> not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women. >>>>>
What question?
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
Ok, let me spell it out. Trans women are only a "kind of woman"
because of the GRA (and to some extent previous legislation).
Ok, let me spell it out too. That is false. Trans women are women
regardless of what the law says. They do not magically change from
one thing to another if they cross national borders with different
laws.
You imply that one cannot discriminate between trans women and women
born women because they are the same thing. They are only the same
thing because of the man(sic)-made GRA law which says they are.
No, that is false. They are the same thing because they are. Short
women and tall women are both women. Blue-eyed women and brown-eyed
women are both women. Cis women and trans women are both women.
Whether trans women are women for all purposes is precisely the
question being begged. Many think that they should not both be
equally women *for all purposes*, so therefore to believe that it is
"unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women" is very
much a matter of opinion depending on what you think of the GRA as it
stands.
The GRA has nothing to do with it.
So not an axiomatic fact. Laws can be changed, and not all are sensible.
Laws can be changed, but facts remain the same.
Ok, suppose I grant you that any man who expresses the intention to "live as a
woman" thereby becomes a woman. Under the GRA he does not have to have, or even intend to have, any kind of hormone treatment or gender reasignment surgery. But, as a man, it costs me little or nothing to grant him status as a
woman, so fair enough.
I won't deal with the sincerity of his gender change, except to note that humans are complex animals and their sincerity is neither binary nor constant,
more a continuum that varies from time to time. But lets assume they are sincere in their desire to be a woman, and there is no ulterior motive.
There is no very exclusive biological definition of a women except by what she
is not, so the trans woman has some scope to be a woman, though clearly not in
elite sports where transwomen could otherwise replace the born women overnight. But that is an aside.
However, many of the current trans women are actually more or less fertile, more or less potent males biologically speaking.
So my position would be that we should by all means grant these people to "be"
women. But they should also *keep* the obligation of men (which they are biologically) not to intrude on female space, and not to deliberately or inadvertently intimidate other women.
So, even if patriarchal society kindly grants them the right to be women, they
must, at least until certain conditions are met[1], accept the obligations and
(very limited) disadvantages of having male bodies.
[1] it is not up to to specify the conditions in detail
On 01/12/2024 17:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0b1bFmmjdU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:25:31 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29 Nov >>>> 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:Again, that wasn't what I said.
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in your >>>>>>> opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into "womens' >>>>>>> issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, than women
themselves.
No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be better
at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most women?
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't need moreOverall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt >>>> the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token >>>> woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it are
than a few?
very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, because in
the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed by his
strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at all.
That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
Wow. So men know all about everything.
A woman stands a better chance of knowing something, from her friends'
experiences, if not her own.
And why not men, from their female friends.
Possibly because, on the whole, women won't bore you men with the little things
that happen, little things which add up to a lifetime of what it is actually like to life the life of a woman. But we do chat about it amongst ourselves, share those experiences.
On 02/12/2024 21:34, The Todal wrote:
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most
cases are
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual
"physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise.
Hence the need for a witchfinder general.
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly
separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name
those who
are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years, the
toilets are unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person only
who then can use the toilet, a washbasin and towel and a sanitary
towel receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such
places. But the toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do have a
line of cubicles, urinals (if the facility is for men) and washbasins.
I don't think any woman would want to glimpse a man using a urinal.
But the notion that a trans woman in a female toilet would strip off
and have a washdown seems extremely far-fetched. And it would
obviously be inappropriate for a trans woman to use the men's toilets.
Why? many are still "intact" which gives them the benefit of being able
to stand to pee. Women also wear trousers, so a trans woman might find
it easier to use a urinal!
On 3 Dec 2024 11:19:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 11:01:51 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
My point is that it's not, even unconsciously, a specific bias against
women. The people drawing up those specifications would, on the whole, be >>> entirely content should there be a woman who met them. They simply don't >>> realise that the specifications are unnecessarily excluding people who would
actually be very good for the role.
You have just defined indirect discrimination! Like, for instance, chest
expansion minima for fireman, which used to exist. While it is true they
excluded from the job some weak men and squirrels, the overwhelming effect was
discrimination against women. Because virtually no women, even very fit and >> athletic ones, met the specifications. Regardless of motives and who else
might be excluded, this was sexism; not sexism as a pejorative moral
judgement, but sexism as unnecessary exclusion of women. Because while chest >> expansion limits excluded a few unfit men, they also excluded virtually all >> women fit or otherwise. A bias against women does not have to be "specific" to
be sexism (a silly word perhaps but quicker than "unfair discrimination
against women"), it just has be putting women at a significant disadvantage.
I think, to be honest, we're just using words differently here. To me, "sexism" means a specific bias, either conscious or unconscious, against women - as opposed to a specific bias, either conscious or unconscious, against any other demographic group. My illustration of a role specification being written to get a replacement for the person vacating the role can,
just as easily, (and, often, does) also unnecessarily exclude people of a different racial, religious, national or class background.
In other words, it's not a bias against women per se, it's just a bias against anyone who isn't sufficiently similar to the person that the specification writers had in mind when they drafted it. In itself, that's neither sexist, nor racist, nor classist, nor any other single group -ist.
To use the technical term, it's a form of affinity bias, which is a bias againast anyone who, for any reason, is not like us (for any value of "us").
I entirely agree that this can amount to indirect discrimination. And the example you gave is a very good one. But, again, the issue there was not
that the restrictions were written so as to exclude women. It's just that they didn't realise that the criteria they were using weren't actually all that good at identifying suitable candidates to begin with. A more holistic, and sex-appropriate, fitness test is a much better way of identifying suitable candidates, both male and female, for the fire service.
Mark
You don't need to define men, just male qualities - body proportions 99+%, >erectile penis 99.9% and ability to impregnate females 100% male only >qualities.
And if you think all trans women have "always" been psychologically women I >think you are simply mistaken.
On 3 Dec 2024 12:56:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You don't need to define men, just male qualities - body proportions 99+%, >> erectile penis 99.9% and ability to impregnate females 100% male only
qualities.
Identifying the sex of a mammal is, pretty much, settled science. A male mammal is one which has the physical structure associated with sperm production, a female mammal is one with the physical structure associated with egg production. Even if those organs are partly or wholly
non-functional for any reason, the presence of the organs themselves is definitive in the vast majority of cases. The only exception is extreme intersex cases where the mammal's physical structure is genuinely ambiguous. But that's very, very rare.
And if you think all trans women have "always" been psychologically women I >> think you are simply mistaken.
I'm not sure that Jon thinks that being trans is a matter of psychology. My understanding of the "always trans" position is that the thing which defines a person's gender is inherent, just as the thing which defines a person's sexuality is inherent, rather than acquired. Some people may subsequently realise that they are trans, in much the same way that some people, as they grow up, realise they are gay. It's a normal part of the growth process through which a child, teenager or young adult discovers who they are.
Mark
On 3 Dec 2024 12:56:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
And if you think all trans women have "always" been psychologically women I >>think you are simply mistaken.
I'm not sure that Jon thinks that being trans is a matter of psychology. My understanding of the "always trans" position is that the thing which defines a person's gender is inherent, just as the thing which defines a person's sexuality is inherent, rather than acquired. Some people may subsequently realise that they are trans, in much the same way that some people, as they grow up, realise they are gay. It's a normal part of the growth process through which a child, teenager or young adult discovers who they are.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 14:41:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 12:56:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You don't need to define men, just male qualities - body proportions 99+%, >>> erectile penis 99.9% and ability to impregnate females 100% male only
qualities.
Identifying the sex of a mammal is, pretty much, settled science. A male
mammal is one which has the physical structure associated with sperm
production, a female mammal is one with the physical structure associated
with egg production. Even if those organs are partly or wholly
non-functional for any reason, the presence of the organs themselves is
definitive in the vast majority of cases. The only exception is extreme
intersex cases where the mammal's physical structure is genuinely ambiguous. >> But that's very, very rare.
And if you think all trans women have "always" been psychologically women I >>> think you are simply mistaken.
I'm not sure that Jon thinks that being trans is a matter of psychology. My >> understanding of the "always trans" position is that the thing which defines >> a person's gender is inherent, just as the thing which defines a person's
sexuality is inherent, rather than acquired. Some people may subsequently
realise that they are trans, in much the same way that some people, as they >> grow up, realise they are gay. It's a normal part of the growth process
through which a child, teenager or young adult discovers who they are.
(Well even if gender roles where inherent they would be mediated through the brain and all the systemic influences on the brain and that is psychology - but again this is semantics.Psychology can be inherent or acquired.)
I decline to believe that gender is inherent, because I believe (with inconclusive evidence from anthropology and primate behavioural studies) that gender roles are a social construct.
I decline to believe that gender is inherent, because I believe (with >inconclusive evidence from anthropology and primate behavioural studies) that >gender roles are a social construct. I do not believe male and female humans >need to have different gender roles, and if they don't then "inherent" male or >female gender roles are meaningless. I can believe that people are born liking >one of our current gender roles more than the other, thus preferring either >what we call a female or what we call a male role more, but I would prefer to >unify gender roles rather than people needing to change gender role from the >one usual to their anatomy and physiology in our society. I believe being >permissive about how people live their lives is more appropriate than having >to swap male or female labels to live how they want to.
Roland may not realise - the Internet is forgetting things. There are (non-Usenet) discussions from long ago that I took part in that used
to be discoverable and now appear to have vanished without trace. And
I do vaguely remember "Roland's Angels" producing at least a few results
in the past, but as you say it absolutely doesn't any more.
On 3 Dec 2024 16:25:03 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I decline to believe that gender is inherent, because I believe (with
inconclusive evidence from anthropology and primate behavioural studies) that
gender roles are a social construct. I do not believe male and female humans
need to have different gender roles, and if they don't then "inherent" male or
female gender roles are meaningless. I can believe that people are born liking
one of our current gender roles more than the other, thus preferring either >> what we call a female or what we call a male role more, but I would prefer to
unify gender roles rather than people needing to change gender role from the >> one usual to their anatomy and physiology in our society. I believe being
permissive about how people live their lives is more appropriate than having >> to swap male or female labels to live how they want to.
Well, male and female humans clearly have different roles in sexual reproduction. That's inherent in being not just a mammal but any animal
which reproduces sexually and has distinct sexes rather than being a hermaphrodite. And I'm not convinced that all gender role differences are completely orthoganal to that. I think it's fairly obvious that at least
some of them are, even if not intrinsically linked to the sex differences, clearly influenced by the sex differences. So I don't think that gender
roles are entirely a social construct, although many of them probably are. But even if most of them are, I don't think that necessarily negates the concept of an inherent tendency towards one or other set of roles.
But, I'm just thinking out loud here. I find the idea of an inherent gender identity entirely plausible. It would be consistent with the concept of an inherent sexuality identity, which we are, on the whole, now generally
agreed on. But, on the other hand, the idea of gender identity as being a social construct is also plausible. I'm not aware of any body of research which points strongly one way or the other (and, in this context, the kind
of research we need is a long-term cohort study with a significant sample size), but I am aware of lots of conflicting opinions!
