|
I can recall at least two occasions since being a Mod that we've received emails asking for threads to be locked for no reason apart from the complainant didn't agree with what was written in a post. I didn't agree with what was written either but it was the poster's opinion and we are all entitled to our views so the request was declined.
Sometimes it's just easier to lock a thread if we feel it is heading downhill (or likely to do so) we are volunteers and can't be looking in all the time. Usually by the time a thread gets locked we've extracted the best from the discussion. By definition, when the locking happens then someone's ability to reply will be chopped.
The moderation is set by the company, we do our best to keep everyone on-board (and that includes us, we are not exempt in any way), seeking guidance from the manual that's been developed over the years. A moderating decision will never please everyone but I would say that in terms of emails received since we took over after the sad passing of Avant there's been (so far...) an even balance between criticism and credit so probably a reasonable position to be in.
|
|
Well said Xileno. So far, no-one has a right not to be offended. These often absurd and ill-informed debates about sex and gender seem to generate more heat than light, especially when contributors who have no examined education and knowledge of what they are talking about (e.g. certain high profile pop stars and 'influencers') insult those who do.
There have been girlish boys and boyish girls since time immemorial and the increasing trend of medical and surgical interference at an early age in those with normal genotypes is alarming. Human sexuality and the various intersex states are complex subjects. Try this exam question - write short notes on XO, XXY, and the difficulties those with such syndromes might encounter in countries without a modern health service.
|
|
Apparently Lord Winston has been getting flak from the woke brigade for explaining that (so far) it is impossible to change one's chromosomes, which determine one's birth gender. That is why (for me) it would be illegal to alter the 'Sex' defined on a birth certificate - a complete rewrite of recorded history for no better reason than indulging a (possibly strong) whim.
|
Apparently Lord Winston has been getting flak from the woke brigade for explaining that (so far) it is impossible to change one's chromosomes, which determine one's birth gender. That is why (for me) it would be illegal to alter the 'Sex' defined on a birth certificate - a complete rewrite of recorded history for no better reason than indulging a (possibly strong) whim.
At the risk of getting bogged down in semantics, the whole point is that sex and gender are not the same thing. It's particularly difficult for British people to understand because (a) we think the word 'sex' is rude and (b) we don't have genders in our language.
One of the first things people ask when they learn French is why some words are masculine and some are feminine, and how come something male can have a feminine gender. Because English doesn't use genders, we are seemingly incapable of understanding that the concept it seems.
Most legal things now ask you to state both 'Sex at birth' and 'Gender'. To my mind, asking to be referred to as 'they' or the opposite of your birth sex is not really much different to asking to be called Dave because you don't like your given name Rodney.
|
Most legal things now ask you to state both 'Sex at birth' and 'Gender'. To my mind, asking to be referred to as 'they' or the opposite of your birth sex is not really much different to asking to be called Dave because you don't like your given name Rodney.
Fine, but expecting access to what are intended to be spaces such as toilets, prisons and changing rooms solely for the opposite sex/gender is the contentious issue here.
J K Rowling and others have been deluged with hate mail for their entirely sensible views on this by a lunatic fringe of activists.
|
|
|
|
<< At the risk of getting bogged down in semantics, the whole point is that sex and gender are not the same thing. >>
I don't dispute your statement, but it has been suggested that someone wishing to trans might be allowed to alter the Sex (Gender if you prefer) recorded on a birth certificate. I would object strongly because (a) it is corrupting historical fact and (b) it is scientifically false because chromosomes (which biologically determine gender) cannot be overwritten, even if they feel uncomfortable to their carrier.
|
|
I wonder if that misses the point somewhat.
Certainly, from a biological standpoint, there is a genetic difference between what has conventionally been called male and female. It is scientifically demonstrable.
However, it seems to me that at least some trans advocates are wanting to use the labels "male" and "female" in a different way - i.e. to mean "chosen" rather than "assigned" gender.
I think it's a great pity that it has become a question of labels. As someone said higher up this thread, there have always been boyish girls and girly boys. I don't have any problem with people just being who they want to be.
|
I think it's a great pity that it has become a question of labels. As someone said higher up this thread, there have always been boyish girls and girly boys. I don't have any problem with people just being who they want to be.
