Politics in General

[Ian Volante]

They were a couple so get ya facts right!!!!! (One of the hosts has actually recently come out as gay) (no offence Ian), that was just an example.

I don't think I denied they were a couple? I still amn't completely convinced of your reasoning yet

I’m not arguing I just made a simple comment about my opinion, I didn’t mean to start a huge debate.

If you're going to make comments on public forums, then surely you're inviting engagement? If not, why are you here?

[Ian Volante]

I’m not arguing I just made a simple comment about my opinion, I didn’t mean to start a huge debate.

If you're going to make comments on public forums, then surely you're inviting engagement? If not, why are you here?

I’m here to chat to the community about Countdown, I saw this thread and made a simple post and didn’t think it would cause a debate.

Oh, I didn't realise the proliferation of homosexuality in public had had much effect on Countdown, or did I miss undercurrents between Susie and Rachel?

[Marc Meakin]

Was there any need to out Innis ?

[Fiona T]

Was there any need to out Innis ?

100% this. Announcing someone else's sexuality on a public forum is a no-no, regardless of whether you think they'd mind or not.

Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.

My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 99.3% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.

My deepest condolences that your sexual orientation has been represented by only 0.7% of participants in a reality game show. Can't imagine how hard this must be.

Is this supposed to be funny?

[Innis Carson]

For the record, I'm comfortable with it being mentioned, but thank you Marc and Fiona for your consideration.

[Ian Volante]

I’m here to chat to the community about Countdown, I saw this thread and made a simple post and didn’t think it would cause a debate.

Oh, I didn't realise the proliferation of homosexuality in public had had much effect on Countdown, or did I miss undercurrents between Susie and Rachel?

I’m straight and I’m only saying my own opinion. Shall we just stop debating sexuality please???

Putting this bluntly (due to my Yorkshire origins rather than aiming to cause offence) I couldn't give a monkey's what you are, as I don't think that's at all relevant. My point was that, in my experience (I may be horrendously wrong on this), stating on a discussion forum that one doesn't understand something, and asking a related question, is a clear invititation to conversation.

As for a homosexual couple getting priority in presenting possibly the third gayest programme on telly, I can't say this is striking much of a blow against the heterosexual majority.

I'll leave it to the wisdom of the crowd as to what I think are the two programmes at the top of this probably insensitive list.

[Matt Morrison]

Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.

When did I... I don't remember this at all.

[Ian Volante]

Such as Dancing On Ice with H and Matt.

When did I... I don't remember this at all.

I think the sequins suited you.

[Marc Meakin]

Hope all International women have a great day

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't think we've had any mention of the killing of George Floyd by a policeman on this forum, so it's become a bit of an elephant in the room. So here we are.

Obviously it's been pointed out that racism seems to be far worse in America than over here, but it still exists in this country obviously.

That said, I do think some people like to jump on bandwagons and just call everything racism though, and also create conflict where there doesn't need to be any. Sometimes people say "All lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter". These people aren't necessarily racist - it's often likely to be nothing more than a linguistic misunderstanding between the two groups. It's like people who say "When's international men's day?" aren't necessarily sexist.

Also, MP Florence Eshalomi, has accused other MPs of racism for getting her mixed up with other black MPs. Is that racism? It's more likely to be the cross-race effect. It's unfortunate, but you can't accuse people of being racist for not being able to recognise you. Learning people's faces is generally a skill you pick up unconsciously, so you can't call someone racist if they've not learnt your face properly.

This is a very emotive issue, but that's exactly when we need to stay rational and not go out on a witch-hunt with our pitchforks.

[Marc Meakin]

Black lives matter , that's not in doubt but , social distancing should also matter .
These mass protests have less effect than social media.
We wouldn't even know about the circumstances of George Floyd if it wasn't for social media.

[Fiona T]

That said, I do think some people like to jump on bandwagons and just call everything racism though, and also create conflict where there doesn't need to be any. Sometimes people say "All lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter". These people aren't necessarily racist - it's often likely to be nothing more than a linguistic misunderstanding between the two groups. It's like people who say "When's international men's day?" aren't necessarily sexist.

They may not be overtly racist, but they are failing (often wilfully) to understand the point of "Black Lives Matter".

[Rhys Benjamin]

I do think it’s a non-sequitur during a pandemic, though, that disproportionately harms BAME people.

Protest? Fine. During a pandemic? Not fine.