More to the point, I'm not sure that any of that has any direct bearing on the legal questions relating to how we define men and women and their respective rights. If you accept that sex and gender are different (which
you have to, unless you want to completely dismiss the notion that being trans even exists at all other than as a fantasy[1]) then you are going to have to consider the question of which is more important perspective, and whether the context makes a difference to which is more important. And those are the questions being addressed by the court case referred to at the top
of this thread.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 18:11:50 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
More to the point, I'm not sure that any of that has any direct bearing on >> the legal questions relating to how we define men and women and their
respective rights. If you accept that sex and gender are different (which
you have to, unless you want to completely dismiss the notion that being
trans even exists at all other than as a fantasy[1]) then you are going to >> have to consider the question of which is more important perspective, and
whether the context makes a difference to which is more important.
And thoseare the questions being addressed by the court case referred
to at the top of this thread.
With respect, I think the court case is merely about what Parliament
meant by "a woman" in a particular section of the Equality Act. The
"what is a woman?" question will require further legislation either way!
On 3 Dec 2024 at 14:41:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 12:56:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You don't need to define men, just male qualities - body proportions 99+%, >>> erectile penis 99.9% and ability to impregnate females 100% male only
qualities.
Identifying the sex of a mammal is, pretty much, settled science. A male
mammal is one which has the physical structure associated with sperm
production, a female mammal is one with the physical structure associated
with egg production. Even if those organs are partly or wholly
non-functional for any reason, the presence of the organs themselves is
definitive in the vast majority of cases. The only exception is extreme
intersex cases where the mammal's physical structure is genuinely ambiguous. >> But that's very, very rare.
And if you think all trans women have "always" been psychologically women I >>> think you are simply mistaken.
I'm not sure that Jon thinks that being trans is a matter of psychology. My >> understanding of the "always trans" position is that the thing which defines >> a person's gender is inherent, just as the thing which defines a person's
sexuality is inherent, rather than acquired. Some people may subsequently
realise that they are trans, in much the same way that some people, as they >> grow up, realise they are gay. It's a normal part of the growth process
through which a child, teenager or young adult discovers who they are.
Mark
(Well even if gender roles where inherent they would be mediated through the brain and all the systemic influences on the brain and that is psychology - but again this is semantics.Psychology can be inherent or acquired.)
I decline to believe that gender is inherent, because I believe (with inconclusive evidence from anthropology and primate behavioural studies) that gender roles are a social construct. I do not believe male and female humans need to have different gender roles, and if they don't then "inherent" male or
female gender roles are meaningless. I can believe that people are born liking
one of our current gender roles more than the other, thus preferring either what we call a female or what we call a male role more, but I would prefer to unify gender roles rather than people needing to change gender role from the one usual to their anatomy and physiology in our society. I believe being permissive about how people live their lives is more appropriate than having to swap male or female labels to live how they want to.
On 03/12/2024 16:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 14:41:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 12:56:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You don't need to define men, just male qualities - body proportions 99+%, >>>> erectile penis 99.9% and ability to impregnate females 100% male only
qualities.
Identifying the sex of a mammal is, pretty much, settled science. A male >>> mammal is one which has the physical structure associated with sperm
production, a female mammal is one with the physical structure associated >>> with egg production. Even if those organs are partly or wholly
non-functional for any reason, the presence of the organs themselves is
definitive in the vast majority of cases. The only exception is extreme
intersex cases where the mammal's physical structure is genuinely ambiguous.
But that's very, very rare.
And if you think all trans women have "always" been psychologically women I
think you are simply mistaken.
I'm not sure that Jon thinks that being trans is a matter of psychology. My >>> understanding of the "always trans" position is that the thing which defines
a person's gender is inherent, just as the thing which defines a person's >>> sexuality is inherent, rather than acquired. Some people may subsequently >>> realise that they are trans, in much the same way that some people, as they >>> grow up, realise they are gay. It's a normal part of the growth process
through which a child, teenager or young adult discovers who they are.
Mark
(Well even if gender roles where inherent they would be mediated through the >> brain and all the systemic influences on the brain and that is psychology - >> but again this is semantics.Psychology can be inherent or acquired.)
I decline to believe that gender is inherent, because I believe (with
inconclusive evidence from anthropology and primate behavioural studies) that
gender roles are a social construct. I do not believe male and female humans
need to have different gender roles, and if they don't then "inherent" male or
female gender roles are meaningless. I can believe that people are born liking
one of our current gender roles more than the other, thus preferring either >> what we call a female or what we call a male role more, but I would prefer to
unify gender roles rather than people needing to change gender role from the >> one usual to their anatomy and physiology in our society. I believe being
permissive about how people live their lives is more appropriate than having >> to swap male or female labels to live how they want to.
I agree with you, but this is heresy to many people. I wish people felt
free to dress as they like, adopt the behaviour of male or female as
they wish, without deciding to pay surgeons to mutilate their bodies.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 21:05:26 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I agree with you, but this is heresy to many people. I wish people felt
free to dress as they like, adopt the behaviour of male or female as
they wish, without deciding to pay surgeons to mutilate their bodies.
Just for the record, the Gender Recognition Act gives them *all* the privileges of the opposite sex without having to even pay lip service to an intention to mutilate their body. They are allowed to retain typical fully-functioning male body while having all the rights and privileges of a woman (or vice-versa). They only have to have the intention to live as a member of their new sex, whatever that may mean.
But I certainly applaud your sentiment that we should be allowed to
live as we wish without having mutilating operations, and preferably
without having to declare allegiance to a different sex to the one we
were born to.
On 2024-12-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 21:05:26 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I agree with you, but this is heresy to many people. I wish people felt
free to dress as they like, adopt the behaviour of male or female as
they wish, without deciding to pay surgeons to mutilate their bodies.
Just for the record, the Gender Recognition Act gives them *all* the
privileges of the opposite sex without having to even pay lip service to an >> intention to mutilate their body. They are allowed to retain typical
fully-functioning male body while having all the rights and privileges of a >> woman (or vice-versa). They only have to have the intention to live as a
member of their new sex, whatever that may mean.
But I certainly applaud your sentiment that we should be allowed to
live as we wish without having mutilating operations, and preferably
without having to declare allegiance to a different sex to the one we
were born to.
Do you really think your opinion on this topic is objective and rational
when you are throwing around words like "mutilation", and demanding that people should be forced into surgery?
On 3 Dec 2024 at 22:27:08 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 21:05:26 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> I agree with you, but this is heresy to many people. I wish people felt >>>> free to dress as they like, adopt the behaviour of male or female as
they wish, without deciding to pay surgeons to mutilate their bodies.
Just for the record, the Gender Recognition Act gives them *all* the
privileges of the opposite sex without having to even pay lip
service to an intention to mutilate their body. They are allowed to
retain typical fully-functioning male body while having all the
rights and privileges of a woman (or vice-versa). They only have to
have the intention to live as a member of their new sex, whatever
that may mean.
But I certainly applaud your sentiment that we should be allowed to
live as we wish without having mutilating operations, and preferably
without having to declare allegiance to a different sex to the one we
were born to.
Do you really think your opinion on this topic is objective and rational
when you are throwing around words like "mutilation", and demanding that
people should be forced into surgery?
I'm not demanding anything of the sort! 50 years ago the most visible
form of gender change was apparently body dysmorphia and a desire for physical body change. I am just pointing out, for those who haven't
caught up, that now gender dysphoria rather then primarily body
dysmorphia seems to be far more common. And, sorry, mutilation was
intended to be value neutral, but I do see that it might be offensive
to those with body dysmorphia.
It is hard, though, to use any other word for those unfortunate people
who demand the amputation of a limb because of body dysmorphia; but I
will try to do better in future.
It is common ground I hope that most trans women and trans men have a dissatisfaction with the gender they are brought up in more than or
instead of dissatisfaction with their bodies. I respect that, but I
simply disagree that they can always have *all* they want if it
impinges on the rights of another oppressed group.
On 2024-12-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 22:27:08 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-12-03, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 21:05:26 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>> I agree with you, but this is heresy to many people. I wish people felt >>>>> free to dress as they like, adopt the behaviour of male or female as >>>>> they wish, without deciding to pay surgeons to mutilate their bodies. >>>>
Just for the record, the Gender Recognition Act gives them *all* the
privileges of the opposite sex without having to even pay lip
service to an intention to mutilate their body. They are allowed to
retain typical fully-functioning male body while having all the
rights and privileges of a woman (or vice-versa). They only have to
have the intention to live as a member of their new sex, whatever
that may mean.
But I certainly applaud your sentiment that we should be allowed to
live as we wish without having mutilating operations, and preferably
without having to declare allegiance to a different sex to the one we
were born to.
Do you really think your opinion on this topic is objective and rational >>> when you are throwing around words like "mutilation", and demanding that >>> people should be forced into surgery?
I'm not demanding anything of the sort! 50 years ago the most visible
form of gender change was apparently body dysmorphia and a desire for
physical body change. I am just pointing out, for those who haven't
caught up, that now gender dysphoria rather then primarily body
dysmorphia seems to be far more common. And, sorry, mutilation was
intended to be value neutral, but I do see that it might be offensive
to those with body dysmorphia.
Seriously? "mutilate, v. inflict violent or disfiguring injury on."
It's hard to think of a *less* "value neutral" word. It would be
offensive to anyone.
It is hard, though, to use any other word for those unfortunate people
who demand the amputation of a limb because of body dysmorphia; but I
will try to do better in future.
Body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria are different things.
It is common ground I hope that most trans women and trans men have a
dissatisfaction with the gender they are brought up in more than or
instead of dissatisfaction with their bodies. I respect that, but I
simply disagree that they can always have *all* they want if it
impinges on the rights of another oppressed group.
"All" they want is generally speaking "the right to exist in society".
If they are denied, for example, the right to use toilets other than
those in their own home, then they very greatly excluded from society,
and it is a clear injustice.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 12:30:00 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 01/12/2024 17:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0b1bFmmjdU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:25:31 on Sat, 30 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, 29 Nov >>>>> 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:Again, that wasn't what I said.
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, in your >>>>>>>> opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into "womens' >>>>>>>> issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, than women
themselves.
No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could be better
at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than most women?
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't need moreOverall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt
than a few?
the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token >>>>> woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it are
very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, because in
the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed by his
strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at all. >>>
Wow. So men know all about everything.
Surely you were brought up, like the rest of us, to believe that men know everything??
A woman stands a better chance of knowing something, from her friends' >>>> experiences, if not her own.
And why not men, from their female friends.
Possibly because, on the whole, women won't bore you men with the little things
that happen, little things which add up to a lifetime of what it is actually >> like to life the life of a woman. But we do chat about it amongst ourselves, >> share those experiences.
I think Roland destroys his own case by ridiculously over-stating it.
I decline to believe that gender is inherent, because I believe (with inconclusive evidence from anthropology and primate behavioural studies) that gender roles are a social construct. I do not believe male and female humans need to have different gender roles, and if they don't then "inherent" male or
female gender roles are meaningless. I can believe that people are born liking
one of our current gender roles more than the other, thus preferring either what we call a female or what we call a male role more, but I would prefer to unify gender roles rather than people needing to change gender role from the one usual to their anatomy and physiology in our society. I believe being permissive about how people live their lives is more appropriate than having to swap male or female labels to live how they want to.