I don't mind people wanting to be something else, as long as it is a 'reasonable' possibility. As a trivial example, a short person may wish to be a star basketball player but just isn't made for it. It's a question of discovering one's potential and limitations, and perhaps putting impossible desires on a back burner.
Anyway we have always had drag queens, pantomime dames and the like for entertainment. We are now asked to take it more seriously and let such characters use facilities traditionally reserved for the 'opposite' sex. You can't expect everyone - especially the oldies - to accept unconventional demands willingly.
|
Anyway we have always had drag queens, pantomime dames and the like for entertainment. We are now asked to take it more seriously and let such characters use facilities traditionally reserved for the 'opposite' sex. You can't expect everyone - especially the oldies - to accept unconventional demands willingly.
No, that's not what is happening at all. Nothing to do with drag queen and pantomime dames in the slightest.
|
|
I don't dispute your statement, but it has been suggested that someone wishing to trans might be allowed to alter the Sex (Gender if you prefer) recorded on a birth certificate. I would object strongly because (a) it is corrupting historical fact and (b) it is scientifically false because chromosomes (which biologically determine gender) cannot be overwritten, even if they feel uncomfortable to their carrier.
The current legislation - the Gender Recognition Act - already permits that and has been in force for around 15 years.
I was professionally involved with some of the mechanisms around that act and retain an interest in the subject from a social liberal perspective.
When the act was first mooted and later came into force it was seen as ground breaking. The UK was one of the first countries in the world to allow people with Gender Dysphoria (GD) to be recognised in their acquired gender. GD is a recognised medical condition. Conflating it with drag queens and pantomime dames or describing it as a whim is both ignorant and offensive.
After the best part of a decade the faults in the GRA were becoming apparent. The process requiring multiple medical opinions and evidence of treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics is seen as over medicalised. The underlying processes are time consuming and overly bureaucratic.
As a result, during the May premiership, the government sought views on how to update the process. There seemed, at the time, to be a significant degree of consensus on that. Options considered included self ID where it was sufficient for a person to assert their new ID my something little more complex than a deed poll. There is though actually an element of that in the GRA process as it requires applicants to have been living in their acquired Gender for a significant period. That is why Suella Braverman's comments about how schools should deal with the issue showed a (wilful?) ignorance of the law in saying it should not be an issue in education because the minimum age for a GRC is 18.
A number of women, idetifying themselves as Gender Critical Feminists and including JK Rowling, Maya Feursarter who won a court case this week have opposed change. Not only that but they have succeeded in turning the issue into one of political controversy where politicians are asked 'what is a woman'. We now have a position where people seek to undermine and wind back the GRA itself. Even a transwoman with a GRC is now in danger of being set apart from other women.
The outcome of the review was in progress at a time when Penny Mordaunt was an equalities minister. She is on record in Hansard as having asserted that transwomen are women and transmen are men. At the time that was relatively uncontroversial. As far as I can tell she never came our explicitly in favour of simple self ID.
Subsequently, when Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch were equalities ministers under Johnson's premiership they decided to resile from promises of reform and instead play the issue as one of wokeism and part of Badenoch in particular's devotion to aggressive pursuit of Culture Wars.
Mordaunt should have been more assertive on Friday in making clear the context in which she had previously spoken. Badenoch is trying to conflate a broad statement of equal rights for trans women with advocacy of self ID. I suspect the mood among the electorate they both need to appeal to, the stale pale and largely male membership of the Tory Party, do not want to hear the liberal argument.
Of course there are issues in sport - the sporting bodies are now onto that.
There is another around the practicality of dealing with the tiny minority of ill intentioned men who might use self ID to access women only spaces for their own gratification. The idea that there will be hundreds of such men waving their penises about in gym changing rooms and the like is being used to cloak an altogether more insidious attack on existing hard won trans rights.
|
|
Thanks, Bromp, for your detailed dissection of the political minutiae of this topic. I shall not rise to your description of 'ignorant and offensive'. I was not trying to 'conflate' anything, simply pointing out some parallels, and the unarguable fact that biological sex (gender) cannot be altered just by someone saying different. Everyone may choose how they present themselves to the world, and that world may welcome them, or perhaps suspect their motives.