[Gavin Chipper]

That said, I do think some people like to jump on bandwagons and just call everything racism though, and also create conflict where there doesn't need to be any. Sometimes people say "All lives matter" in response to "Black lives matter". These people aren't necessarily racist - it's often likely to be nothing more than a linguistic misunderstanding between the two groups. It's like people who say "When's international men's day?" aren't necessarily sexist.

They may not be overtly racist, but they are failing (often wilfully) to understand the point of "Black Lives Matter".

This is probably the case, and I think the cartoon is actually quite good because it is quite generous about the possibility of misunderstanding, which some people are not.

One of my Facebook friends put up a "Venn diagram" of things that people he considers obnoxious say - it was actually just a single circle implying that people who say one say them all because they completely overlap. Two of the things were "All lives matter" and "BLM protests should be stopped cos of COVID-19". Which brings me to:

I do think it’s a non-sequitur during a pandemic, though, that disproportionately harms BAME people.

Protest? Fine. During a pandemic? Not fine.

I think it's legitimate to have concerns about these protests.

Of course, it's been said by various people that if we have a second spike, people will blame either the Cummings effect or these protests - whichever suits their views.

[Mark James]

Anyone else think the protests would be even cooler if they just kept to social distancing rules. The same amount of people at the protests but at least making a decent effort to stay 2m apart, even 1m as a compromise. Obviously it would take up more of the streets and stuff but I just think would be a really powerful message. I'm sure its a case of being easier said than done and no doubt there are safety implications for staying in closer knit proximity for when the riot police are jerks etc. but I think it would be a hugely effective statement. Pictures of tight knit crowds marching for a common cause have historically been incredibly impactfull but in the current climate I think a socially distanced crowd would work really well as an image.

[Rhys Benjamin]

A friend of mine is now the Mayor of Bagnor (not difficult given he's one the about 80 members of Plaid Cymru). And they managed to do a socially distant protest very well.

[Marc Meakin]

Anyone else think the protests would be even cooler if they just kept to social distancing rules. The same amount of people at the protests but at least making a decent effort to stay 2m apart, even 1m as a compromise. Obviously it would take up more of the streets and stuff but I just think would be a really powerful message. I'm sure its a case of being easier said than done and no doubt there are safety implications for staying in closer knit proximity for when the riot police are jerks etc. but I think it would be a hugely effective statement. Pictures of tight knit crowds marching for a common cause have historically been incredibly impactfull but in the current climate I think a socially distanced crowd would work really well as an image.

I bet it would be more peaceful a protest too as I'm sure large crowds of people squashed together make the situation more aggressive

[Rhys Benjamin]

Since it's been 10 years since we actually all did the Political Compass (which I'm really losing faith in given its UK 2019 party positions), I'd be interested to see where everyone fits on there now, to see if your position has shifted from 10 years ago.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

I've moved more socially liberal and more economically right than the last time we did this.

Economic Left/Right: 7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.77

[Mark James]

I don't need to do the test to know I'm libertarian left.

[Gavin Chipper]

Without giving specific numbers, I'm way off in the bottom left-hand corner. Some of the questions aren't very well worded though and it's not always obvious how they should be interpreted, whereas some seem to be pushing for a particular answer. I think it's simplistic and not a very good quiz overall. 4/10.

[Rhys Benjamin]

Without giving specific numbers, I'm way off in the bottom left-hand corner. Some of the questions aren't very well worded though and it's not always obvious how they should be interpreted, whereas some seem to be pushing for a particular answer. I think it's simplistic and not a very good quiz overall. 4/10.

I know it's a bit silly, especially given its rather bizarre placings of the parties at the UK general election, suggesting there was very little socially between the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage DUP, and the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Tories...

[Graeme Cole]

I seem to have moved a little bit down and to the left from where I was in 2011. I'm now -4.13, -6.15.

[Callum Todd]

I've seen many political compass tests online before. All of them have been bad. That one is comfortably the worst.

[Fiona T]

This one gives me

Economic Left/Right: -5.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.85

Most of these sorts of tests I've done in the past have put me in the bottom left quadrant, but much nearer the centre, which is probably a truer reflection.

[Ian Volante]

I do this test now and again, and apart from the crappy questions, I seem to be drifting generally leftwards.