On 3 Dec 2024 at 10:23:53 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Dec 2024 at 15:42:42 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <3375094083.d4f6da67@uninhabited.net>, at 10:02:31 on Mon, 2 >>>> Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
That, as I am sure you realise, is severely question-begging.Godwin, is that you?
There is a slight tendency to regard equality of opportunity for women as a
somewhat frivolous optional extra.
What's frivolous is a numbers game, rather than appointing the best >>>>>> person. In the USA for example, much of the civil service is "reserved" >>>>>> for ex-military, even when there are much more talented civilians
available. And it's not because they think the veterans have acquired >>>>>> some special skills, it's simply a quota.
The thoughtless award of *all* women's rights to trans-women is a >>>>>>> rather nice example of the result of this attitude. Perhaps you >>>>>>> think the generous gift of all women-only spaces to trans-women is >>>>>>> not an important issue like Apartheid?
I think it's unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women. >>>>>
What question?
A law is a law, but I don't actually believe Caligula's horse was
qualified to be a senator.
More random stuff.
Ok, let me spell it out. Trans women are only a "kind of woman"
because of the GRA (and to some extent previous legislation).
Ok, let me spell it out too. That is false. Trans women are women
regardless of what the law says. They do not magically change from
one thing to another if they cross national borders with different
laws.
You imply that one cannot discriminate between trans women and women
born women because they are the same thing. They are only the same
thing because of the man(sic)-made GRA law which says they are.
No, that is false. They are the same thing because they are. Short
women and tall women are both women. Blue-eyed women and brown-eyed
women are both women. Cis women and trans women are both women.
Whether trans women are women for all purposes is precisely the
question being begged. Many think that they should not both be
equally women *for all purposes*, so therefore to believe that it is
"unhelpful to distinguish between different kinds of women" is very
much a matter of opinion depending on what you think of the GRA as it
stands.
The GRA has nothing to do with it.
So not an axiomatic fact. Laws can be changed, and not all are sensible.
Laws can be changed, but facts remain the same.
Ok, suppose I grant you that any man who expresses the intention to "live as a
woman" thereby becomes a woman. Under the GRA he does not have to have, or even intend to have, any kind of hormone treatment or gender reasignment surgery. But, as a man, it costs me little or nothing to grant him status as a
woman, so fair enough.
I won't deal with the sincerity of his gender change, except to note that humans are complex animals and their sincerity is neither binary nor constant,
more a continuum that varies from time to time. But lets assume they are sincere in their desire to be a woman, and there is no ulterior motive.
There is no very exclusive biological definition of a women except by what she
is not, so the trans woman has some scope to be a woman, though clearly not in
elite sports where transwomen could otherwise replace the born women overnight. But that is an aside.
However, many of the current trans women are actually more or less fertile, more or less potent males biologically speaking.
On 03/12/2024 12:48, kat wrote:
On 02/12/2024 21:34, The Todal wrote:
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases areHence the need for a witchfinder general.
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual >>>>>>>> "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise. >>>>>>>
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate >>>>>> represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name those who
are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years, the toilets
are unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person only who then can use
the toilet, a washbasin and towel and a sanitary towel receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such places. But
the toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do have a line of cubicles,
urinals (if the facility is for men) and washbasins. I don't think any woman
would want to glimpse a man using a urinal. But the notion that a trans woman
in a female toilet would strip off and have a washdown seems extremely far- >>> fetched. And it would obviously be inappropriate for a trans woman to use the
men's toilets.
Why? many are still "intact" which gives them the benefit of being able to >> stand to pee. Women also wear trousers, so a trans woman might find it easier
to use a urinal!
You reckon there's nothing wrong with requiring a trans woman to use a male toilet, to walk in there wearing women's clothing, to be exposed to jeering and
ridicule and groping from the other men in the toilet and outside it, and to effectively admit in public that they are not a woman at all but a man in drag.
And to add to the fun, they could stand at the urinal like a character from the
comedy show "Little Britain". That seems okay to you?
On 2024-12-02, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Ok, let me spell it out. Trans women are only a "kind of woman"
because of the GRA (and to some extent previous legislation).
Ok, let me spell it out too. That is false. Trans women are women
regardless of what the law says. They do not magically change from
one thing to another if they cross national borders with different
laws.
On 03/12/2024 13:05, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2024 12:48, kat wrote:
On 02/12/2024 21:34, The Todal wrote:
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most >>>>>>>>> cases areHence the need for a witchfinder general.
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual >>>>>>>>> "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise. >>>>>>>>
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly
separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name
those who
are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years,
the toilets are unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person
only who then can use the toilet, a washbasin and towel and a
sanitary towel receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such
places. But the toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do have
a line of cubicles, urinals (if the facility is for men) and
washbasins. I don't think any woman would want to glimpse a man
using a urinal. But the notion that a trans woman in a female toilet
would strip off and have a washdown seems extremely far- fetched.
And it would obviously be inappropriate for a trans woman to use the
men's toilets.
Why? many are still "intact" which gives them the benefit of being
able to stand to pee. Women also wear trousers, so a trans woman
might find it easier to use a urinal!
You reckon there's nothing wrong with requiring a trans woman to use a
male toilet, to walk in there wearing women's clothing, to be exposed
to jeering and ridicule and groping from the other men in the toilet
and outside it, and to effectively admit in public that they are not a
woman at all but a man in drag. And to add to the fun, they could
stand at the urinal like a character from the comedy show "Little
Britain". That seems okay to you?
Why not?  Because, as has been said already in this thread, and I have agreed, people should be allowed to dress however they wish.
On 03/12/2024 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 12:30:00 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 01/12/2024 17:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0b1bFmmjdU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:25:31 on Sat,
30 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, >>>>>> 29 Nov
2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:Â Again, that wasn't what I said.
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, >>>>>>>>> in your
opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into
"womens'
issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, >>>>>>>>> than women
themselves.
 No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could >>>>>>>> be better
at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than >>>>>>> most women?
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't >>>>>>> need more Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once
than a few?
they've learnt
the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a >>>>>> token
woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked >>>>>> with it are
very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is
rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience,
because in
the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well
versed by his
strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at
all.
That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
Wow. So men know all about everything.
Surely you were brought up, like the rest of us, to believe that men know
everything??
Actually I had the luck to attend an all girls grammar school which
seemed to think we were just as good as any boy.;-)
In any event, in a lifetime of living with and working with men, I
rapidly learned just how little many know about anything beyond their
chosen expertise. Whereas women might have less expertise in one skill,
but are reasonably capable of a wider range of tasks. I am of course generalising. We do not all fit the same moulds!
On 04/12/2024 10:45, kat wrote:
On 03/12/2024 13:05, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2024 12:48, kat wrote:
On 02/12/2024 21:34, The Todal wrote:
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most >>>>>>>>>> cases areHence the need for a witchfinder general.
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an
actual "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise. >>>>>>>>>
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly
separate represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name
those who
are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years,
the toilets are unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person
only who then can use the toilet, a washbasin and towel and a
sanitary towel receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such
places. But the toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do
have a line of cubicles, urinals (if the facility is for men) and
washbasins. I don't think any woman would want to glimpse a man
using a urinal. But the notion that a trans woman in a female
toilet would strip off and have a washdown seems extremely far-
fetched. And it would obviously be inappropriate for a trans woman
to use the men's toilets.
Why? many are still "intact" which gives them the benefit of being
able to stand to pee. Women also wear trousers, so a trans woman
might find it easier to use a urinal!
You reckon there's nothing wrong with requiring a trans woman to use
a male toilet, to walk in there wearing women's clothing, to be
exposed to jeering and ridicule and groping from the other men in the
toilet and outside it, and to effectively admit in public that they
are not a woman at all but a man in drag. And to add to the fun, they
could stand at the urinal like a character from the comedy show
"Little Britain". That seems okay to you?
Why not?  Because, as has been said already in this thread, and I
have agreed, people should be allowed to dress however they wish.
...and others are entitled to ridicule their dress sense?
On 04/12/2024 10:45, kat wrote:
Why not? Because, as has been said already in this thread, and I have agreed, people
should be allowed to dress however they wish.
...and others are entitled to ridicule their dress sense?
On 03/12/2024 12:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Dec 2024 at 12:30:00 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 01/12/2024 17:06, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0b1bFmmjdU2@mid.individual.net>, at 11:25:31 on Sat,
30 Nov 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 14:22, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lqtq6qF9upeU3@mid.individual.net>, at 12:26:02 on Fri, >>>>>> 29 Nov
2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 29/11/2024 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:Â Again, that wasn't what I said.
So just to be clear, and discounting your own exceptionalism, >>>>>>>>> in your
opinion, on average, a man with knowledge and insight into
"womens'
issues, is a better qualified to represent womens' interests, >>>>>>>>> than women
themselves.
 No, because that's not what I said. Which was *some* men could >>>>>>>> be better
at it than *most* women.
Seriously? Really? Some men know more about being a woman than >>>>>>> most women?
Or just that men are so much better at advocating that you don't >>>>>>> need more Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once
than a few?
they've learnt
the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a >>>>>> token
woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked >>>>>> with it are
very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is
rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience,
because in
the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well
versed by his
strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at
all.
That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
Wow. So men know all about everything.
Surely you were brought up, like the rest of us, to believe that men know
everything??
Actually I had the luck to attend an all girls grammar school which
seemed to think we were just as good as any boy.;-)
In any event, in a lifetime of living with and working with men, I
rapidly learned just how little many know about anything beyond their
chosen expertise. Whereas women might have less expertise in one skill,
but are reasonably capable of a wider range of tasks. I am of course generalising. We do not all fit the same moulds!
Actually I had the luck to attend an all girls grammar school which seemed to think we
were just as good as any boy.;-)
This is a follow up to the statistics already posted
namely
quote:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
So how many people identify in the UK, as trans women ?
quote:
Gender identity, England and Wales: Census 2021
The census question on gender identity was a voluntary question asked
of those aged 16 years and over
Overall, 45.7 million (94.0% of the population aged 16 years
and over) answered the question.
* 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman *
unquote:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/bulletins/genderidentityenglandandwales/census2021
While how many Cis women are there in the UK, over the age of 16 ?
quote:
How many women over 16
Basic Info. UK Population: Aged 16-64 Female is at a current level of 21.58M,
unquote:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/uk_population_aged_1664_female
So that there are 21,580,000 cis women between 16-64 of whom 3812 are in prison
which represents 0.01766 %
(Assuming over 64's are marginal)
And there are 48,000 transwomen of whom 129 are in prison which represents 0.26875 %
Which roughly speaking means that trans women are 15 times more likely to end up
in prison than cis women; and over half of those 58.9% will be for sexual offences
bb
What immediately leaps out of the figures is that they might mean mean
that trans women are much more likely than other women to be criminals
and trans women are much more likely to be sex criminals than men in
general are. Or it might mean there is small but significant number
of men with a predisposition to sex crime who declare themselves trans
women in bad faith, and thus distort the figures
If we had details of the history of each criminal it might be possible to decide which was more likely.
On 2024-12-04, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
What immediately leaps out of the figures is that they might mean mean
that trans women are much more likely than other women to be criminals
and trans women are much more likely to be sex criminals than men in
general are. Or it might mean there is small but significant number
of men with a predisposition to sex crime who declare themselves trans
women in bad faith, and thus distort the figures
If we had details of the history of each criminal it might be possible to
decide which was more likely.
