ECHR N/G | Page 10 | Vital Football

ECHR N/G

Neither does Buddha.

I’m as confused as everyone else about the issue and don’t think I can add anything worthwhile on it.

As an aside though I saw today that the governing body for swimming (FINA) banned trans swimmers from competing in women’s events.
 
I think that’s called gender neutral. Not that I want to make any wider point on the issue.
That is another name for the same thing, along with non-binary, agender or pangender according to my latest round of diversity training.
I am apparently cisgender... "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex." So as I was born male and I am happy to identify as male, I have a whole new gender 👍
 
That is another name for the same thing, along with non-binary, agender or pangender according to my latest round of diversity training.
I am apparently cisgender... "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender corresponds with their birth sex." So as I was born male and I am happy to identify as male, I have a whole new gender 👍

I hope you had a coming out party?
 
As an aside though I saw today that the governing body for swimming (FINA) banned trans swimmers from competing in women’s events.

I'm not celebrating sadly. Trans athletes can compete if they transition before puberty.
To me a child cannot make those decisions for itself.

Care to comment on how you feel about it ?
 
On a serious note, I actually find the whole subject quite interesting. Over the years, I've listened to a number of speakers from many genders/sexual orientations etc and their stories are quite amazing, some of the people are very brave.
I actually have a mate who I was at training school with (in 1999) who was male then but is now a trans woman. Without meaning to sound sexist or out of touch, she is so much more attractive as a woman than she was handsome as a male (Hope that doesn't sound wrong) and she is so much more naturally comfortable.
She now lives, and has a relationship with another police officer who was male and has transitioned. That blew my mind a bit but i spent a couple of hours chatting about it with her and the whole thing is just natural, just seems "different" or "unusual" to those of us that are lucky enough to be born into the body we are happy with.
 
I'm not celebrating sadly. Trans athletes can compete if they transition before puberty.
To me a child cannot make those decisions for itself.

Care to comment on how you feel about it ?

I can’t say I have ever known anyone in that position or going through a transition, so if I did comment it would be from a position of ignorance, and I’d rather leave that to others if you don’t mind.
 
That is another name for the same thing, along with non-binary, agender or pangender according to my latest round of diversity training.

Be careful. Gender Fluid is not a progressive word meaning Semen. Apparently people who identify as Gender Fluid get very upset if you accuse them of being ejaculation.
 
I can’t say I have ever known anyone in that position or going through a transition, so if I did comment it would be from a position of ignorance, and I’d rather leave that to others if you don’t mind.
Fair enough , I just don't agree with the sexualisation/indoctrination of young kids
 
I'm not celebrating sadly. Trans athletes can compete if they transition before puberty.
To me a child cannot make those decisions for itself.

Care to comment on how you feel about it ?
I think it will really hit home when it starts to affect majority sports like football and rugby.
Imagine the striker for England losing her place to a trans footballer or a six foot seven trans goalie?
Imagine the Welsh front line consisting of five trans women?
 
You are falling into myour own trap tarian.

> edited <

You are clearly on the libertarian side of things yourself and are idealistic about it. I share your faith in people letting one another crack on but from a different perspective.
You make some interesting points.....
...but I'm not sure what "trap" of mine I am falling into. Perhaps expand

I'd like to think I'm both idealistic and realistic.

In an ideal world there would be no need for Yellow Lines.....
......with everyone (ideally) subscribing to "do no harm to others".
But with imperfect information, we may think that this bit of parking does no harm - but it may, so even in a libertarian world a few YL may be acceptable.
(For the record, IMO, most YL are OTT for the harm to be prevented.)


... the longer they hold office the more they veer towards the authoritarian. It's nothing to do with left and right but obviously the other lot are always more authoritarian and it's all because of their politics.
i) Is that objectively true ?
As someone who believes that Yes Minister was a documentary....
(and has seen it's truth at close hand in Local Govt.),
....I believe that Civil servants are always trying to accrue more power and influence.
(I can expand with examples if challenged)

The only problem with "holding office" for some time, is a tendency to go native, i.e. lose touch with the customer / taxpayer and instead buy-in to the Official's narrative.
("That would be brave Minister".)