[Gavin Chipper]

Has anyone tried http://www.politicalcompass.org/test yet to see where they stand politically. Apparently I'm a libertarian left, only two squares away from the Dalai Lama, although I have to say, some of the questions are stupidly put. Take the one about the business man being more important than the artist. If I disagree with that I think they think I believe the artist is more important than the business man but I don't. I think they're both equally important.

Some of the questions are pretty rubbish and some are quite hard to understand/answer. I suppose you can get a broad idea of someone's views though.

"A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies."

followed by:

"The freer the market, the freer the people. "

Does this mean a genuine free market? It's sort of implicit in the first question that you'd have to agree with the second if you carried your definition through.

I quite like coming across old posts of mine (this is about nine years old) that still reflect my thoughts on the subject. It's like when I go through the spoilers threads for the 30th birthday championship, I find I've already written what I wanted to say.

[Gavin Chipper]

Going back to a previous topic, JK Rowling is back in the news over her trans comments. She's written a long post about it which you can find here. I think she nailed it with this quote:

I forgot the first rule of Twitter – never, ever expect a nuanced conversation

You get a lot of people on there (and not just on Twitter) who instead of arguing a case, try to "disqualify" their opponent by making them out to be a bad person who should be shunned forever more. I read Rowling's post, and I didn't find anything too egregious in it. Fortunately c4c is better than Twitter so I can post that. I probably wouldn't discuss this stuff on Facebook either.

[Mark James]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_Andre ... 1275762689

Is this nuanced enough?

[Gavin Chipper]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_Andre ... 1275762689

Is this nuanced enough?

Well, that's quite interesting, but it's not really a discussion anyway. It's a clinical point by point destruction with a clear prior motive. But you don't have to go far to find holes you can pick in his posts - which is just as well because I'm not reading it all. I'll just look at the very first thing.

Firstly, she did not "lose her job" (she was a contract worker, her contract was not renewed). The distinction is important both legally and linguistically - since "losing a job" casts Forstater as the victim, implying she was fired.

This is less relevant than he's claiming. If she didn't have her contract renewed because of her tweets and that her tweets weren't actually "bad tweets", then it would be reasonable to call her a victim.

But anyway, for me this isn't about "taking sides". I think it's an interesting topic to look into. And while there are some very prejudiced and nasty "transphobic"* people out there, some people are too quick to take aim at anyone who doesn't say exactly the right things that the script demands. And JK Rowling seems to be more the latter than the former.

*I only use the quotes because I always think it's weird to describe a hatred as a phobia.

[Jennifer Steadman]

The giant post with very few sources is worthy of reading, without enquiring into the claims made or substantiating them - whereas the series of posts with credible references and evidence is worth picking holes in but not reading? Odd. If it's not about taking sides, then why hold the sources to different standards?

Here are a few of my key issues with Rowling's post:

1) The idea that trans women are an innate threat to cis women in single sex spaces through the UK Gender Recognition Act is probably the most consistent thread there. But there doesn't seem to be much to substantiate that this is a genuine issue: Karen White is the only UK example I've really been able to find of someone exploiting a trans identity to gain access to single sex spaces. Ireland's Gender Recognition Act was enshrined in law in 2015 - in that time, there don't appear to have been any instances of this. And indeed NatCen's 2017 report on moral issues found British cis women to be more supportive of trans women using their toilets (72% of those surveyed were 'quite/very comfortable', just 13% 'quite/very uncomfortable') than British cis men with trans men, only 65% of whom were 'quite/very comfortable' [see page 15]. It's at least debatable that this is a majority view for British cis women.

2) The suggestion that, as of late, trans women must be considered materially the same as cis women certainly isn't something I've come across in feminist communities - at best, it's niche. If anything, the key idea is that different intersections of women are materially NOT the same as each other: there is no universal experience of womanhood. We experience the world as women differently based on our genetic make-up, when we are born, where we are born, who we are born to (their material circumstances, their parental aptitude, their health), and indeed everything else. Everyone has an individual experience of it, even if there can be shared/common characteristics/experiences for women within the same demographic, but these differ a lot between demographics.

No-one is denying the biological differences between trans and cis women, or their differing medical needs (at least I don't think this is in contention), but what is the universal biological experience for cis women? Typically the notion of biological womanhood is tied to periods, period pains, fertility, wombs, vaginas, oestrogen. But what of cis women who don't menstruate, cis women who are born without a womb, infertile cis women, cis women with polycystic ovary syndrome (ergo higher levels of testosterone, with potential knock-on effects for fertility and menstruation - 20% of UK cis women, myself included)? And then what of intersex women assigned female at birth? Sure it's rare, but trans people are hardly a huge population; they are, however, another group that doesn't fit those 'universal' characteristics.