Or other possibilities, such as the fact that society tends to
criminalise marginalised people.
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been used to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, roughly 5% difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
unquote:
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/138517-boys-and-girls-achievement-what-s-really-happening-by-tim-oates-for-genderwatch.pdf
On 04/12/2024 10:45, kat wrote:
On 03/12/2024 13:05, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2024 12:48, kat wrote:
On 02/12/2024 21:34, The Todal wrote:
On 02/12/2024 18:08, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vikrph$3fe0k$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/12/2024 12:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr1bg3FrpmeU2@mid.individual.net...
On 30/11/2024 15:12, billy bookcase wrote:
So that unlike in your examples, transwomen in some/many/most cases areHence the need for a witchfinder general.
still as strong as men, and so represent just as much an actual >>>>>>>>>> "physical threat";
with the additional problem that they may also come in disguise. >>>>>>>>>
Er, Just provide then with separate facilites. And possibly separate >>>>>>>> represntation
on committes when their numbers justify it.
What's so difficult about that ?
"Separate facilities" for whom? All 72 genders?
Rather than ask you to list them all, I'll simply ask you to name those who
are currently considered problemmatic by either of the "Big Two",
In every workplace that I have visited for the last 3 or 4 years, the >>>>> toilets are unisex. That is, the toilet accommodates one person only who >>>>> then can use the toilet, a washbasin and towel and a sanitary towel
receptacle if required.
So there seems to be no need to have separate facilities in such places. >>>>> But the toilets at (say) railway stations or in pubs do have a line of >>>>> cubicles, urinals (if the facility is for men) and washbasins. I don't >>>>> think any woman would want to glimpse a man using a urinal. But the notion
that a trans woman in a female toilet would strip off and have a washdown >>>>> seems extremely far- fetched. And it would obviously be inappropriate for a
trans woman to use the men's toilets.
Why? many are still "intact" which gives them the benefit of being able to
stand to pee. Women also wear trousers, so a trans woman might find it >>>> easier to use a urinal!
You reckon there's nothing wrong with requiring a trans woman to use a male >>> toilet, to walk in there wearing women's clothing, to be exposed to jeering >>> and ridicule and groping from the other men in the toilet and outside it, and
to effectively admit in public that they are not a woman at all but a man in
drag. And to add to the fun, they could stand at the urinal like a character
from the comedy show "Little Britain". That seems okay to you?
Why not?  Because, as has been said already in this thread, and I have
agreed, people should be allowed to dress however they wish.
...and others are entitled to ridicule their dress sense?
On 04/12/2024 18:11, billy bookcase wrote:
.
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
unquote:
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/138517-boys-and-girls-achievement-what-s-really-happening-by-tim-oates-for-genderwatch.pdf
The interesting thing about those numbers is that the boys' school next door to my
school had a slightly bigger intake. Not dramatically so, but it suggests from what
you quote that girls were losing out even more than it seemed.
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:lrdi22Fqja2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/12/2024 18:11, billy bookcase wrote:
.
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
unquote:
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/138517-boys-and-girls-achievement-what-s-really-happening-by-tim-oates-for-genderwatch.pdf
The interesting thing about those numbers is that the boys' school next door to my
school had a slightly bigger intake. Not dramatically so, but it suggests from what
you quote that girls were losing out even more than it seemed.
Education policy has always been geared to likely demand in the employment market. So that at that time it was presumably envisiaged that there
would be more job vacancies requiring H/E qualifications open to male candidates, that to females. Many of whom would want to get married
in any case and no longer have to work for a few years. Happy days.
That "raw scores in the 11+" which is essentially IQ scores, definitely needs a bit more research, though.
The only surprise is that it hasn't alreadty been supressed and the data all destroyed.
On 05/12/2024 01:06 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lrdi22Fqja2U2@mid.individual.net...
On 04/12/2024 18:11, billy bookcase wrote:
.
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
unquote:
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/138517-boys-and-girls-achievement-what-s-really-happening-by-tim-oates-for-genderwatch.pdf
The interesting thing about those numbers is that the boys' school next door to my
school had a slightly bigger intake. Not dramatically so, but it suggests from what
you quote that girls were losing out even more than it seemed.
Education policy has always been geared to likely demand in the employment >> market. So that at that time it was presumably envisiaged that there
would be more job vacancies requiring H/E qualifications open to male
candidates, that to females. Many of whom would want to get married
in any case and no longer have to work for a few years. Happy days.
That "raw scores in the 11+" which is essentially IQ scores, definitely needs
a bit more research, though.
The only surprise is that it hasn't alreadty been supressed and the data all >> destroyed.
The test (renamed so as not to attract too much attention) still exists in at least two
counties.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/12/2024 01:06 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 04/12/2024 18:11, billy bookcase wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
unquote:
https://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/138517-boys-and-girls-achievement-what-s-really-happening-by-tim-oates-for-genderwatch.pdf
The interesting thing about those numbers is that the boys' school next door to my
school had a slightly bigger intake. Not dramatically so, but it suggests from what
you quote that girls were losing out even more than it seemed.
Education policy has always been geared to likely demand in the employment >>> market. So that at that time it was presumably envisiaged that there
would be more job vacancies requiring H/E qualifications open to male
candidates, that to females. Many of whom would want to get married
in any case and no longer have to work for a few years. Happy days.
That "raw scores in the 11+" which is essentially IQ scores, definitely needs
a bit more research, though.
The only surprise is that it hasn't alreadty been supressed and the data all
destroyed.
The test (renamed so as not to attract too much attention) still exists in at least two
counties.
The results I meant, which demonstrated the clear dominance of girls.
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was scrapped.
Other than that, they've presumably modified it in some way the meantime, and surreptitiously introduced questions about football, cars and guns to
even up the scores a bit.
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+
had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s
would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical
figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, >>>>>> roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the apparent conclusion that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than males?
On 12/5/24 20:45, JNugent wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been
used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would >>>>>>> have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures >>>>>>> for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, >>>>>>> roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the apparent
conclusion that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than males?
Well your statement is a misrepresentation of what is said, so I don't know if
you are asking about the quoted assertion or billy's misrepresentation of it, somewhere else?
However the raw scores in the 11+ seems quite simple, quite clear.
It has long been noted that there is a difference between being able to do well
at school exams and an ability to solve real life problems. Boys tend to be more
likely to investigate for themselves, girls are happier to learn from teachers/
books.
I've always been good at IQ tests, but I love doing puzzles, I spend a lot of time doing them. I strongly suspect recognising types of puzzle, boosts my score. In effect my score is, to a degree, dependent upon training, not native
intelligence.
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was
scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children
being able to get a good secondary education and access to those universities which
then existed. He no doubt had his own reasons for that.
His Wikipedia page (extract):
On 12/5/24 20:45, JNugent wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+
had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s
would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical
figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, >>>>>>> roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the apparent
conclusion that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than males?
Well your statement is a misrepresentation of what is said, so I don't
know if you are asking about the quoted assertion or billy's misrepresentation of it, somewhere else?
However the raw scores in the 11+ seems quite simple, quite clear.
It has long been noted that there is a difference between being able to
do well at school exams and an ability to solve real life problems. Boys
tend to be more likely to investigate for themselves, girls are happier
to learn from teachers/books.
I've always been good at IQ tests, but I love doing puzzles, I spend a
lot of time doing them. I strongly suspect recognising types of puzzle, boosts my score. In effect my score is, to a degree, dependent upon
training, not native intelligence.
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people from different backgrounds.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on
education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's
just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
I've always been good at IQ tests, but I love doing puzzles, I spend a
lot of time doing them. I strongly suspect recognising types of puzzle,
boosts my score. In effect my score is, to a degree, dependent upon
training, not native intelligence.
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people from different backgrounds.
On 06/12/2024 09:50, Pancho wrote:
On 12/5/24 20:45, JNugent wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ >>>>>>>> had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s >>>>>>>> would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical >>>>>>>> figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender
achievement, roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the
apparent conclusion that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than
males?
Well your statement is a misrepresentation of what is said, so I don't
know if you are asking about the quoted assertion or billy's
misrepresentation of it, somewhere else?
However the raw scores in the 11+ seems quite simple, quite clear.
It has long been noted that there is a difference between being able
to do well at school exams and an ability to solve real life problems.
Boys tend to be more likely to investigate for themselves, girls are
happier to learn from teachers/ books.
Indeed, men seem to prefer to get lost rather than ask for directions,
or blow up the house rather than read the instructions for their new
"toy". At least, while they are young, they may grow out of it. Women
are more likely to ask for help - or read that book.
But neither girls or boys could pass the English and Maths tests in the
11+ if they had not been taught.
On 12/6/24 12:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on >>> education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's
just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
Th[at] is a non-sequitur, "not reliable" does not mean reliable, or even "reliably
not".
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on
education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's
just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
bb
On 6 Dec 2024 at 12:56:51 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on >>> education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's
just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
bb
No I don't mean that at all. Mine was a general point about the meaningfulness
of IQ tests in response to the person I was replying to. When it comes to comparing boys and girls I am perfectly happy to consider the hypothesis that girls are simply cleverer than boys, though due to social gender differences it may not be the only possibility.
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The test (renamed so as not to attract too much attention) still
exists in at least two
counties.
The results I meant, which demonstrated the clear dominance of girls.
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was
scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working
class children being able to get a good secondary education and access
to those universities which then existed. He no doubt had his own
reasons for that.
Do you mean that arithmetical "problems" have been worded with
different, though equally irrelevant, nouns?
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:viusoo$2bb22$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/6/24 12:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on >>>> education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's >>> just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
Th[at] is a non-sequitur, "not reliable" does not mean reliable, or even
"reliably
not".
Que ?
Are you claiming that as two distinct groups. boys and girls in 50's and 60's came from different backgrounds ?
Even if they contained as they clearly did, brothers and sisters in the
two groups ?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lreho6F19drU1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was
scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children
being able to get a good secondary education and access to those universities which
then existed. He no doubt had his own reasons for that.
His Wikipedia page (extract):
It isn't "his" Wikipedia page.
Crosland died in 1977 and like many politicians, he strongly divided opinion.
So it's a page "about" Crosland, freely contributed by somebody, no doubt in support of "their own" opinion of him.
Of his written works Crosland is probably best known for "The Future of Socialism"
(1956) along with "The Conservative Enemy"* (London, Cape, 1962) and "Socialism
Now," and Other Essays (London, Cape, 1974).
(* So what's not to like ? See above)
So that if you can find a direct quotation in any of those, or any other work.
article etc.,, attributable to Crosland in support of your thesis that "Crosland
(privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children being
able to get a good secondary education", then that would of course, be most helpful.
But otherwise I'm afraid, it will have to be a Fail.
On 6 Dec 2024 at 14:03:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
No, he's just saying that my post didn't imply what you apperently thought it did. I've pointed that out separately.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:viusoo$2bb22$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/6/24 12:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on >>>>> education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's >>>> just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
Th[at] is a non-sequitur, "not reliable" does not mean reliable, or even >>> "reliably
not".
Que ?
Are you claiming that as two distinct groups. boys and girls in 50's and 60's
came from different backgrounds ?