It has become a rather silly political discussion about semantics, the 'meaning' of man or woman. Like many other words, shades of meaning vary with context, and not least with the opinions of the participants.
|
Thanks, Bromp, for your detailed dissection of the political minutiae of this topic. I shall not rise to your description of 'ignorant and offensive'. I was not trying to 'conflate' anything, simply pointing out some parallels, and the unarguable fact that biological sex (gender) cannot be altered just by someone saying different. Everyone may choose how they present themselves to the world, and that world may welcome them, or perhaps suspect their motives.
Your earlier post made a specific reference to Drag Queens and Panto Dames and certainly read as though you were putting trans people in the same box.
The whim comment was upthread.
While it's unarguable that chromosomes cannot be changed gender, largely a social construct, certainly can.
Listen to Paris Lees who featured on Cathy Newman's 'The Ladder' feature shortly after 18:30 on Times Radio last Friday - 15 July. I didn't quite catch it from the beginning and it took some while to cotton on that she is a Transwoman.
One if the three Trans people I know or know of is a Transman who appears from time to time on consumer programmes. Again I'd challenge you to tell.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 18/07/2022 at 08:19
|
|
<< The whim comment was upthread. >>
There have been a trickle of trans people for quite a while - the author Jan Morris is a well-known example. I believe the recent surge in numbers is largely a result of social pressure on youngsters, some of whom are in their peri-puberty period of uncertainty. To that extent I think 'whim' is not inappropriate. Some 'medical' people encourage the trend by giving the condition a new name, which must make the idea more believable.
|
I don't dispute your statement, but it has been suggested that someone wishing to trans might be allowed to alter the Sex (Gender if you prefer) recorded on a birth certificate. I would object strongly because (a) it is corrupting historical fact and (b) it is scientifically false because chromosomes (which biologically determine gender) cannot be overwritten, even if they feel uncomfortable to their carrier.
The current legislation - the Gender Recognition Act - already permits that and has been in force for around 15 years.
I was professionally involved with some of the mechanisms around that act and retain an interest in the subject from a social liberal perspective.
When the act was first mooted and later came into force it was seen as ground breaking. The UK was one of the first countries in the world to allow people with Gender Dysphoria (GD) to be recognised in their acquired gender. GD is a recognised medical condition. Conflating it with drag queens and pantomime dames or describing it as a whim is both ignorant and offensive.
After the best part of a decade the faults in the GRA were becoming apparent. The process requiring multiple medical opinions and evidence of treatment for the purpose of modifying sexual characteristics is seen as over medicalised. The underlying processes are time consuming and overly bureaucratic.
As a result, during the May premiership, the government sought views on how to update the process. There seemed, at the time, to be a significant degree of consensus on that. Options considered included self ID where it was sufficient for a person to assert their new ID my something little more complex than a deed poll. There is though actually an element of that in the GRA process as it requires applicants to have been living in their acquired Gender for a significant period. That is why Suella Braverman's comments about how schools should deal with the issue showed a (wilful?) ignorance of the law in saying it should not be an issue in education because the minimum age for a GRC is 18.
A number of women, idetifying themselves as Gender Critical Feminists and including JK Rowling, Maya Feursarter who won a court case this week have opposed change. Not only that but they have succeeded in turning the issue into one of political controversy where politicians are asked 'what is a woman'. We now have a position where people seek to undermine and wind back the GRA itself. Even a transwoman with a GRC is now in danger of being set apart from other women.
The outcome of the review was in progress at a time when Penny Mordaunt was an equalities minister. She is on record in Hansard as having asserted that transwomen are women and transmen are men. At the time that was relatively uncontroversial. As far as I can tell she never came our explicitly in favour of simple self ID.
Subsequently, when Liz Truss and Kemi Badenoch were equalities ministers under Johnson's premiership they decided to resile from promises of reform and instead play the issue as one of wokeism and part of Badenoch in particular's devotion to aggressive pursuit of Culture Wars.
Mordaunt should have been more assertive on Friday in making clear the context in which she had previously spoken. Badenoch is trying to conflate a broad statement of equal rights for trans women with advocacy of self ID. I suspect the mood among the electorate they both need to appeal to, the stale pale and largely male membership of the Tory Party, do not want to hear the liberal argument.
Of course there are issues in sport - the sporting bodies are now onto that.