Things have got a bit weird with the identity and gender debates because some on the left thought they owned all struggles for equality and freedom, which is nonsense.....
Johnson is a startling case of a self identifying liberal with libertarian tendencies, who has all but donned the epaulettes, medals and big hats once he got his feet under the table.
A government that sets about allowing Assange to be extradited, restricts the right to protest in petty, restrictive and partisan ways, that changes laws when they don't suit the particular moment, denigrates and threatens judges and employs NDAs and super injunctions hasn't a libertarian bone in its body.
1) The "identity and gender" debates are not about "freedom".
They are an excuse for left activists to tell others what to say and think.
i.e. a justification for authoritarian practices - and if they could, laws.

2) "self-identifying liberals" are almost always the opposite of "liberal" see 1)

If by "donned the epaulettes.. etc" you mean "become dictatorial"...
what is the evidence for that from Johnson ?

Surely the ONLY plausible evidence is Lockdown - which was pressed upon him by a subset of Advisors...
- who were briefed to highlight a "worst case scenario - where nobody takes any mitigating action"...
- rather than "likely scenario, where some people behave defensively".

Starmer and Co bagsed those "epaulettes and medals" first - with their frequent demands for earlier and harsher Lockdown.

3
) "allowing" Assange to be extradited....
(under a Treaty - which apparently is "International Law" - which apparently would be appalling to "break".....)
....is rather different from "expediting".
Several years different !

4) Which protests have been restricted: "in petty, restrictive and partisan ways" ?
Most people think that this Govt has been soft on the likes of Extinction Rebellion and the M25 road blockers.
No thought of "do no harm to others" from those *#*@ers !

As for "partisan ways"....
How was it that BLM rallies got such light touch policing - while other peaceful protests didn't ?

Labour has its fair share of authoritarians and Blair followed the pattern of all leaders who hang on for a long time. Further left the examples are grimmer and the same applies to the right. I can think of Tory and Labour politicians that I wouldn't trust with my liberties and equally ones from both parties that I would trust.
I'll ask again.
Please describe a "right wing" authoritarian.
If you do, I would probably agree that they were undesirable....
....but probably see more in common with a left Dictator.

The moral corrective would not be any form of collectivism - as that would be just swapping one bunch of "epaulette" wearers for a different lot.
 
I'll ask again.
Please describe a "right wing" authoritarian.
If you do, I would probably agree that they were undesirable....
....but probably see more in common with a left Dictator.

The moral corrective would not be any form of collectivism - as that would be just swapping one bunch of "epaulette" wearers for a different lot.

How about Pinochet?
Broad brush repression in order to create the conditions in which the Chicago boys' ideas about a free market economy could be put into practice. You could try a transitional argument -he was only doing the necessary dirty work before we enter the realm of freedom, but that's an argument put forward by people all across the political spectrum.

I know I've banged on about this before, but it is important to make a distinction between commitments and objectives, on the one hand, and methods, on the other. I think authoritarian methods -do this because we say so, and we have authority, and will hit you if you don't-can be deployed in the service of liberal, socialist, communist, nationalist, and anarchist commitments. And of course, the commitments are used to excuse the methods. When "they" do it on behalf of their objectives, it's fascist. When we do it on behalf of ours, it's necessary.
 
How about Pinochet?
Broad brush repression in order to create the conditions in which the Chicago boys' ideas about a free market economy could be put into practice. You could try a transitional argument -he was only doing the necessary dirty work before we enter the realm of freedom, but that's an argument put forward by people all across the political spectrum.

I know I've banged on about this before, but it is important to make a distinction between commitments and objectives, on the one hand, and methods, on the other. I think authoritarian methods -do this because we say so, and we have authority, and will hit you if you don't-can be deployed in the service of liberal, socialist, communist, nationalist, and anarchist commitments. And of course, the commitments are used to excuse the methods. When "they" do it on behalf of their objectives, it's fascist. When we do it on behalf of ours, it's necessary.

