Well, as the father of a trans kid (AFAB), you lost me at "there are only two sexes" (there are, but biological sex isn't what this is all about) and lost me further when you implied that trans people have a screw loose. You followed this up by implying that a sizeable proportion of trans people only identify as trans to get into women's spaces. So, as far as you're concerned, trans people are all deluded perverts, right? Well, I'm glad you're not going to be at all dehumanising.
I consider myself to be on the less extreme end of the trans debate and happy to engage with anyone who's willing to suggest ways that safeguard both trans people and women's spaces (and women in general). The overwhelming majority of trans people (whether born biologically male or female - yes, there are trans men and non-binaries and so on who were born with wombs and ovaries, like my own child) just want to live their lives authentically. That's not to say that there's not the occasional predator in there, but on the whole women are much more at risk from biological men identifying and dressed as men. But they don't get rednecks up in arms, do they?
Agree. What Trump did was scaremongering on a massive scale against a miniscule group of people.
The biggest danger to women's safety comes from heterosexual biological men who don't respect a woman's right not to be interested in them, but we rarely hear any "I just want to protect women" politician even acknowledge this.
Badenoch is a classic example, always kicking trans people, but did absolutely nothing about the funding crisis for women's refuges.
In relation to the trans debate, gender critical conservative men saying “I just want to protect women" normally means "I just want to control women", just like in the abortion debate, conservative men saying "I just want to protect the foetus" normally means "I just want to control women ".
By reporting Republicans spent over 200 million on anti trans ads. A tiny minority of the population were weaponised as part of the larger culture war. Turning round and blaming support for them as the cause is not useful.
I get the impression that you haven't met many trans people, Nick.
I agree that major interventions like surgery deserve very serious consideration, and that there is a small minority of people who regret choices they have made, and may feel they were badly advised or even pressured to make those choices.
But I have also known young people in such severe mental distress that they were inflicting self-harm - and only reached a better state of being when their school and the medical profession started supporting them as the identified as trans. I don't agree that we should leave them cutting themselves until they are 18 because "offering the option of anything to do with changing one’s gender to children is an even worse idea than self-ID".
I would like to see us all emphasising each other's shared humanity, rather than differences between us, and certainly not enforcing a single view of gender roles, how men and women (boys and girls) should present, behave, or what they might achieve in their lives. I don't think we'll do that by artificially saying that no-one can talk about trans issues to children - let's not forget that many children find puberty a disorienting and distressing time, and they need trusted adults with whom they can share their questions and concerns honestly, rather than bottling them up or trusting the internet to help them find answers.
The Democratic Party have made many of the same mistakes as Labour has in the past and some extra ones.
The Dems knew at the top that Biden was fading away, but rather than confront the issue they chose to lie about it and claim that he was dynamic and sparking ideas. They left it too late to change him. Then they made the mistake of going with a virtually anonymous Vice President, who had failed at the first hurdle towards Presidential nomination. Wasn't that enough of a clue?
The Dems chose Kamala because : 1). they could keep the raised campaign money. This would have made zero difference. The money kept rolling in far faster than Trump managed and he still won comprehensively;
2) because they thought they could break a taboo against progressive politics and get a woman elected, or doubled down, a black woman. But in America, you need to try the possible or you get nothing, or worse, you get Trump;
3) because she is one of us Democrat elites, a lawyer from San Francisco, a Californian, well clear of the rust belt, fly over zone, swamps and Deliverance.
What happened to the Democratic Party of supporting workers, unions and the oppressed? Many of the working classes of middle America look at Californians and see them as so flaky and practically transparent ( not my view).
What story Did Kamala have and what policies? She said practically nothing. Remember Bill Clinton's "it's the economy stupid". How could the Dems unlearn that simple truth that stands all over the world. Yet the American economy is flying higher than ever.
The inflation that was a big issue was imported commodity prices that affected the whole western world, influenced by Putin's invasion and the Covid lock down and there is nothing that a new government could do to reverse that, but Trumps's tariffs would increase prices, as brexit has here. Where was that scenario explained?