There is another around the practicality of dealing with the tiny minority of ill intentioned men who might use self ID to access women only spaces for their own gratification. The idea that there will be hundreds of such men waving their penises about in gym changing rooms and the like is being used to cloak an altogether more insidious attack on existing hard won trans rights.
I would strongly dispute your claim that there was or is a 'consensus' arounf the Gender Rcognition Act or 'support' for self IDing as whatever a person pleases that day. Far more likely that most ordinary (a-political) people either weren't aware of it back then and only become so when some major issues started popping up in recent years, which to me show how poor the legislation was.
Add to that the 'cancel culture' where those on the 'in favour' side of the debate use every trick in the book to silence anyone asking pertinent questions by virtue of calling them ists and phobes to scare them off (as most weak-mided politicians are, including most Tories), then it looks like those left saying anything on the issue are in favour.
I do find it amusing that in all this, you mention pale, stale and male for the Tories when they have three women candidates and two from ethnic minorities, with a good mix of backgrounds generally.
As opposed to Labour's pale, stale and all-male set of leaders. If the supposedly ist and phobe Tory grassroots were given a free vote of those left in the race, it would be likely that Kemi Badenoch would win by some margin, with, at least at present, the other women in second and third places. This would be the Tories third woman in charge and, beating all other UK political parties, the first ethnic minority leader / PM (though you could certainly argue that Disraeli was - also a Tory) in the UK.
That you make out Mordaunt's role in all this as a great thing to be trumpeted and belittle Badenoch says, to me at least, far more about who you believe is a big threat to Labour's chances at the next general Election (and thus don't want to become Tory leader / PM) - Badenoch, not Mordaunt or any of the other candidates - than your own personal views on the transgender issue, which you are perfectly welcome to.
A shame that the parliamentary Tory party (most of whom are, in my view [my own MP included] TINOs and could easily fit in the Lib Dems) will likely deliberately push Badenoch out leaving Sunak vs either Mordaunt or Truss, which beasically means more of the same weak, woke pandering as Boris did and that the globailst agenda continues unabated.
|
|
I would strongly dispute your claim that there was or is a 'consensus' arounf the Gender Rcognition Act or 'support' for self IDing as whatever a person pleases that day. Far more likely that most ordinary (a-political) people either weren't aware of it back then and only become so when some major issues started popping up in recent years, which to me show how poor the legislation was.
I posted that account in an attempt to set out the factual and legislative background to the current brouhaha over trans rights. The consensus I referred to was political; all the major parties seemed to recognise that a 10 year post implementation review of the GRA showed it's requirements to be over medicalised and over prescriptive.
The papers leaked to the Mail over the weekend show that self ID was discussed and that Mordaunt's advisers told her it would be politically difficult to pursue. Some medical input should still be needed. Any person with a grasp of how government works would see that Mordaunt was not in expressing preference for self ID.
Add to that the 'cancel culture' where those on the 'in favour' side of the debate use every trick in the book to silence anyone asking pertinent questions by virtue of calling them ists and phobes to scare them off (as most weak-mided politicians are, including most Tories), then it looks like those left saying anything on the issue are in favour.
I struggle to understand the term 'cancel culture' as some of the most enthusiastic cancelers are those shouting about wokeism. Kemi Badenoch is VERY keen to cancel all sorts of things in her culture war.
If people are trying to wind back the original GRA and say that even those transwomen who have jumped through the GRA hoops should not be treated as women then I'll call that as Transphobia.
I do find it amusing that in all this, you mention pale, stale and male for the Tories when they have three women candidates and two from ethnic minorities, with a good mix of backgrounds generally.
Do you deny that the members of the Tory party who will decide our next PM are mostly older, white and male?
As opposed to Labour's pale, stale and all-male set of leaders. If the supposedly ist and phobe Tory grassroots were given a free vote of those left in the race, it would be likely that Kemi Badenoch would win by some margin, with, at least at present, the other women in second and third places. This would be the Tories third woman in charge and, beating all other UK political parties, the first ethnic minority leader / PM (though you could certainly argue that Disraeli was - also a Tory) in the UK.
The Labour party elects its leaders. If the women who stand don't carry the grassroots then they won't be elected. Even if (say) Yvette Cooper had been the only 'moderate' standing I don't think she could have beaten Corbyn.