That's a clear explanation of what my cluttered mind was trying to say, thank you.
 
You make some interesting points.....
...but I'm not sure what "trap" of mine I am falling into. Perhaps expand

I'd like to think I'm both idealistic and realistic.

In an ideal world there would be no need for Yellow Lines.....
......with everyone (ideally) subscribing to "do no harm to others".
But with imperfect information, we may think that this bit of parking does no harm - but it may, so even in a libertarian world a few YL may be acceptable.
(For the record, IMO, most YL are OTT for the harm to be prevented.)



i) Is that objectively true ?
As someone who believes that Yes Minister was a documentary....
(and has seen it's truth at close hand in Local Govt.),
....I believe that Civil servants are always trying to accrue more power and influence.
(I can expand with examples if challenged)

The only problem with "holding office" for some time, is a tendency to go native, i.e. lose touch with the customer / taxpayer and instead buy-in to the Official's narrative.
("That would be brave Minister".)


1) The "identity and gender" debates are not about "freedom".
They are an excuse for left activists to tell others what to say and think.
i.e. a justification for authoritarian practices - and if they could, laws.

2) "self-identifying liberals" are almost always the opposite of "liberal" see 1)

If by "donned the epaulettes.. etc" you mean "become dictatorial"...
what is the evidence for that from Johnson ?

Surely the ONLY plausible evidence is Lockdown - which was pressed upon him by a subset of Advisors...
- who were briefed to highlight a "worst case scenario - where nobody takes any mitigating action"...
- rather than "likely scenario, where some people behave defensively".

Starmer and Co bagsed those "epaulettes and medals" first - with their frequent demands for earlier and harsher Lockdown.

3) "allowing" Assange to be extradited....
(under a Treaty - which apparently is "International Law" - which apparently would be appalling to "break".....)
....is rather different from "expediting".
Several years different !

4) Which protests have been restricted: "in petty, restrictive and partisan ways" ?
Most people think that this Govt has been soft on the likes of Extinction Rebellion and the M25 road blockers.
No thought of "do no harm to others" from those *#*@ers !

As for "partisan ways"....
How was it that BLM rallies got such light touch policing - while other peaceful protests didn't ?


I'll ask again.
Please describe a "right wing" authoritarian.
If you do, I would probably agree that they were undesirable....
....but probably see more in common with a left Dictator.

The moral corrective would not be any form of collectivism - as that would be just swapping one bunch of "epaulette" wearers for a different lot.

The trap I see you as falling into is one of defining what you disapprove of as other, in this case left, and then arguing from that perspective. You are not alone in this, all sides do it and I'm sure I sometimes think and argue in that fashion.

Johnson is clearly heading in an aiuthoritarian direction aiming to strike down and change laws almost exclusively to get his own way and almost never to address a general problem. The good news is that he is as incompetent at this as most other stuff. I think it's generally agreed that governments and governers tend towards authoritarianism the longer they are in office. They tend to identify themselves first with government itself and then the very idea of the country. Sometimes ridiculous, sometimes dangerous and occasionally both. Limiting terms has been one of the correctives applied by democratic countries.

My comment on your idealism was a complimentary acknowledgement, nothing more, nothing less. I have never doubted your seriousness. I don't exercise myself much over yellow lines they don't affect bikes and I find the idea of freedom for motorists more complicated. There are a large number of people with no access to a car and they are likely to be among the most negatively affected by motor traffic. They are also likely to be among the larger group, who have the least freedom to move about, breathe clean air, enjoy decent services, quiet, green spaces and so on and so on. No one is currently much interested in their freedoms other than to sometimes speak on their behalf for temporary advantage.

I don't believe the latest identity stuff came out of the left but I do think the left was less intellectually critical and quicker to support. I think that is because they believed themselves uniquely associated with earlier fights for rights and freedoms. That was always a touch arrogant and they are moving along with everyone else.

I don't need to support Extinction Rebellion to understand that they feel their methods are justified by the greater never harm they are protesting against. They do not present a desperate new threat requiring legislation. We have had more violent protests of all sorts in the past that were dealt with by the application of existing laws. The powers the Home Secretary now has over details such as noise are typical of authoritarian government.
 