Even if they contained as they clearly did, brothers and sisters in the
two groups ?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:0062967879.aa3afa98@uninhabited.net...
On 6 Dec 2024 at 14:03:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
No, he's just saying that my post didn't imply what you apperently thought it
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:viusoo$2bb22$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/6/24 12:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on
education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's >>>>> just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
Th[at] is a non-sequitur, "not reliable" does not mean reliable, or even >>>> "reliably
not".
Que ?
Are you claiming that as two distinct groups. boys and girls in 50's and 60's
came from different backgrounds ?
Even if they contained as they clearly did, brothers and sisters in the
two groups ?
did. I've pointed that out separately.
Except it did, if applied specifically to schoolchildren in 50's and 60's Britain.
Which was the specific topic under coinsideration
Whereas Pancho's point, as far as I can ascertain, appears to be suggesting that the negation of "not reliable" does not therby imply "reliable"
Whereas I would seek to suggest that it does.
Or something
On 06/12/2024 10:23 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lreho6F19drU1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was
scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class
children
being able to get a good secondary education and access to those universities which
then existed. He no doubt had his own reasons for that.
His Wikipedia page (extract):
It isn't "his" Wikipedia page.
It is one dedicated to him, and that style of attribution is quite common!
Crosland died in 1977 and like many politicians, he strongly divided opinion.
So it's a page "about" Crosland, freely contributed by somebody, no doubt in >> support of "their own" opinion of him.
Accepted, for all the difference it makes (none to very little).
Of his written works Crosland is probably best known for "The Future of Socialism"
(1956) along with "The Conservative Enemy"* (London, Cape, 1962) and "Socialism
Now," and Other Essays (London, Cape, 1974).
(* So what's not to like ? See above)
So that if you can find a direct quotation in any of those, or any other work.
article etc.,, attributable to Crosland in support of your thesis that "Crosland
(privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children being
able to get a good secondary education", then that would of course, be most >> helpful.
But otherwise I'm afraid, it will have to be a Fail.
I don't believe so.
His widow would seem to me to be a quite reliable guide as to his feelings on the
matter. I remember reading the interview at the time.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lrg7ouF9g3kU2@mid.individual.net...
On 06/12/2024 10:23 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lreho6F19drU1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was >>>>> scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class
children
being able to get a good secondary education and access to those
universities which
then existed. He no doubt had his own reasons for that.
His Wikipedia page (extract):
It isn't "his" Wikipedia page.
It is one dedicated to him, and that style of attribution is quite common! >>>
Crosland died in 1977 and like many politicians, he strongly divided opinion.
So it's a page "about" Crosland, freely contributed by somebody, no doubt in
support of "their own" opinion of him.
Accepted, for all the difference it makes (none to very little).
Of his written works Crosland is probably best known for "The Future of
Socialism"
(1956) along with "The Conservative Enemy"* (London, Cape, 1962) and "Socialism
Now," and Other Essays (London, Cape, 1974).
(* So what's not to like ? See above)
So that if you can find a direct quotation in any of those, or any other work.
article etc.,, attributable to Crosland in support of your thesis that
"Crosland
(privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children being
able to get a good secondary education", then that would of course, be most
helpful.
But otherwise I'm afraid, it will have to be a Fail.
I don't believe so.
His widow would seem to me to be a quite reliable guide as to his feelings on
the
matter. I remember reading the interview at the time.
So just to be clear she confirmed that "he just hated the idea of bright working class
children being able to get a good secondary education", did she ?
Not forgetting that a decade earlier, if not at that time also, had the figures
not been *fiddled* most of these bright working class children would in fact have been girls !
While most of the supposedly "bright" boys would in fact, have ended up in Secondary Moderns.
Just think Secondary Moderns; doing woodwork and all sorts: had those "figures
not been fiddled".
It's maybe no wonder the real truth lay hidden for so long.
bb
On 6 Dec 2024 at 21:38:36 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrg7ouF9g3kU2@mid.individual.net...
On 06/12/2024 10:23 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lreho6F19drU1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was >>>>>> scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class
children
being able to get a good secondary education and access to those
universities which
then existed. He no doubt had his own reasons for that.
His Wikipedia page (extract):
It isn't "his" Wikipedia page.
It is one dedicated to him, and that style of attribution is quite common! >>>>
Crosland died in 1977 and like many politicians, he strongly divided opinion.
So it's a page "about" Crosland, freely contributed by somebody, no doubt in
support of "their own" opinion of him.
Accepted, for all the difference it makes (none to very little).
Of his written works Crosland is probably best known for "The Future of >>>> Socialism"
(1956) along with "The Conservative Enemy"* (London, Cape, 1962) and "Socialism
Now," and Other Essays (London, Cape, 1974).
(* So what's not to like ? See above)
So that if you can find a direct quotation in any of those, or any other work.
article etc.,, attributable to Crosland in support of your thesis that >>>> "Crosland
(privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children being
able to get a good secondary education", then that would of course, be most
helpful.
But otherwise I'm afraid, it will have to be a Fail.
I don't believe so.
His widow would seem to me to be a quite reliable guide as to his feelings on
the
matter. I remember reading the interview at the time.
So just to be clear she confirmed that "he just hated the idea of bright
working class
children being able to get a good secondary education", did she ?
Not forgetting that a decade earlier, if not at that time also, had the figures
not been *fiddled* most of these bright working class children would in fact
have been girls !
While most of the supposedly "bright" boys would in fact, have ended up in >> Secondary Moderns.
Just think Secondary Moderns; doing woodwork and all sorts: had those "figures
not been fiddled".
It's maybe no wonder the real truth lay hidden for so long.
bb
Since at the time of the 11-plus nearly all grammar schools were single-sex, I
don't think the girls getting higher marks would even if been remarked upon. It made no
difference. It certainly did not lead to the rapid closure of boys
schools and the opening of new girls schools.
Where there were mixed grammar schools (?anywhere)I expect they did what the Japanese apparently did with their university entrance exam[1] until recently and simply took the top x girls and the top x boys (where 2x is the number of places), perhaps after an arbitrary correction to the results to give that conclusion. That would probably have seemed reasonable then.
[1] Apparently the Japanese "correct" the results so that hardly any girls get
into medical school. I believe they have grudgingly altered the "correction" so a significant but still small number of girls gain entry.
On 12/5/24 20:45, JNugent wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+
had been used to determine selection, then grammar schools in
the 50s and 60s would have been populated almost exclusively by
girls. Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, >>>>>>> roughly 5% difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the
apparent conclusion that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than
males?
Well your statement
is a misrepresentation of what is said, so I don't
know if you are asking about the quoted assertion or billy's misrepresentation of it, somewhere else?
However the raw scores in the 11+ seems quite simple, quite clear.
It has long been noted that there is a difference between being able to
do well at school exams and an ability to solve real life problems. Boys
tend to be more likely to investigate for themselves, girls are happier
to learn from teachers/books.
I've always been good at IQ tests, but I love doing puzzles, I spend a
lot of time doing them. I strongly suspect recognising types of puzzle, boosts my score. In effect my score is, to a degree, dependent upon
training, not native intelligence.
I think Roland destroys his own case by ridiculously over-stating it.
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately >>>>suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ?
Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented ladies who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's something which might
dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
On 12/6/24 10:40, kat wrote:
On 06/12/2024 09:50, Pancho wrote:
On 12/5/24 20:45, JNugent wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had >>>>>>>>> been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would >>>>>>>>> have been
populated almost exclusively by girls. Likewise, the historical figures
for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, >>>>>>>>> roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the apparent >>>> conclusion that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than males?
Well your statement is a misrepresentation of what is said, so I don't know >>> if you are asking about the quoted assertion or billy's misrepresentation of
it, somewhere else?
However the raw scores in the 11+ seems quite simple, quite clear.
It has long been noted that there is a difference between being able to do >>> well at school exams and an ability to solve real life problems. Boys tend to
be more likely to investigate for themselves, girls are happier to learn from
teachers/ books.
Indeed, men seem to prefer to get lost rather than ask for directions, or blow
up the house rather than read the instructions for their new "toy". At least,
while they are young, they may grow out of it. Women are more likely to ask >> for help - or read that book.
Yes, they are different skills. Often there is no book to read or person to ask.
But neither girls or boys could pass the English and Maths tests in the 11+ if
they had not been taught.
Yes, IQ test attempt to avoid that, pattern matching, etc, rather than formal skills. At least part of the 11+ was IQ style tests.
However learning goes well beyond formal teaching, to much more subtle issues in
the testees background.
In message <lr8bu7F156rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:00 on Tue, 3 Dec 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
 Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've learnt
the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than a token >>>>> woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women tasked with it
are very bad, though - can be very shrill and indignant, which is rarely
useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, because >>>> in the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed by >>>> his strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing at all.
 That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
Wow. So men know all about everything.
What a remarkable bit of over-reaching. Some men will know a lot about most things, as will some women.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:i9g3yfXe4BVnFAow@perry.uk...
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, >> billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediatelyYes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented >>>> ladies who
suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ? >>>>
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's something which
might
dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make there; except
that lady in the film admitting she was one of "his" angels - the
old guy on the left.
That he "owned" or "directed" them in other words; and that if he
hadn't turned up their life would have been essentially meaningless.
They'd never have got the chance to drive his Astra for a start
As I intimated before, most likely many ex Playboy Bunnies would
most likely say the very same thing. And they weren't even
"Hugh's Bunnies". And Hefner didn't own an Astra.
Or female followers of David Koresh, for that matter,
bb
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately
suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ?
Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented >>> ladies who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's something
which might dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
On 7 Dec 2024 at 10:06:22 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediatelyYes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented >>>> ladies who
suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ? >>>>
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's something
which might dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
Well I for one entirely believed you the first time. Indeed, I thought the arrangement and terminology entirely unsurprising. But finding a female person
of about the right age but not known to any of us willing to do a video corroborating your story really does not add much proof. Especially as the video seems to have been published *after* the story was questioned.
On 7 Dec 2024 at 10:06:22 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediatelyYes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented >>>> ladies who
suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ? >>>>
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's something
which might dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
Well I for one entirely believed you the first time. Indeed, I thought the >arrangement and terminology entirely unsurprising. But finding a female person >of about the right age but not known to any of us willing to do a video >corroborating your story really does not add much proof. Especially as the >video seems to have been published *after* the story was questioned.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:i9g3yfXe4BVnFAow@perry.uk...
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately >>>>>suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ?
Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very >>>>talented ladies who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's
something which might
dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make there; except
that lady in the film admitting she was one of "his" angels - the
old guy on the left.
That he "owned" or "directed" them in other words; and that if he
hadn't turned up their life would have been essentially meaningless.
They'd never have got the chance to drive his Astra for a start
On 07/12/2024 10:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr8bu7F156rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:00 on Tue, 3
Dec 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once
they've learnt the industry and the methodology. But some men >>>>>>are better than a token woman, put there just because of their >>>>>>gender. Some women tasked with it are very bad, though - can be >>>>>>very shrill and indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, >>>>>because in the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well >>>>>versed by his strong partner, is asked a question about which he >>>>>knows nothing at all.
That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
Wow. So men know all about everything.
What a remarkable bit of over-reaching. Some men will know a lot
about most things, as will some women.