Based on the above points, I can't say I believe there is much evidence for the notion that cos women are at risk from trans women being considered to be women, whereas there is evidence that trans people have been at risk.

3) Regarding the allusion that "only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault" would want trans people in single sex spaces etc: plenty of cis women who have experienced these things support trans people's access to single sex spaces. Rowling's own hideous experiences of violence and sexual assault do NOT give her the right to speak on behalf of everyone who has experienced this. This is not merely going off-script or 'not saying exactly the right things': it is an absolute delusion that weaponises victims of abuse, many of whom are disgusted to be evoked in this way, and 'egregious' would be the very mildest word I would use to describe it. You cannot blame any victim of abuse for being less than civil in their response to this suggestion.

4) Women's refuges housing trans women is not a new or frightening development. You can read Rape Crisis Scotland's statement here, and Stonewall's comprehensive report into the provision of domestic/sexual violence services for trans women here, based on interviews with those who work for these services.

5) "Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women." Misgendering trans men is clearly exclusionary - if 'radfem' support of trans men is predicated on either undermining or dismissing their identity, they're excluding them.

This is the tip of the iceberg. The content of the post does not convince me of any genuine engagement with trans people, resources or literature, and the lack of citations does not inspire confidence either. Ultimately, if you think a topic is important enough to justify a 3,691-word essay on it (including a paragraph on the amount of research allegedly undertaken, which still somehow returns the notion that "liking Jimmy Choos" is relevant enough to the embrace of a trans identity to warrant a mention), why would you go to all that effort and barely include any sources to make your arguments credible and verifiable?

Obviously I don't support death threats, violent abuse etc towards her, but using your huge public platform to put forward unsubstantiated views that tangibly affect the lives of trans people who already experience high rates of assault and abuse (numerous sources cited above) is deeply irresponsible, and not some zero-sum topic of interest for the neutral observer.

[Marc Meakin]

Warning.....boomer alert
I long for those simpler days when the way to tell if you were a man or a woman was to look inside your pants

[Marc Meakin]

As regards Ms Rowling , I'm surprised post menopausal women and those that have had hysterectomies or have been sterilised are not up in arms too

[Gavin Chipper]

The giant post with very few sources is worthy of reading, without enquiring into the claims made or substantiating them - whereas the series of posts with credible references and evidence is worth picking holes in but not reading? Odd. If it's not about taking sides, then why hold the sources to different standards?

Well, I suppose I read Rowling's post because it was referred to in the news and it got me interested. The response is just one of many criticisms of Rowling, and I don't feel that I'm compelled to read that particular one just because someone linked to it on this forum. But also, I read Rowling's post as "Shit, I'm being attacked by a lot of people here, so I'd better try and put up some sort of defence." Whereas that guy's response was "Fuck you, Rowling. I'm going to go through your post with a fine-tooth comb and jump on anything I can find." It certainly didn't come across to me as an honest attempt to engage. The very first thing in the post confirmed this.

I won't respond line by line to all of the rest of your post, but I'm not going to disagree with the bulk of it. It is likely Rowling is wrong about a lot of the stuff.

But the thing about whether there is any difference between trans women and cis women - maybe people aren't denying this, but it's also a question of how we use our words and how that's policed. Not everyone will be aware of the prefix "cis" or what it means, so will be left wondering how they're supposed to refer to this difference, since the words they used (female, woman etc.) are no longer fit for the job. Can people say "biological woman"? But even at a more philosophical level, I think it's reasonable to ask what it really means to be a man or woman, without it being politically charged. But you seemingly can't do that in public now. Which I suppose brings me to:

not some zero-sum topic of interest for the neutral observer.

This is a difficult one, because while no-one should be acting in a way to push potentially suicidal people over the edge, we should be allowed to discuss this. And I think the lack of discussion and the polarised nature of any debate makes things worse overall.

[Gavin Chipper]

But the thing about whether there is any difference between trans women and cis women - maybe people aren't denying this, but it's also a question of how we use our words and how that's policed. Not everyone will be aware of the prefix "cis" or what it means, so will be left wondering how they're supposed to refer to this difference, since the words they used (female, woman etc.) are no longer fit for the job. Can people say "biological woman"?