The Dems did what Trump said he would do but failed. Trump lost 2.9m jobs. Now there is record low unemployment and re-shoring manufacturing from China, with BASF and others from Germany lured by almost giveaway gas prices. Why were the Dems and Kamala unable to portray a story about this.
Kamala's campaigning based on a worthy but nonetheless a relatively fringe woman's issue was so off the mark, it should go down in history as how not to do this and she let down a generation in America and caused knock on terrible effects to world politics and climate change for generations to come. No wonder she vanished when the results came in. Now "do not despair". I disagree. It's time to panic.
Joining the Single Market and Customs Union and working closely with Europe on Defence are the only shows in town.
Nick is correct that in order for the left and centre to win elections, certain culture war aspects, such as trans issues need to be sidelined. Sorry and all that but the public can only be led so fast on this and it is up to pressure groups to do their thing and move public opinion, as such as Tatchell did on gay issues.
The alternative is that the UK gets something a lot closer to Drumph/Farage of some Tory shill. It's likely to happen sooner of later. Lets make it later or preferably not at all.
“We’ll take care of you, but you have to do what we say and believe exactly what we tell you to believe,” has not turned out to be a winning slogan.
I would say that's exactly what won the Republicans the election. Believe that climate change doesn't exist. Believe that massive tariffs won't cause significant consumer inflation. Believe that Trump is a competent business man who will run the country successfully.
I also often feel that identity issues are sometimes given too much prominence by the parties of the left - or progressives, as we like to call ourselves. But have you asked yourself why? Why are these issues so central to many, especially the young. Why are we (older people) so discomforted by them? Those are the big questions that you ought to address, rather than just dismissing the whole topic and pretending that if we just don't talk about it, it'll go away. When I was young, being homosexual was viewed as a shameful thing. Now it is celebrated. Some still find this uncomfortable, or even, dangerous. But most of us, surely, see it as a good thing. We have stopped worrying that acknowledging 'gayness' will lead to 'perverts' indoctrinating our children and 'turning' them, or abusing them. Abuse happens, but it is NOT as a result of accepting homosexuality. To the contrary, abuse has always occurred, and probably always will, but it is made easier by closing down topics of identity and making people feel they have to keep secrets.
Well, as the father of a trans kid (AFAB), you lost me at "there are only two sexes" (there are, but biological sex isn't what this is all about) and lost me further when you implied that trans people have a screw loose. You followed this up by implying that a sizeable proportion of trans people only identify as trans to get into women's spaces. So, as far as you're concerned, trans people are all deluded perverts, right? Well, I'm glad you're not going to be at all dehumanising.
I consider myself to be on the less extreme end of the trans debate and happy to engage with anyone who's willing to suggest ways that safeguard both trans people and women's spaces (and women in general). The overwhelming majority of trans people (whether born biologically male or female - yes, there are trans men and non-binaries and so on who were born with wombs and ovaries, like my own child) just want to live their lives authentically. That's not to say that there's not the occasional predator in there, but on the whole women are much more at risk from biological men identifying and dressed as men. But they don't get rednecks up in arms, do they?
Agree. What Trump did was scaremongering on a massive scale against a miniscule group of people.
The biggest danger to women's safety comes from heterosexual biological men who don't respect a woman's right not to be interested in them, but we rarely hear any "I just want to protect women" politician even acknowledge this.
Badenoch is a classic example, always kicking trans people, but did absolutely nothing about the funding crisis for women's refuges.
In relation to the trans debate, gender critical conservative men saying “I just want to protect women" normally means "I just want to control women", just like in the abortion debate, conservative men saying "I just want to protect the foetus" normally means "I just want to control women ".
By reporting Republicans spent over 200 million on anti trans ads. A tiny minority of the population were weaponised as part of the larger culture war. Turning round and blaming support for them as the cause is not useful.
I get the impression that you haven't met many trans people, Nick.
I agree that major interventions like surgery deserve very serious consideration, and that there is a small minority of people who regret choices they have made, and may feel they were badly advised or even pressured to make those choices.
But I have also known young people in such severe mental distress that they were inflicting self-harm - and only reached a better state of being when their school and the medical profession started supporting them as the identified as trans. I don't agree that we should leave them cutting themselves until they are 18 because "offering the option of anything to do with changing one’s gender to children is an even worse idea than self-ID".