Lisa Nandy would be an excellent leader but the votes didn't work for her.
I think the numbers for the Tory leadership are all over the place right now. The TV debates have proved an all round disaster. Truss, by her statements on tax and what she said in Cabinet has breached collective responsibility in the Cabinet she's still a member of
That you make out Mordaunt's role in all this as a great thing to be trumpeted and belittle Badenoch says, to me at least, far more about who you believe is a big threat to Labour's chances at the next general Election (and thus don't want to become Tory leader / PM) - Badenoch, not Mordaunt or any of the other candidates - than your own personal views on the transgender issue, which you are perfectly welcome to.
You misunderstand me. I wasn't 'bigging up' Mordaunt's role simply putting the facts straight. Another fact is that Trans issues are not at the top of the list of concerns of either Tory Party members or the general public. Not in the top 10 or even 20. Kemi is simply using it as a wedge issue
I don't think she's any more or less of a threat to Labour than Penny. Starmer v Truss is one way bet for Labour. Rishi has both the authority and experience to compare with Starmer. I think the two would be a good match.
A shame that the parliamentary Tory party (most of whom are, in my view [my own MP included] TINOs and could easily fit in the Lib Dems) will likely deliberately push Badenoch out leaving Sunak vs either Mordaunt or Truss, which beasically means more of the same weak, woke pandering as Boris did and that the globailst agenda continues unabated.
As for Woke pandering Boris - I'll go for my usual stilts comment..
|
|
<< Of course there are issues in sport - the sporting bodies are now onto that. >>
And we wait to see what clumsy arrangement they arrive at. For the 'normal-gendered' public who must learn how to live with trans people, the chief worry is what they may find in single-sex toilets, for example. In the street or supermarket, trans-ness is pretty unimportant and easily accommodated.
<< The Labour party elects its leaders. >>
Largely influenced by union block votes, which IIRC led to Sir Keir's predecessor, who was one of the main reasons why Boris ended up in charge. One probably deserved the other.
|
Largely influenced by union block votes, which IIRC led to Sir Keir's predecessor, who was one of the main reasons why Boris ended up in charge. One probably deserved the other.
The Labour party was founded as the political wing of the Trade Union movement. Union influence is not an accident or a surprise. The block vote itself, which stymied Benn's attempt to unseat Denis Healey as Deputy Leader went years ago.
Election of 'the wrong Miliband' was down to an electoral college of which the Unions were part.
Corbyn was elected by the Membership on 'one man one vote'. An accident resulting from the MPs nominating him as a alternative voice (as Dianne Abbot had been before) not understanding that the process was different and he would not, as her bid did, founder with all hands in the first ballot.
|
For the 'normal-gendered' public who must learn how to live with trans people, the chief worry is what they may find in single-sex toilets, for example. In the street or supermarket, trans-ness is pretty unimportant and easily accommodated.
They go into the cubicle, they do what needs to be done, and they come out again. The casual observer has simply no idea if they're trans or not.
|
|
<< They go into the cubicle, they do what needs to be done, and they come out again. The casual observer has simply no idea if they're trans or not. >>
Some women are unhappy in a place with urinals, not least because they are often pretty unhygienic. I suppose one answer is to provide only cubicles ?
|
Some women are unhappy in a place with urinals, not least because they are often pretty unhygienic. I suppose one answer is to provide only cubicles ?
What is your point?
The issue for gender critical feminists, so far as I can tell, is Transwomen in the Ladies.
I've never heard of a Ladies with urinals.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 18/07/2022 at 20:36
|
|
"A shame that the parliamentary Tory party (most of whom are, in my view [my own MP included] TINOs and could easily fit in the Lib Dems) will likely deliberately push Badenoch out leaving Sunak vs either Mordaunt or Truss, which beasically means more of the same weak, woke pandering as Boris did and that the globailst agenda continues unabated."
TINO seems remarkably similar to RINO as used in the US by Republicans (e.g. Trump) who think some of their colleagues are not far enough to the right.
The comment about the "globalist agenda" presumably refers to the conspiracy theory involving the Great Reset and the New World Order.
You seem to be pushing the right-wing point of view again. It's a view I disagree with.