OK, I've had a look through the Tweet and found this:

Note the use of "biological women" instead of the correct adjective "cis".

Rejecting "cis" is another transphobic staple, which is why Rowling (a professional writer) doesn't use it. She's casting herself as a neutral in this - but adopting the language of her chosen side.

But I do see this as language police. Who gets to decide how we use words?

[Mark James]

"You can't have nuanced discussion on twitter"

"No, I'm not going to respond to or engage with the numerous valid criticisms on Twitter."

"Why is nuanced discussion on Twitter impossible? It's a mystery!"

[Marc Meakin]

So I guess JK Rowling has stirred up a TERF war

[Gavin Chipper]

"You can't have nuanced discussion on twitter"

"No, I'm not going to respond to or engage with the numerous valid criticisms on Twitter."

"Why is nuanced discussion on Twitter impossible? It's a mystery!"

I don't think it's that no-one on Twitter is capable of nuanced discussion. But if you say anything controversial (and you're famous so lots of people see your stuff), then a lot of people will just jump on you with abuse, ad hominem attacks etc. And it's likely to be every time you post as well. So while you're trying to respond to more reasoned points, people will be jumping on you left, right and centre, so it will be hard to concentrate on the specific debate with the person/people making more reasoned points.

Also, another couple of things I was going to say:

First of all, about having a frank and open conversation about these topics - we're effectively told we can't do this because trans people will commit suicide. It's really tragic that so many trans people are in a position where they contemplate and even carry this out. But this is more likely to be the result of the more abusive stuff they get, or the mental health problems they have from thinking they've been born in the wrong body. Not discussions like this. So I see this attempt to shut down legitimate discussion as coercion.

And if people are allowed to decide what people call them, why do trans people get to decide what non-trans people are called - i.e. cis?

[Jon O'Neill]

Who has ever thought Twitter, or any other social media platform, would be a place to have a serious discussion about anything?

Now a Countdown forum, on the other hand, is perfect.

[Callum Todd]

C4c > twitter.

Change my mind.

[Rhys Benjamin]

C4c > twitter.

Change my mind.

Well given C4C doesn't have Owen Jones, Antifa, or Squawkbox trolls that flood your notifications whenever you say something, I'm inclined to agree.

[Ben Wilson]

C4c > twitter.

Change my mind.

To the best of my knowledge, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins don't have accounts on here, and neither do any of their toxic followers, so I'm inclined to agree with you there.

[Jennifer Steadman]

"can't" have conversations, "language police", etc - nuanced conversations depend on people as well as platforms!

Trans people's risk of suicide doesn't stop conversations, it just encourages a sensitive and indeed nuanced approach to the topic, as with any other subject linked to MH struggles and the like. That means familiarising oneself with the basics of the subject, the basic questions and answers, and reading both personal accounts and experts in the field, before you have something to say about it (and think about how you express it). This doesn't shut down a conversation: if anything, it elevates it, because it pushes it beyond Page 1 basics and laziness into more thoughtful questions, answers and research.

JKR's post was widely criticised for some of the reasons I outlined in my previous post (and more) and these criticisms were freely available - I am surprised that you hadn't seen or looked into these.

Cis (cisgender) is an adjective that just means 'identifying with the sex assigned at birth'. The public learns and adapts to new language all the time, so three letters should be easy enough to absorb. No-one can stop you using 'biological man/woman' if really you want to ('cis' is kinder to those of us with RSI of course), and in a medical capacity it is of course useful to be able to identify a natal man/woman to ensure nuanced but accurate healthcare assessments and research from professionals.

However, 'biological man/woman' is an uncomfortable term for the trans community because reductive biology is often used to dismiss diversity of sex/gender identity through the binaries we are taught at school: male/female, man/woman, XY/XX. Good medical professionals should be aware that while a chromosomal binary is the norm, it is by no means universal. There are XXY/XYY/XXX chromosomes as well (and more), there are natal males with XX chromosomes (de la Chapelle syndrome), and suchlike. Diversity of sex is an immutable biological fact, and it's less rare than you might expect (0.1-0.2% of natal male population has XXY chromosomes, 0.1% has XYY, etc - which still comes out as quite a few people in the UK and worldwide).