You are the one who suggested that a man not knowing the answer to a
question would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
The provision of schools surely was governed by the fact that men preferred >offering jobs to other men rather than to women;
ostensibly you've got a man, naming a group of women after himself,
solely for his own self-aggrandisement. To boost his own ego. Or why
else would he be doing it ?
On 6 Dec 2024 at 12:56:51 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8407902808.03e07fd5@uninhabited.net...
That is a fundamental problem with IQ tests. They are highly dependent on >>> education, in the broadest sense including socialisation as a child as well as
formal education. They are not reliable in comparing innate ability in people
from different backgrounds.
So that by some strange coincidence "all" the girls in the 50's and 60's
just happened to come from "better backgrounds", than the boys ?
Even brothers and sisters ?
bb
No I don't mean that at all. Mine was a general point about the meaningfulness
of IQ tests in response to the person I was replying to. When it comes to comparing boys and girls I am perfectly happy to consider the hypothesis that girls are simply cleverer than boys, though due to social gender differences it may not be the only possibility.
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women (however unskilled)
are always better at advocating for women than any man could ever be. Which is what I
fundamentally disagree with.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:52:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vicu61$168vf$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:38:03 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:ILAd$L2AHfSnFAXs@perry.uk...
Some women tasked with it are very bad, though
"Tasked with it" by whom I wonder ?
By appointments committees who are filling a quota, rather than picking
the best person for the job.
The real issue there is why they are content to fill the space with a token >woman rather than making the effort to find a suitably qualified one. Women >do, after all, make up 50% of the population. It's not like there's a >shortage of them.
FWIW, I do also agree with Roland that tokenism is almost always a bad
thing; putting someone into a position of representing a particular
community just because they happen to be a member of that community rather >> than because of their advocacy skills will, in most cases, be a disservice >> to that community rather than a benefit to it. But tokenism is a failure on >> the part of those running the appointment system, not a failing on the part >> of those being appointed. "We need a woman's voice on the panel, this person >> is a woman, therefore we will appoint this person" is a perfect example of >> the out-group homogenity fallacy. So the mere presence of a token woman (as >> opposed to a suitably skilled woman) on the panel is itself an example of
sexism in practice, even if those making the appointment think they are
being inclusive by appointing her.
Mark
100% agree on every part of this. But the context of Roland's remarks appears >to be that the presence of skilled male advocates makes quotas for women on >supervisory boards not only unnecessary but counter productive.
Crucially, equal representation must sometimes mean that the very best
(male) candidate is passed over; but it should never mean that a woman >appointed is insufficiently competent to carry out the role. This
excluded middle fallacy, that not appointing the best candidate must
mean appointing an unqualified candidate, is used world-wide to oppose
equal opportunities rules and legislation.
On 01/12/2024 17:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0erhFn6nqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:41 on Sat, 30
Nov 2024, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
No, it means they don't know how to debate without simply repeating
I think when anyone is "shrill and indignant" (and I've never seen
that in a court or in a workplace setting) it usually means that they
are not being listened to or are being disrespected.
the same bogus argument over and over again.
Ah. Have you therefore been in the position of being a man trying to
debate with a shrill and indignant woman?
I never have.
It may be that I am quite good at demonstrating in arguments that the
other person is being listened to and not disrespected. Or that you've
been in situations where the chairman of the meeting is incompetent and >failing to do his job properly.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:4wGhRyzGpFVnFAKl@perry.uk...
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women
(however unskilled)
are always better at advocating for women than any man could ever be. >>Which is what I
fundamentally disagree with.
Er no.
Why should women chosen to sit on committees to represent their
fellow women, necessarily be unskilled ?
It's you, and you are alone, who are claiming that there's this
big shortage of women out there, who are so seemingly incapable of >representing their own interests, that they need to call on
the help of a man, such as yourself.
I can see it might make a good sales pitch. But then sales pitches
don't always necessarily have to bear that much relation to the truth.
In message <vj1oc3$357r6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:45 on Sat, 7 Dec 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:4wGhRyzGpFVnFAKl@perry.uk...
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women (however unskilled)
are always better at advocating for women than any man could ever be. Which is what I
fundamentally disagree with.
Er no.
Why should women chosen to sit on committees to represent their
fellow women, necessarily be unskilled ?
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Many are of course perfectly
well skilled, but some simply aren't.
It's you, and you are alone, who are claiming that there's this
big shortage of women out there, who are so seemingly incapable of >>representing their own interests, that they need to call on
the help of a man, such as yourself.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Some women aren't sufficiently skilled, and their cause would be better served by a skilled man.
I can see it might make a good sales pitch. But then sales pitches
don't always necessarily have to bear that much relation to the truth.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate.
In message <vj1aji$31qa2$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:12:47 on Sat, 7 Dec 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:i9g3yfXe4BVnFAow@perry.uk...
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately >>>>>>suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ? >>>>>Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented ladies
who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's something which might
dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make there; except
that lady in the film admitting she was one of "his" angels - the
old guy on the left.
You are priceless! Don't recognise me from other recently published videos? Perhaps
after all, you really are a bot, not an actual person.
On 1 Dec 2024 at 17:00:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they
were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project
proceeded "at pace".
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are
actually a troll.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, isWhich again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but
only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this
particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many
others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up. >>>
almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied
persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users
who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women
can advocate for women.
That suggestion has been made by no one but yourself. You raised the value of >male advocates for women in response to the entirely different proposition >that women should be equally represented on boards of government an >quasi-government bodies. And perhaps, by extension, other supervisory bodies.
In response to you it was expressed that a complete and adequate
representation of women's needs and views was unlikely to be available without >a reasonable proportion of women being involved. The idea that *only* women >can represent women is a spurious straw Trojan horse of your own making.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:uAtktMypgFVnFAqk@perry.uk...
In message <vj1aji$31qa2$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:12:47 on Sat, 7 Dec
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:i9g3yfXe4BVnFAow@perry.uk...
In message <vil2ik$3hh9f$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:42:09 on Mon, 2
Dec 2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately >>>>>>>suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ? >>>>>>Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very >>>>>>talented ladies
who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
Much as I dislike being heckled by a bit of furniture, here's >>>>something which might
dispel your disbelief:
https://youtu.be/nuijAC9Enxs
I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make there; except
that lady in the film admitting she was one of "his" angels - the
old guy on the left.
You are priceless! Don't recognise me from other recently published >>videos? Perhaps
after all, you really are a bot, not an actual person.
Someone didn't recogonise you ! *The* Roland Perry ! How could this
possibly ever happen ? Is this a first, I ask myself ?
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:EBE+9K7NbGVnFA+X@perry.uk...
In message <vj1oc3$357r6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:45 on Sat, 7 Dec
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >>>news:4wGhRyzGpFVnFAKl@perry.uk...
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women >>>>(however unskilled)
are always better at advocating for women than any man could ever
be. Which is what I
fundamentally disagree with.
Er no.
Why should women chosen to sit on committees to represent their
fellow women, necessarily be unskilled ?
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Many are
of course perfectly
well skilled, but some simply aren't.
It's you, and you are alone, who are claiming that there's this
big shortage of women out there, who are so seemingly incapable of >>>representing their own interests, that they need to call on
the help of a man, such as yourself.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Some women aren't >> sufficiently skilled, and their cause would be better served by a
skilled man.
I can see it might make a good sales pitch. But then sales pitches
don't always necessarily have to bear that much relation to the truth.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate.
Where -
help the debate = agree with Roland
presumably
In message <vivv9t$2kddb$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:43 on Fri, 6 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
The provision of schools surely was governed by the fact that men preferred >> offering jobs to other men rather than to women;
Some men. I have always found it more productive for most roles to hire women. But then I have the advantage of only hiring people who are good
at what they do.
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women
(however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women than any
man could ever be. Which is what I fundamentally disagree with.
Not at all, just stop the trolling and borderline stalking.
On 7 Dec 2024 at 14:23:02 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vivv9t$2kddb$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:43 on Fri, 6 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
The provision of schools surely was governed by the fact that men preferred >>> offering jobs to other men rather than to women;
Some men. I have always found it more productive for most roles to hire
women. But then I have the advantage of only hiring people who are good
at what they do.
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women
(however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women than any
man could ever be. Which is what I fundamentally disagree with.
No it started with the premise of increasing the representation of women at >board level being a reasonable objective and you invented the premise that >"women (however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women than any >man" as it was easier to argue with. Equally no one denied that men could >advocate for women, but several of us said that *suitably qualified* women >would probably be better able to advocate for women than even the best >qualified man.
In message <9023075622.1955d641@uninhabited.net>, at 16:50:30 on Sat, 7
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Dec 2024 at 14:23:02 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vivv9t$2kddb$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:43 on Fri, 6 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
The provision of schools surely was governed by the fact that men preferred
offering jobs to other men rather than to women;
Some men. I have always found it more productive for most roles to hire
women. But then I have the advantage of only hiring people who are good
at what they do.
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women
(however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women than any
man could ever be. Which is what I fundamentally disagree with.
No it started with the premise of increasing the representation of women at >> board level being a reasonable objective and you invented the premise that >> "women (however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women than any
man" as it was easier to argue with. Equally no one denied that men could
advocate for women, but several of us said that *suitably qualified* women >> would probably be better able to advocate for women than even the best
qualified man.
I don't remember the "suitably qualified" bit, perhaps that's because
it's a truism.
What I particularly objected to was the suggestion that no *man* could
be suitably qualified to speak for women.
Don't you realise that the very term"Roland's" Angels inmmediately >>>suggests images of a group of women, which is at your beck and call ?
Yes, that's exactly right. Like the contemporary TV series, very talented ladies who
did much of the "boots on the ground" stuff.
Come on ! This just has to be a wind up !
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message >news:bx55hF$6HHVnFAvq@perry.uk...
Not at all, just stop the trolling and borderline stalking.
Leaving trolling aside for the moment, whom exactly am I supposed to
be "borderline stalking" ?
Which being a fairly serious charge, necessitates substantiation
to at least some degree.
So whom exactly are you referring to, as my supposed "victim" ?
In message <vj1q98$35mrj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:40:22 on Sat, 7 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:EBE+9K7NbGVnFA+X@perry.uk...
In message <vj1oc3$357r6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:45 on Sat, 7 Dec
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:4wGhRyzGpFVnFAKl@perry.uk...
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women
(however unskilled)
are always better at advocating for women than any man could ever
be. Which is what I
fundamentally disagree with.
Er no.
Why should women chosen to sit on committees to represent their
fellow women, necessarily be unskilled ?
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Many are
of course perfectly
well skilled, but some simply aren't.
It's you, and you are alone, who are claiming that there's this
big shortage of women out there, who are so seemingly incapable of
representing their own interests, that they need to call on
the help of a man, such as yourself.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Some women aren't
sufficiently skilled, and their cause would be better served by a
skilled man.
I can see it might make a good sales pitch. But then sales pitches
don't always necessarily have to bear that much relation to the truth.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate.
Where -
help the debate = agree with Roland
presumably
Not at all, just stop the trolling and borderline stalking.
In message <7573067775.1d147306@uninhabited.net>, at 17:55:30 on Sun, 1
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Dec 2024 at 17:00:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they >>>>> were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project
proceeded "at pace".
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are >>> actually a troll.