Are we supposed/allowed to discuss these matters, or do you feel that your mentioning of them was a passing comment which should not be allowed to deflect the thread?
|
|
You seem incapable of accepting that a great number of people come from the right side of the political aisle and have a very different viewpoint (but are very much entitled to it) to yours. Calling everything a 'conspiracy theory' is a well known straw man argument, as is bringing in The Orange Man to further inflame matters..
And you wonder why most of us on the conservative side (and I suspect a lot of other people besides) of the political aisle tune out when such issues get raised? I'm wondering whether that was your idea all along - to stop these issues from being properly discussed?
In my view, you're just harming the forum / website to the extent that members leave and are not replaced.
|
You seem incapable of accepting that a great number of people come from the right side of the political aisle and have a very different viewpoint (but are very much entitled to it) to yours.
You introduced the TINO label. Only twigged it when the link to RINO was introduced.
I'll leave those with skin in the Tory game to contribute as to where fact ends and conspiracy starts.
My lengthy post was intended to be a factual account of the issues with Gender Recognition over the last 20 or so years. As somebody with as liberal social outlook I'm in in favour of arguing for reform to make its process less medico legal.
If folks are trying to wind back the gains of the 2004 act itself then I'm in the trenches against them. There will be Tories there with me as well as LDs and Labour.
What do you think, preferably in plain English and with reference to the UK, we should do for people with diagnosed Gender Dysphoria or other analogous conditions?
|
|
<< What do you think, preferably in plain English and with reference to the UK, we should do for people with diagnosed Gender Dysphoria or other analogous conditions? >>
This is part of the problem for me. I believe this syndrome is a fairly recent invention, and I also believe giving it an official name confers more credibility. Syndromes are invented from time to time, and sometimes look shaky after a while - I'm thinking of Munchausen's by Proxy, for example. Gender Dysphoria has rather the flavour of a passing fad for me, I'm afraid. A burst of exposure in the papers, and more in the hands of politicians, who are commonly trying to get attention, may be partly responsible.
|
|
For every person that dismisses something as a fad or trend, there will be another person who will say we have always had people that feel this way and they've either been hidden or killed themselves.
I don't think I'll get too involved here, but would urge compassion on all sides
|
This is part of the problem for me. I believe this syndrome is a fairly recent invention, and I also believe giving it an official name confers more credibility. Syndromes are invented from time to time, and sometimes look shaky after a while - I'm thinking of Munchausen's by Proxy, for example. Gender Dysphoria has rather the flavour of a passing fad for me, I'm afraid. A burst of exposure in the papers, and more in the hands of politicians, who are commonly trying to get attention, may be partly responsible.
I'm 100% certain that, for the three people I've known or known of, who have this condition the assertion that it's a passing fad would be grossly insensitive. The concept, previously known as Gender Identity Disorder, has probably been around for ever. There are examples both ways back to the Victorian era and before. 'Eccentric' women presenting as men got rather more sympathy than those travelling in the opposite direction.
That people like the model April Ashley lived in the closet until being 'outed' by the media tells us something about societal attitudes well into our own lifetimes.
It's only recently, with a more open approach driven by campaigners that the subject has come out into the open and become a subject for proper and open discussion. Of course that greater public awareness creates its own problems not least of which are a cohort of teenage girls presenting as having issues with gender identify where for some it's more of a difficulty dealing with the massive way their bodies change over the 11-13 period.
Both that circumstance and younger children, pre puberty I beleive it's more common in boys, need to be treated sensitively and professionally. The sort of posturing over gender neutral school toilets and the idea that one cannot identify as trans pre 18 does nothin at all to help the problem.
Munchausen's Syndrome itself is a well known condition. The by proxy variant may be less so but many sources describe it as a form of child abuse. I suspect the controversy is more around whether it provides a 'diminished responsibility' analogy as a defence that the condition itself.
|
|
“You seem incapable of accepting that a great number of people come from the right side of the political aisle and have a very different viewpoint (but are very much entitled to it) to yours.”
- - I’m entirely happy with people having views different from mine; I’m not even concerned with trying to get others to believe the same things as me. I am, however, concerned about the promotion of ideas that are nonsense.
“Calling everything a 'conspiracy theory' is a well known straw man argument, as is bringing in The Orange Man to further inflame matters..”