I think we would refer to a person with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY chromosomes) as a 'biological man' despite exhibiting some characteristics of 'biological woman', but would we consider an intersex person to be a 'biological man' or a 'biological woman'? Are they both, or neither? Cis/trans works here: intersex people are typically assigned one or another gender at birth, so 'cis' is an appropriate term for those that identify with that gender, and 'trans' for those that don't. (Non-binary people would define themselves separately to both cis and trans people, although it's an area I'm less familiar with.)

The most important thing is this. Overnight, the Trump administration has removed trans people's protections within healthcare, allowing them to be discriminated against (note the usage of 'biological sex' by the Trump administration). Hungary's government ended legal recognition for trans and intersex people last month. While there are new ideas to grapple with in regard to language - France sees your 'cis' question and raises you this, a language entirely dependent on the masculine/feminine binary - and possibly sense of self, it's worth keeping things in perspective. These are small fry compared to the trans community's concerns about their fundamental rights and safety, especially when hard-fought rights are being reversed.

I’m no expert, but this is a horribly oppressed and endangered group of people worldwide, to whom we should be sympathetic rather than defensive. The UK has better rights for the trans community than most, but there are those that seek to overturn them, and other countries set a worrying precedent for that right now. If we can make trans people a little more comfortable in a world that largely denies, dismisses and even despises them, it's worth doing imo, especially if it minimally inconveniences us to do so.

[Marc Meakin]

I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.

[Mark James]

I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.

Tell me again how c4c > Twitter.

[Graeme Cole]

I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.

I'm not sure I even understand this. If you were gay you'd have no obligation to "announce" yourself as gay either.

Nobody's suggesting anyone should start introducing themselves to people as "hi, I'm Marc, I'm cis", any more than they introduce themselves as "I'm Marc, I'm straight".

When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.

[Gavin Chipper]

"can't" have conversations, "language police", etc - nuanced conversations depend on people as well as platforms!

Definitely.

Trans people's risk of suicide doesn't stop conversations, it just encourages a sensitive and indeed nuanced approach to the topic, as with any other subject linked to MH struggles and the like. That means familiarising oneself with the basics of the subject, the basic questions and answers, and reading both personal accounts and experts in the field, before you have something to say about it (and think about how you express it). This doesn't shut down a conversation: if anything, it elevates it, because it pushes it beyond Page 1 basics and laziness into more thoughtful questions, answers and research.

I think this comes from all sides though. While some people are quick to just consider these people a load of freaks, others are too quick to yell "Bigot!"

JKR's post was widely criticised for some of the reasons I outlined in my previous post (and more) and these criticisms were freely available - I am surprised that you hadn't seen or looked into these.

Well yes, but I think the wider question is not just about whether Rowling has been accurate on every single point, but about whether what she's done makes her a nasty person or a bigot worthy of vilification. What's your opinion on that? And I don't mean to just give her a free pass - I'm not trying to imply that that's what should happen.

But just to go back to her Tweet that I think started the recent news:

'People who menstruate'. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

I think this comes back to the point about language. Maybe she phrased this in a way that she knew was going to antagonise a lot of people but, JK Rowling aside, I think it's reasonable to discuss philosophically/linguistically/scientifically what we mean by the words "man" and "woman" and who gets to decide. Now I would never condone anyone going up to a trans-woman/man and saying "You are not a woman/man" but that doesn't mean they have to agree internally what the "best" definitions of these words are or that they have adhere to the "prescribed" definitions at all times in order to not be a bigot. We also have male/female - do we apply them in the same way?

Cis (cisgender) is an adjective that just means 'identifying with the sex assigned at birth'. The public learns and adapts to new language all the time, so three letters should be easy enough to absorb. No-one can stop you using 'biological man/woman' if really you want to ('cis' is kinder to those of us with RSI of course), and in a medical capacity it is of course useful to be able to identify a natal man/woman to ensure nuanced but accurate healthcare assessments and research from professionals.

When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.

I'll include Graeme in here too. I think it's slightly different with "cis" because it's not a word that's "naturally" come into the language. It's a word that people are actively trying to get other people to use. Not that that is necessarily such a bad thing, but I think it can explain some of the resistance. Plus I think it's a horrible sounding word. Maybe because it's a bit like "cyst" - I don't know, but it does have an unpleasant feel to it, for me anyway. I think they could have put more thought into it. It's probably not too late to change it anyway, as it's unlikely to have caught on in the majority of households in the English speaking world.