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but >>>>>> only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this
particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many
others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is
almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied >>>>> persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users
who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women
can advocate for women.
That suggestion has been made by no one but yourself. You raised the value of
male advocates for women in response to the entirely different proposition >> that women should be equally represented on boards of government an
quasi-government bodies. And perhaps, by extension, other supervisory bodies.
In response to you it was expressed that a complete and adequate
representation of women's needs and views was unlikely to be available without
a reasonable proportion of women being involved. The idea that *only* women >> can represent women is a spurious straw Trojan horse of your own making.
Somewhere in that verbal spaghetti, we can perhaps find a trace of my original premise - which was that insisting on having any women, rather
than skilled men, on such boards was to the detriment of the womens'
cause.
On 7 Dec 2024 at 18:23:07 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <9023075622.1955d641@uninhabited.net>, at 16:50:30 on Sat, 7
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 7 Dec 2024 at 14:23:02 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vivv9t$2kddb$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:53:43 on Fri, 6 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
The provision of schools surely was governed by the fact that men >>>>>preferred
offering jobs to other men rather than to women;
Some men. I have always found it more productive for most roles to hire >>>> women. But then I have the advantage of only hiring people who are good >>>> at what they do.
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women
(however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women than any >>>> man could ever be. Which is what I fundamentally disagree with.
No it started with the premise of increasing the representation of women at >>> board level being a reasonable objective and you invented the premise that >>> "women (however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women >>>than any
man" as it was easier to argue with. Equally no one denied that men could >>> advocate for women, but several of us said that *suitably qualified* women >>> would probably be better able to advocate for women than even the best
qualified man.
I don't remember the "suitably qualified" bit, perhaps that's because
it's a truism.
What I particularly objected to was the suggestion that no *man* could
be suitably qualified to speak for women.
Good thing no one said that then. Just that the best qualified women could do >it better.
On 7 Dec 2024 at 16:04:10 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vj1q98$35mrj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:40:22 on Sat, 7 Dec
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:EBE+9K7NbGVnFA+X@perry.uk...
In message <vj1oc3$357r6$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:07:45 on Sat, 7 Dec
2024, billy
bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:4wGhRyzGpFVnFAKl@perry.uk...
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women >>>>>>(however unskilled) are always better at advocating for women
than any man could ever be. Which is what I fundamentally >>>>>>disagree with.
Er no.
Why should women chosen to sit on committees to represent their
fellow women, necessarily be unskilled ?
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Many are
of course perfectly
well skilled, but some simply aren't.
It's you, and you are alone, who are claiming that there's this
big shortage of women out there, who are so seemingly incapable of
representing their own interests, that they need to call on
the help of a man, such as yourself.
Please stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate. Some
women aren't sufficiently skilled, and their cause would be better >>>>served by a skilled man.
I can see it might make a good sales pitch. But then sales pitchesPlease stop doing that. It really doesn't help the debate.
don't always necessarily have to bear that much relation to the truth. >>>>
Where -
help the debate = agree with Roland
presumably
Not at all, just stop the trolling and borderline stalking.
Well just stop the straw woman inventions and deal with what people are >actually saying.
On 7 Dec 2024 at 14:35:58 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <7573067775.1d147306@uninhabited.net>, at 17:55:30 on Sun, 1
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Dec 2024 at 17:00:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they >>>>>> were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project
proceeded "at pace".
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are >>>> actually a troll.
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but >>>>>>> only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this >>>>>>> particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many >>>>>>> others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have >>>>>>dreamed up.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is >>>>> almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied >>>>>> persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users >>>>>> who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women
can advocate for women.
That suggestion has been made by no one but yourself. You raised the >>>value of male advocates for women in response to the entirely
different proposition that women should be equally represented on
boards of government an quasi-government bodies. And perhaps, by >>>extension, other supervisory bodies.
In response to you it was expressed that a complete and adequate >>>representation of women's needs and views was unlikely to be
available without a reasonable proportion of women being involved.
The idea that *only* women can represent women is a spurious straw >>>Trojan horse of your own making.
Somewhere in that verbal spaghetti, we can perhaps find a trace of my
original premise - which was that insisting on having any women, rather
than skilled men, on such boards was to the detriment of the womens'
cause.
But of course there is no possibility of that situation arising. There are >plenty of women around who are suitably qualified. It might have been a risk >in 1920.
And having close acquaintance with a health authority board over some years, >the present system doesn't shrink from appointing totally useless men.
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:4wGhRyzGpFVnFAKl@perry.uk...
I think this train of thought started with the premise that women (however unskilled)
are always better at advocating for women than any man could ever be. Which is what I
fundamentally disagree with.
Er no.
Why should women chosen to sit on committees to represent their
fellow women, necessarily be unskilled ?
It's you, and you are alone, who are claiming that there's this
big shortage of women out there, who are so seemingly incapable of representing their own interests, that they need to call on
the help of a man, such as yourself.
I can see it might make a good sales pitch. But then sales pitches
don't always necessarily have to bear that much relation to the truth.
That was not said at all.
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 06/12/2024 10:23 am, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lreho6F19drU1@mid.individual.net...
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
snip
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was >>>>> scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class
children being able to get a good secondary education and access to those >>>> universities which then existed. He no doubt had his own reasons for that. >>
His Wikipedia page (extract):
It isn't "his" Wikipedia page.
It is one dedicated to him, and that style of attribution is quite common!
Crosland died in 1977 and like many politicians, he strongly divided opinion.
So it's a page "about" Crosland, freely contributed by somebody, no doubt in
support of "their own" opinion of him.
Accepted, for all the difference it makes (none to very little).
Of his written works Crosland is probably best known for "The Future of Socialism"
(1956) along with "The Conservative Enemy"* (London, Cape, 1962) and "Socialism
Now," and Other Essays (London, Cape, 1974).
(* So what's not to like ? See above)
So that if you can find a direct quotation in any of those, or any other work.
article etc.,, attributable to Crosland in support of your thesis that "Crosland
(privately educated) just hated the idea of bright working class children being
able to get a good secondary education", then that would of course, be most
helpful.
But otherwise I'm afraid, it will have to be a Fail.
I don't believe so.
His widow would seem to me to be a quite reliable guide as to his feelings on the
matter. I remember reading the interview at the time.
So just to be clear she confirmed that "he just hated the idea of bright working class
children being able to get a good secondary education", did she ?
Not forgetting that a decade earlier, if not at that time also, had the figures
not been *fiddled* most of these bright working class children would in fact have been girls !
While most of the supposedly "bright" boys would in fact, have ended up in Secondary Moderns.
Just think Secondary Moderns; doing woodwork and all sorts: had those "figures
not been fiddled".
It's maybe no wonder the real truth lay hidden for so long.
On 05/12/2024 20:45, JNugent wrote:
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The test (renamed so as not to attract too much attention) still
exists in at least two counties.
The results I meant, which demonstrated the clear dominance of girls.
In fact thinking about it, that may have been the real reason it was
scrapped.
No. Crosland (privately educated) just hated the idea of bright
working class children being able to get a good secondary education
and access to those universities which then existed. He no doubt had
his own reasons for that.
I recall my boys Grammar school being destroyed by that policy.
One Labour councillor who was at best semi-literate gave the prize
giving speech and uttered the immortal line "yerkanonlydoyerbest" all
one word. He went on to be mayor. He confused my Astronomy O level with Astrology which made him memorable to me (in a bad way). He sounded like
a baddy from Superman for good measure.
The very best teachers of the girls high school and grammar school ended
up in the sixth form college which was as a result second to none.
Do you mean that arithmetical "problems" have been worded with
different, though equally irrelevant, nouns?
I can believe that girls scored higher in some parts of that test
especially language comprehension and word puzzles - their reading age
was usually a couple of years ahead of most boys.
On mathematics and logic my class had two boys and just one girl who
were competitive at being top at maths. That ratio had increased to 4:1
by the time we were doing further maths A level. She was exceptional - playing chess at county level when girls hardly played chess at all.
One thing was clear at the time was that for STEM subjects an all girls school ultimately produced more scientists and engineers that a mixed
one did.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lrjg1uFpjs5U2@mid.individual.net...
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ?
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth; despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message news:vj3r6a$3n3p1$2@dont-email.me...
On 12/8/24 09:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrjg1uFpjs5U2@mid.individual.net...
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ?
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth; >>> despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
Without commenting on Roland's advocacy skills, in general, it is common for people
without direct experience to advocate for those who do have direct experience. My GP
for instance, does not experience my aches and pains.
No.he doesn't.
But he offers his diagnoses on the basis of what "you" tell him about your aches and pains.
Not what somebody else acting on your behalf, tells him about your aches
and pains.
Ot are you going to claim that there really are people out there who are better qualified to explain your aches and pains to doctors, than you are yourself ?
In message <lriv75FmommU2@mid.individual.net>, at 13:00:21 on Sat, 7 Dec 2024,
kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
On 07/12/2024 10:20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr8bu7F156rU2@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:00 on Tue, 3 Dec >>> 2024, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> remarked:
 Overall I think women are probably better advocates, once they've >>>>>>> learnt  the industry and the methodology. But some men are better than
a token  woman, put there just because of their gender. Some women >>>>>>> tasked with it are very bad, though - can be very shrill and >>>>>>> indignant, which is rarely useful.
So women have to learn, somehow, while not getting the experience, >>>>>> because in the meantime men do it.
I would suggest that the problem arises when a man, however well versed >>>>>> by his strong partner, is asked a question about which he knows nothing
at all.
 That would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
Wow. So men know all about everything.
 What a remarkable bit of over-reaching. Some men will know a lot about most
things, as will some women.
You are the one who suggested that a man not knowing the answer to a question
would be an extraordinary feat of ignorance.
I didn't, it's that simple.
In message <lr5rohFj5naU4@mid.individual.net>, at 13:41:37 on Mon, 2 Dec 2024, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
On 01/12/2024 17:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <lr0erhFn6nqU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:30:41 on Sat, 30
Nov 2024, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> remarked:
 No, it means they don't know how to debate without simply repeating
I think when anyone is "shrill and indignant" (and I've never seen
that in a court or in a workplace setting) it usually means that
they are not being listened to or are being disrespected.
the same bogus argument over and over again.
Ah. Have you therefore been in the position of being a man trying to
debate with a shrill and indignant woman?
I don't try to debate with them, it's far more productive to find a
different way of expressing the indignation they have, to the audience
who is rolling their eyes at them.
I never have.
Then you've simply not been involved in the same processes as I have.
It may be that I am quite good at demonstrating in arguments that the
other person is being listened to and not disrespected. Or that you've
been in situations where the chairman of the meeting is incompetent
and failing to do his job properly.
Chairmen (which includes female chairmen) often have difficulty in
calming down shrill and indignant members of a meeting, because it can
easily just escalate the conflict.
On 12/8/24 09:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrjg1uFpjs5U2@mid.individual.net...
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ?
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth;
despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
Without commenting on Roland's advocacy skills, in general, it is common for people
without direct experience to advocate for those who do have direct experience. My GP
for instance, does not experience my aches and pains.
A garage mechanic does not have my intimate experience of driving my car.
So a person will a specific skill may act on behalf of others. The current meme that we
cannot judge other people's experience is nonsense. It is clearly a backlash against
little people's experience being ignored, but the pendulum has swung too far.