- - I have not called “everything” a conspiracy theory. It was specifically your reference to the alleged “globalist agenda”, if this involves the “Great Reset” and the “New World Order”, that I called a conspiracy theory.
“And you wonder why most of us on the conservative side (and I suspect a lot of other people besides) of the political aisle tune out when such issues get raised?”
- - You raised them, Andy, not me, on this occasion. Or do you mean “most of us on the conservative side” tune out when anyone challenges your views?
“I'm wondering whether that was your idea all along - to stop these issues from being properly discussed?”
- - Not a very nice comment. As I’ve made clear lots of times, it’s the discussion I’m keen on, not stopping it.
“In my view, you're just harming the forum / website to the extent that members leave and are not replaced.”
- - If you’re saying controversial views should be allowed stand without challenge, because otherwise people will leave the forum, then that’s a not very positive view of the members.
All of the above skirts around the matter I raised: are we expected to believe there is a globalist agenda? In your post of Mon 18 Jul 2022 10:36 you seem to think that there is (whatever it means) and that it’s somehow linked with the Tory leadership contest.
|
|
Give me strength. Do you lot trawl the interweb just looking to pick petty battles on the same issues all day? Don't you have anything better to be doing?
I wouldn't mind occasionally engaging more but you keep going off at tangents, straw-manning and complaining that you tactics against those you disagree with are met with anger. Defending a 'side' at all costs should never be an option.
Note that I only got involved in this 'debate' well after it started, not because I had any particular interest, but because, IMHO, you and others appeared to be bullying the OP (whom I often disagree with on other issues) into silence by ganging up on him.
Whether you (all) believe you are in the right and are just challenging a viewpoint you vehermently disagree with, you must admit it is far from the first time you chaps have done this and (as it seems here) driven yet another member away. This does not look good to new / prospective members, who may innocently raise an issue but is met by yourselves and your size 10s immediately putting the boot in. It's doubtful if many will stay as a result of being involved or seeing it happen to others.
I have been endeavouring to dial back my rhetoric in recent months after rashly getting invloved in such 'debates' with yourselves over the last few years. That a good number of decent people on my side of the political aisle have left over the same period (and I'm starting to think about doing so as well) should be a warning to the Mods that if 'controvercial' topics are debated, all participants need to be respecful and not to treat this like the House of Commons, some grubby politics TV/radio panel show or (worse still) a student union debate.
|
|
"...you keep going off at tangents..."
As you are doing in this latest post. Nothing at all about the "globalist agenda".
"... all participants need to be respecful..."
I have been.
You obviously want to turn this discussion into something else.
Fine. At least that's clear.
|
|
""""ote that I only got involved in this 'debate' well after it started, not because I had any particular interest, but because, IMHO, you and others appeared to be bullying the OP (whom I often disagree with on other issues) into silence by ganging up on him.
Whether you (all) believe you are in the right and are just challenging a viewpoint you vehermently disagree with, you must admit it is far from the first time you chaps have done this and (as it seems here) driven yet another member away. This does not look good to new / prospective members, who may innocently raise an issue but is met by yourselves and your size 10s immediately putting the boot in. It's doubtful if many will stay as a result of being involved or seeing it happen to others """
Well said EA! For a long time now it has been very obvious to me and probably many others that this forum is a closed shop and as far as I am concerned only serves to bring the whole HJ site into disrepute. Even new comers asking quite simple questions are treated with distain by some. If the forum is to survive a radicle rethink is required and some members given a written warning as to their conduct.
I have enjoyed my time on the forum and it is sad that I have been indeed been driven off here by abuse...
|
I have enjoyed my time on the forum and it is sad that I have been indeed been driven off here by abuse...
I hope you haven't - while never condoning ad hominen insults (and in the past I have probably tolerated more than most), the level of abuse here rarely ascends to the level seen in the House of Commons, and is usually effectively controlled by the moderators.
Re this debate, in the Times today, a hairy male with (presumably) a penis, reportedly naked from the waist down in the female changing/shower room at a teaching hospital, has won a discrimination case. Goodness knows why the female staff had been expected to regularly put up with this. The lunatics have clearly taken over the asylum.
Edited by John F on 20/07/2022 at 12:38
|
|
There are objections to the tone of the degeneration of the thread.
Closed after consulting Xileno.
|
|
|
|
|