"Straight" actually sounds a anti-gay anyway, implying that if you're not straight you're warped in some way - well there is the word "bent".

Without quoting all the stuff about chromosomes (because the post is getting longer), yes there are complications anyway in some cases with the terms "biological man/woman", but I also think the meaning is slightly different from "cis" anyway. The way someone might use the term "biological woman" in the way Rowling would would probably also apply to a trans-man, even if that might come across as offensive.

The most important thing is this. Overnight, the Trump administration has removed trans people's protections within healthcare, allowing them to be discriminated against (note the usage of 'biological sex' by the Trump administration). Hungary's government ended legal recognition for trans and intersex people last month.

Well yes, this is bad. Obviously I don't agree with discrimination against trans/intersex people.

While there are new ideas to grapple with in regard to language - France sees your 'cis' question and raises you this, a language entirely dependent on the masculine/feminine binary - and possibly sense of self, it's worth keeping things in perspective. These are small fry compared to the trans community's concerns about their fundamental rights and safety, especially when hard-fought rights are being reversed.

Languages all come with their own weird nuances and quirks and downright insanity, so yes you can make an argument for willed change rather than natural evolution. But there's always going to be obstacles to that as I touched on above.

I’m no expert, but this is a horribly oppressed and endangered group of people worldwide, to whom we should be sympathetic rather than defensive. The UK has better rights for the trans community than most, but there are those that seek to overturn them, and other countries set a worrying precedent for that right now. If we can make trans people a little more comfortable in a world that largely denies, dismisses and even despises them, it's worth doing imo, especially if it minimally inconveniences us to do so.

Sure, I mean, you probably think I'm terrible for saying what I have done about this, but I'm certainly not anti-trans people or opposed to them having a full set of rights.

[Graeme Cole]

When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.

I'll include Graeme in here too. I think it's slightly different with "cis" because it's not a word that's "naturally" come into the language. It's a word that people are actively trying to get other people to use. Not that that is necessarily such a bad thing, but I think it can explain some of the resistance. Plus I think it's a horrible sounding word. Maybe because it's a bit like "cyst" - I don't know, but it does have an unpleasant feel to it, for me anyway. I think they could have put more thought into it. It's probably not too late to change it anyway, as it's unlikely to have caught on in the majority of households in the English speaking world.

Cis- as a general prefix has meant the opposite of trans- for centuries, even if its popular use in the gender context is more recent. It seems like a perfectly appropriate term to me - it's got some prior etymology behind it, it has now caught on, and it's used in a non-pejorative way.

[Gavin Chipper]

Well that's quite interesting - I didn't know that so thanks. I suppose I should have looked it up!

[Gavin Chipper]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that employers who fire workers for being gay or transgender are breaking the country's civil rights laws.

By the way, two weeks in prison for having a piss near (not on) a memorial? I think it's a bit ridiculous personally. Even he had pissed on it just by chance (because it doesn't seem there was any intent) would this random chance deserve a prison sentence? I don't think so. And is culpability based on how far away you are from something (perhaps the inverse square law like with gravity)? Or is everyone who pisses in public now at risk of a two-week prison sentence?

[Ian Volante]

Even he had pissed on it just by chance (because it doesn't seem there was any intent) would this random chance deserve a prison sentence? I don't think so. And is culpability based on how far away you are from something (perhaps the inverse square law like with gravity)? Or is everyone who pisses in public now at risk of a two-week prison sentence?

It felt ridiculous to me, normally such an act would attract a fine or similar. However, I've no idea of the previous criminal history of the individual, and this often has a strong relevance to any sentence. Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.

[Gavin Chipper]

Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.

Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.

[Ian Volante]

Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.

Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.

I wouldn't go that far, but I've little doubt that sentencing is more extreme in unusual/highly public circumstances. I'm not sure impartiality is so relevant in sentencing as it is in finding guilt or otherwise. When it comes down to it, judges are representing the will of the people (albeit in a very abstracted manner), so I think it's fair that sentencing takes public outrage into account.

However, balance is needed too, and that's why there's the ability for apparently harsh sentences to be appealed. This gets us into the messy area of legal aid and the apparent gutting of the court system in England, but they're beyond my remit here.

[Callum Todd]

Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.

Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.

I'm in way over my head here in terms of how the law works, but I believe the charge he was sentenced on was 'outraging public decency'. That charge seem to have some consideration of public outrage inherent within it. I have no idea how much, if any, sway this has on sentencing and haven't managed to wrap my head around this particular offense enough to form an opinion. Just pointing this out in case it is relevant (I suspect it might be but lack the legal nouse to confirm).