On 08/12/2024 11:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vj3r6a$3n3p1$2@dont-email.me...
On 12/8/24 09:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrjg1uFpjs5U2@mid.individual.net...
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ?
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov >>>>> I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth; >>>> despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
Without commenting on Roland's advocacy skills, in general, it is common for people
without direct experience to advocate for those who do have direct experience. My GP
for instance, does not experience my aches and pains.
No.he doesn't.
But he offers his diagnoses on the basis of what "you" tell him about your >> aches and pains.
Not what somebody else acting on your behalf, tells him about your aches
and pains.
Ot are you going to claim that there really are people out there who are
better qualified to explain your aches and pains to doctors, than you are
yourself ?
Actually yes, that might be the case, for some people.
Let us imagine you accompany a close friend to a consultation with a doctor. Your
friend explains that the symptoms are numerous, all over the body, and that in your
friend's opinion it all originates from a painful jaw that is "out of alignment" and
has caused a chronic imbalance of energy from head to toe, including an unstable knee
and an inability to open the lids of new jamjars. After 20 minutes of this drivel, with
the doctor listening patiently, you would do well to say which symptoms you think are
the most painful and worrying, from your observation and from your previous conversations with the patient. Including the melanoma on the thigh that your friend
forgot to mention.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:lrlefgF489gU5@mid.individual.net...
On 08/12/2024 11:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vj3r6a$3n3p1$2@dont-email.me...
On 12/8/24 09:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrjg1uFpjs5U2@mid.individual.net...
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ?
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov >>>>>> I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth; >>>>> despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
Without commenting on Roland's advocacy skills, in general, it is common for people
without direct experience to advocate for those who do have direct experience. My GP
for instance, does not experience my aches and pains.
No.he doesn't.
But he offers his diagnoses on the basis of what "you" tell him about your >>> aches and pains.
Not what somebody else acting on your behalf, tells him about your aches >>> and pains.
Ot are you going to claim that there really are people out there who are >>> better qualified to explain your aches and pains to doctors, than you are >>> yourself ?
Actually yes, that might be the case, for some people.
Let us imagine you accompany a close friend to a consultation with a doctor. Your
friend explains that the symptoms are numerous, all over the body, and that in your
friend's opinion it all originates from a painful jaw that is "out of alignment" and
has caused a chronic imbalance of energy from head to toe, including an unstable knee
and an inability to open the lids of new jamjars. After 20 minutes of this drivel, with
the doctor listening patiently, you would do well to say which symptoms you think are
the most painful and worrying, from your observation and from your previous >> conversations with the patient. Including the melanoma on the thigh that your friend
forgot to mention.
Following which you accompany another close friend to another consultation,with a doctor.
You explain that your friend had a pain in their arm.
The doctor then asks - "Does it hurt when I do this ?"
Then " Does it hurt when I do this /"
So who's arm is the doctor doing things to ?
And who is going to answer the doctor's questions ?
You or your friend.?
On 7 Dec 2024 at 14:35:58 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <7573067775.1d147306@uninhabited.net>, at 17:55:30 on Sun, 1
Dec 2024, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> remarked:
On 1 Dec 2024 at 17:00:45 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <vicffe$13lh5$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:27:04 on Fri, 29 Nov
2024, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> remarked:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:WahKrDmFbaSnFAEW@perry.uk...
snippage ( somewhere or other )
The women on the team (look up Roland's Angels, for example, and they >>>>>> were just the tip of that iceberg).
Look them up where ? In your memoirs ?
The Interwebs.
Unfortunatrely I don't have a copy. And so I can only assume they
were employed to either bring Mr Grumpy, yourself, and the rest of
the boys their coffee, or sweet-talk retailers over the phone.
a la Karen Brady at LBC
Nope. Ferrying things between different sites to ensure the project
proceeded "at pace".
Although I'd guess the unlike Branson you never went to so far
as to dress them all up in tight red uniforms
That's so horrendously non-politically correct, I'm wondering if you are >>>> actually a troll.
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with sex/gender issues but >>>>>>> only with your own exceptionalism; assuming such applies in this >>>>>>> particular context and isn't mirrored by the expoerience of many >>>>>>> others who find themselves in similar situations
I am not claiming to be exceptional, that's a fiction you have dreamed up.
Indeed ! Just how anyone could possibly have thought such a thing, is >>>>> almost impossible to imagine. Is it not ?
Perhaps you have very little imagination, and are just trolling.
But what I will claim is that relevant experience can put able-bodied >>>>>> persons in a better position to advocate, than random other
able-bodied people off the street, or even random wheelchair users >>>>>> who lack the skills in advocacy.
Indeed. But then when has anyone ever suggested otherwise ?
The idea expressed in this thread over and over again that only women
can advocate for women.
That suggestion has been made by no one but yourself. You raised the value of
male advocates for women in response to the entirely different proposition >>> that women should be equally represented on boards of government an
quasi-government bodies. And perhaps, by extension, other supervisory bodies.
In response to you it was expressed that a complete and adequate
representation of women's needs and views was unlikely to be available without
a reasonable proportion of women being involved. The idea that *only* women
can represent women is a spurious straw Trojan horse of your own making.
Somewhere in that verbal spaghetti, we can perhaps find a trace of my
original premise - which was that insisting on having any women, rather
than skilled men, on such boards was to the detriment of the womens'
cause.
But of course there is no possibility of that situation arising. There are plenty of women around who are suitably qualified. It might have been a risk in 1920.
And having close acquaintance with a health authority board over some years, the present system doesn't shrink from appointing totally useless men.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ?
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth; despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
On 08/12/2024 13:48, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lrlefgF489gU5@mid.individual.net...
On 08/12/2024 11:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> wrote in message
news:vj3r6a$3n3p1$2@dont-email.me...
On 12/8/24 09:39, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrjg1uFpjs5U2@mid.individual.net...
That was not said at all.
Fair enough. Lets finally stop beating about tbe bush, shall we ? >>>>>>
Here's what was originally said
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov >>>>>>> I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth;
despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations. >>>>>> Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
Without commenting on Roland's advocacy skills, in general, it is common for people
without direct experience to advocate for those who do have direct experience. My
GP
for instance, does not experience my aches and pains.
No.he doesn't.
But he offers his diagnoses on the basis of what "you" tell him about your >>>> aches and pains.
Not what somebody else acting on your behalf, tells him about your aches >>>> and pains.
Ot are you going to claim that there really are people out there who are >>>> better qualified to explain your aches and pains to doctors, than you are >>>> yourself ?
Actually yes, that might be the case, for some people.
Let us imagine you accompany a close friend to a consultation with a doctor. Your
friend explains that the symptoms are numerous, all over the body, and that in your
friend's opinion it all originates from a painful jaw that is "out of alignment" and
has caused a chronic imbalance of energy from head to toe, including an unstable knee
and an inability to open the lids of new jamjars. After 20 minutes of this drivel,
with
the doctor listening patiently, you would do well to say which symptoms you think are
the most painful and worrying, from your observation and from your previous >>> conversations with the patient. Including the melanoma on the thigh that your friend
forgot to mention.
Following which you accompany another close friend to another
consultation,with a doctor.
You explain that your friend had a pain in their arm.
The doctor then asks - "Does it hurt when I do this ?"
Then " Does it hurt when I do this /"
So who's arm is the doctor doing things to ?
And who is going to answer the doctor's questions ?
You or your friend.?
And, in that scenario, your friend says it doesn't hurt when the doctor does those
things.
The doctor prescribes simple analgesics for when the pain gets bad, believing that it's
probably a trivial, transient problem.
And then maybe you say "My friend hasn't mentioned a couple of other symptoms including
bleeding from the rectum - I think my friend was embarrassed to say it, but do you
think it might need investigation?"
More than one poster has pointed out that you are pursuing a non-sequitur (if, indeed,
only one).
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lrltq8F79hjU1@mid.individual.net...
More than one poster has pointed out that you are pursuing a non-sequitur (if, indeed,
only one).
Which is ?
On 05/12/2024 05:40 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 05/12/2024 01:06 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 04/12/2024 18:11, billy bookcase wrote:
The 'gender gap' is not a new problem; if raw scores in the 11+ had been used
to determine selection, then grammar schools in the 50s and 60s would have been
populated almost exclusively by girls.
Likewise, the historical figures for O level
achievement in the 1960s and 70s show a gap in gender achievement, roughly 5%
difference in pass rate, 10% in some subjects
(eg languages) (Murphy R. 1980).
What was Murphy's methodology and statistical research for the apparent conclusion
that femailes are, on average, of higher IQ than males?
Other than that, they've presumably modified it in some way the meantime, and
surreptitiously introduced questions about football, cars and guns to
even up the scores a bit.
Do you mean that arithmetical "problems" have been worded with different, though equally irrelevant, nouns?
On 08/12/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrltq8F79hjU1@mid.individual.net...
More than one poster has pointed out that you are pursuing a non-sequitur (if,
indeed,
only one).
Which is ?
Re-read your post to which I was responding (which you have now snipped).
Of that prominent list, every single one of your invitations to draw the same conclusions that you (appear to) have drawn is based on a non-sequitur.
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:lrms2nFbvi9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/12/2024 09:04 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:lrltq8F79hjU1@mid.individual.net...
More than one poster has pointed out that you are pursuing a non-sequitur (if,
indeed,
only one).
Which is ?
Re-read your post to which I was responding (which you have now snipped).
Of that prominent list, every single one of your invitations to draw the same
conclusions that you (appear to) have drawn is based on a non-sequitur.
Here's the entire paragrah
quote:
"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote in message news:cOFIuuDaK3RnFAt8@perry.uk...
In message <vi761b$10k0$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:15:18 on Wed, 27 Nov
I take exception to the view that men cannot advocate for women.
Despite never having carrried a baby around for 9 months and given birth; despite never having suffered period pains and all the associated inconveniences;
despite never having been been touched up by men of all of ages from 14 to 94;
despite never having been subject to lewd remarks again by men of all ages from
14 to 94; despite never having been generally patronised, either before or after
cooking the dinner or judged and excluded from certain occupations.
Or having to put up with all the b*llshit generally.
And despite having scored lower than women in the 11 plus
Oh no !. Despite all that - they're perfectly qualified !
unquote:
Clearly it hasn't occurred to you that the only person/people capable of deciding
whether or not men can advocate for women are,.....er women ?
Similarly the only people capable of judging whether there are any non-sequiturs
are again er, women.
In pursuit of which, in this particular instance, I would assume that neither Roland nor your good self qualify.
For the moment at least. ( To get back on topic)
bb
* Obviously male barristers can advocate on behalf of female clients
but that's in the latter's role as defendants. Not as women.
Similarly male trade union representatives can represent women members
but that's in the latter's role as employees, not as women.
What men cannot do is advocate on behalf of women where there may
be pertinanant issues which men may simply be blissfully unaware of.
On 09/12/2024 06:31 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
Clearly it hasn't occurred to you that the only person/people capable of deciding
whether or not men can advocate for women are,.....er women ?
If you mean that the customer is always right, I'll agree with you.
Or did you mean something else?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 499 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 50:41:10 |
| Calls: | 9,838 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,764 |
| Messages: | 6,194,225 |
| Posted today: | 1 |