I would like to see us all emphasising each other's shared humanity, rather than differences between us, and certainly not enforcing a single view of gender roles, how men and women (boys and girls) should present, behave, or what they might achieve in their lives. I don't think we'll do that by artificially saying that no-one can talk about trans issues to children - let's not forget that many children find puberty a disorienting and distressing time, and they need trusted adults with whom they can share their questions and concerns honestly, rather than bottling them up or trusting the internet to help them find answers.
The Democratic Party have made many of the same mistakes as Labour has in the past and some extra ones.
The Dems knew at the top that Biden was fading away, but rather than confront the issue they chose to lie about it and claim that he was dynamic and sparking ideas. They left it too late to change him. Then they made the mistake of going with a virtually anonymous Vice President, who had failed at the first hurdle towards Presidential nomination. Wasn't that enough of a clue?
The Dems chose Kamala because : 1). they could keep the raised campaign money. This would have made zero difference. The money kept rolling in far faster than Trump managed and he still won comprehensively;
2) because they thought they could break a taboo against progressive politics and get a woman elected, or doubled down, a black woman. But in America, you need to try the possible or you get nothing, or worse, you get Trump;
3) because she is one of us Democrat elites, a lawyer from San Francisco, a Californian, well clear of the rust belt, fly over zone, swamps and Deliverance.
What happened to the Democratic Party of supporting workers, unions and the oppressed? Many of the working classes of middle America look at Californians and see them as so flaky and practically transparent ( not my view).
What story Did Kamala have and what policies? She said practically nothing. Remember Bill Clinton's "it's the economy stupid". How could the Dems unlearn that simple truth that stands all over the world. Yet the American economy is flying higher than ever.
The inflation that was a big issue was imported commodity prices that affected the whole western world, influenced by Putin's invasion and the Covid lock down and there is nothing that a new government could do to reverse that, but Trumps's tariffs would increase prices, as brexit has here. Where was that scenario explained?
The Dems did what Trump said he would do but failed. Trump lost 2.9m jobs. Now there is record low unemployment and re-shoring manufacturing from China, with BASF and others from Germany lured by almost giveaway gas prices. Why were the Dems and Kamala unable to portray a story about this.
Kamala's campaigning based on a worthy but nonetheless a relatively fringe woman's issue was so off the mark, it should go down in history as how not to do this and she let down a generation in America and caused knock on terrible effects to world politics and climate change for generations to come. No wonder she vanished when the results came in. Now "do not despair". I disagree. It's time to panic.
Joining the Single Market and Customs Union and working closely with Europe on Defence are the only shows in town.
Nick is correct that in order for the left and centre to win elections, certain culture war aspects, such as trans issues need to be sidelined. Sorry and all that but the public can only be led so fast on this and it is up to pressure groups to do their thing and move public opinion, as such as Tatchell did on gay issues.
The alternative is that the UK gets something a lot closer to Drumph/Farage of some Tory shill. It's likely to happen sooner of later. Lets make it later or preferably not at all.
“We’ll take care of you, but you have to do what we say and believe exactly what we tell you to believe,” has not turned out to be a winning slogan.
I would say that's exactly what won the Republicans the election. Believe that climate change doesn't exist. Believe that massive tariffs won't cause significant consumer inflation. Believe that Trump is a competent business man who will run the country successfully.
I also often feel that identity issues are sometimes given too much prominence by the parties of the left - or progressives, as we like to call ourselves. But have you asked yourself why? Why are these issues so central to many, especially the young. Why are we (older people) so discomforted by them? Those are the big questions that you ought to address, rather than just dismissing the whole topic and pretending that if we just don't talk about it, it'll go away. When I was young, being homosexual was viewed as a shameful thing. Now it is celebrated. Some still find this uncomfortable, or even, dangerous. But most of us, surely, see it as a good thing. We have stopped worrying that acknowledging 'gayness' will lead to 'perverts' indoctrinating our children and 'turning' them, or abusing them. Abuse happens, but it is NOT as a result of accepting homosexuality. To the contrary, abuse has always occurred, and probably always will, but it is made easier by closing down topics of identity and making people feel they have to keep secrets.