[Gavin Chipper]

I wouldn't go that far, but I've little doubt that sentencing is more extreme in unusual/highly public circumstances. I'm not sure impartiality is so relevant in sentencing as it is in finding guilt or otherwise. When it comes down to it, judges are representing the will of the people (albeit in a very abstracted manner), so I think it's fair that sentencing takes public outrage into account.

However, balance is needed too, and that's why there's the ability for apparently harsh sentences to be appealed. This gets us into the messy area of legal aid and the apparent gutting of the court system in England, but they're beyond my remit here.

I'm in way over my head here in terms of how the law works, but I believe the charge he was sentenced on was 'outraging public decency'. That charge seem to have some consideration of public outrage inherent within it. I have no idea how much, if any, sway this has on sentencing and haven't managed to wrap my head around this particular offense enough to form an opinion. Just pointing this out in case it is relevant (I suspect it might be but lack the legal nouse to confirm).

Yes, it was outraging public decency so I suppose you could say that public outrage might have something to do with it. But actually it's public decency that's being outraged. And the more I think about it the more "outraging public decency" seems like three words just stuck together that doesn't actually mean anything as a phrase.

But Google is our friend and looking here, we have:

Public decency is a level of behaviour which is generally acceptable to the public and is not obscene, disgusting or shocking for the observers.

Outraging public decency is an indictable common law offence which is punishable by unlimited imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. To be guilty of this offence:

you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency as assessed by the jury;
the act must take place in a public place, or a place which is accessible to, or within view of, the public;
the act must take place in the actual presence of two or more persons who are capable of seeing it – it is irrelevant whether these people actually saw the act or were outraged by it.

Obviously these laws are always slightly circular. What is outraging public decency? Well it's:

you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency

Just the same thing with more words then.

In any case, as I mentioned above he pissed to the side of the memorial, not on it, and I wonder if anyone ever has been charged with outraging public decency for just generally pissing against a wall in public, rather then something presumably lesser like a public order offence.

I think his big mistake was pleading guilty. I think it would have been chucked right out if he'd made that case. But there you go - the law isn't the same for everyone. It helps a lot if you know what's going on or you know people who do or can afford a lawyer.

Plus anyway, regardless of the law, this whole thing was a joke. Intent is very important here for one thing, and the bad luck of pissing on a memorial should be irrelevant. And even if there was intent, no way should this involve prison.

[Ian Volante]

Plus anyway, regardless of the law, this whole thing was a joke. Intent is very important here for one thing, and the bad luck of pissing on a memorial should be irrelevant. And even if there was intent, no way should this involve prison.

Never forget to discount the previous history of the person - I've no idea if this has been made public. If he'd been convicted previously, then he's bound to fall foul of the general philosophy that if you didn't learn from last time, you'll get a more obvious punishment this time to see if you get the message. Whether that's a good way to do things is another question again.

Regarding whether it was a memorial, or a nondescript corner, to my mind it does make a big difference. His lack of consideration of such things may have been completely inadvertent, but he maybe needs to learn to consider what society thinks of things he might have effectively no awareness of - wider opinion affects how we're all expected to behave.

[Fiona T]

I hadn't followed this story, but according to this report, he had no previous convictions, needed a pee, did not know the monument was there, so basically behaved in the same way as many lads on a night out.

Most examples of outraging public decency involve masturbating on the tube or similar, so on the face of it a jail sentence does seem disproportionate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 66301.html

[Marc Meakin]

I had a neighbour who got put on the sex offenders register because he took a pee up against a tree near a primary school even though it was mid afternoon when the children were at lessons
A passer by reported him.

At least that's what he told me.
He looked more like an alky than a paedo

[Fiona T]

At least that's what he told me.
He looked more like an alky than a paedo

I didn't know you could identify paedophiles by looks - that's handy.

[Callum Todd]

Trial by appearance. The old classic.

[Ian Volante]

I hadn't followed this story, but according to this report, he had no previous convictions, needed a pee, did not know the monument was there, so basically behaved in the same way as many lads on a night out.

Most examples of outraging public decency involve masturbating on the tube or similar, so on the face of it a jail sentence does seem disproportionate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 66301.html

So bad luck to compound stupidity and ignorance.