The trap I see you as falling into is one of defining what you disapprove of as other, in this case left, and then arguing from that perspective. You are not alone in this, all sides do it and I'm sure I sometimes think and argue in that fashion.

Johnson is clearly heading in an aiuthoritarian direction aiming to strike down and change laws almost exclusively to get his own way and almost never to address a general problem. The good news is that he is as incompetent at this as most other stuff. I think it's generally agreed that governments and governers tend towards authoritarianism the longer they are in office. They tend to identify themselves first with government itself and then the very idea of the country. Sometimes ridiculous, sometimes dangerous and occasionally both. Limiting terms has been one of the correctives applied by democratic countries.

My comment on your idealism was a complimentary acknowledgement, nothing more, nothing less. I have never doubted your seriousness. I don't exercise myself much over yellow lines they don't affect bikes and I find the idea of freedom for motorists more complicated. There are a large number of people with no access to a car and they are likely to be among the most negatively affected by motor traffic. They are also likely to be among the larger group, who have the least freedom to move about, breathe clean air, enjoy decent services, quiet, green spaces and so on and so on. No one is currently much interested in their freedoms other than to sometimes speak on their behalf for temporary advantage.

I don't believe the latest identity stuff came out of the left but I do think the left was less intellectually critical and quicker to support. I think that is because they believed themselves uniquely associated with earlier fights for rights and freedoms. That was always a touch arrogant and they are moving along with everyone else.

I don't need to support Extinction Rebellion to understand that they feel their methods are justified by the greater never harm they are protesting against. They do not present a desperate new threat requiring legislation. We have had more violent protests of all sorts in the past that were dealt with by the application of existing laws. The powers the Home Secretary now has over details such as noise are typical of authoritarian government.

totally agree.

would add that many times the traditional 'left' have quickly jumped on those bandwagons without much thought as its all about recruitment. I know this from my trot and anti nazi league time.

same of course for the fascist groups but sometimes in a slightly different way.

I believe that it is slightly better to have boris in charge as his lazy incompetence means nothing much is followed through (with a few noticeable exceptions). A competent tory leader could do even more damage.
 
One point often overlooked when a government ((any government) pass contentious legislation is that it can always be undone by a later government, but this is rarely done.
For example, Thatcher promoted the right to buy scheme that took hundreds of thousands of social houses out of the rental market.
A few years later we had 13 years of Labour government, with good majorities who could have rescinded that at anytime, but chose not to.
So, what I’m trying to say is no matter what this shower of shite propose, the future government can overturn it.
All prime ministers and all governments are temporary.
Yvette Cooper was specifically asked if Labour won power, would they reverse the Rwandan policy and refused to say that they would.
Weak opposition?
 
Last edited:
What interested me was that it's women who are objecting to trans women. 🙄

Not surprised really as, for example, it will be the womens spaces (toilets, changing rooms etc) that these 'women' who were formally men will be expecting to share. My daughter went into Bluewater female toilets and there was a 6ft woman with an adams apple watching everyone using the facilities. It unnerved her to say the least.
 
Not surprised really as, for example, it will be the womens spaces (toilets, changing rooms etc) that these 'women' who were formally men will be expecting to share. My daughter went into Bluewater female toilets and there was a 6ft woman with an adams apple watching everyone using the facilities. It unnerved her to say the least.
Good point to be fair.
On a similar note, I heard Caitlin Jenner is now saying that she is against trans women competing in women's sports. Sounds controversial but she qualified it by adding that she still has the same strength she had as a man so would be unfair for her to compete against other women (in her chosen sport anyway).
This is a touchy one as there are valid points on either side. Question is, who's rights are most important? Trans women (for their right to compete) or women (for their right to fair competition)?
 
Question is, who's rights are most important? Trans women (for their right to compete) or women (for their right to fair competition)?

Women are 50% of our population , whereas less than 1% are trans. Womens rights are more relevant to our society.