How long has Corbyn got left?

[Paul]

This has nothing to do with being trans though. Trans people have a gender identity that doesn't correspond with their biological sex.

Agreed and more power to them

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Trans people have a gender identity that doesn't correspond with their biological sex.

Thank you for posting this. It is the most neat way of describing it. It takes the baggage away that exists for the transgender person and their family and friends but it really gets to the nub of the issue.

My child absolutely has a biological sex that totally doesn't match what his gender is. It's a terribly challenging issue to get through both for him, and for us as a family. But biologically he is still female until the surgeons do their job (or interfere if that is an onlooker's personal standpoint). I look forward to the day that transgender is just treated as a normal part of society. The viewpoint is still less understanding than a view on a gay or lesbian person, which is a sign there is a long way to go.

 

[pr0sl0]

A spectrum suggests a range where any value is equally possible but this isn't the case with sex - there are only 2 categories. You'll have exceptions for sure but nothing like enough to suggest a spectrum. This has nothing to do with being trans though. Trans people have a gender identity that doesn't correspond with their biological sex.

Oh but it is a spectrum! It's just so weird to think of it as one because it's so unintuitive - I really don't blame people for going "wait, what the fuck?" or similar in response but the framework is very much the mainstream in sex science. It also doesn't help that "spectrum" is kind of an inappropriate word, but it's the closest we've got in English - it's more like a ladder with defined steps, rather than gender, where things bleed together like colours.

Essentially, most sex characteristics can be broken down in a range of some kind, but - like with race - the things that we notice as most obvious from our human perspective (like gonads) are misleading about just how much variation there can be in a range of other characteristics which are less obviously expressed. If you zoom out and look across the animal kingdom then this becomes way more obvious, but, again, not a part of everyday human perspective except for edge cases like eg Caster Semenya, where something doesn't "fit" with the boundaries of what the sex binary social construct makes us expect (in her case, exceptionally high testosterone levels).

The history of how we figured this stuff out is fascinating, by the way. Highly recommend reading up on it. Back in the 1920s/30s there was a "hormone craze" after testosterone and estrogen were synthesised for the first time, and there were all kinds of wacky medical scams based around supplements and powders and injections - it's why Major Buckley (allegedly) injected the Wolves team with monkey serum back in the day.

 

[pr0sl0]

Thank you for posting this. It is the most neat way of describing it. It takes the baggage away that exists for the transgender person and their family and friends but it really gets to the nub of the issue.

My child absolutely has a biological sex that totally doesn't match what his gender is. It's a terribly challenging issue to get through both for him, and for us as a family. But biologically he is still female until the surgeons do their job (or interfere if that is an onlooker's personal standpoint). I look forward to the day that transgender is just treated as a normal part of society. The viewpoint is still less understanding than a view on a gay or lesbian person, which is a sign there is a long way to go.

Respect to you for being so supportive of your son!

 

[Papper]

not my job to educate you.

I know, but if you feel you are the font of all truth and wisdom go with it if it makes you feel good. I don't mind criticism in fact encourage it -at the risk of me being called a troll, ****ard or talking bollocks.

but I posted an anarchist quote to you a while back that described democracy as the worst tyranny in response to your banging on about democratic will. I think an actual anarchist would have at least attempted to explain how trying to uphold something described as the worst tyranny of all is consistent in any way with his anarchist credo. it didn't even draw a response from you.

I get the anti-capitalist, anti-corporate views you hold, but they don't make you an anarchist per se, unless you are choosing to be falsely defined by the media.

based on your views I'd say you want a more representative form of "democracy" with wholly different values to those that apply in ours. nothing dishonourable in that, it just doesn't make you an anarchist. it may however make you politically homeless in the current climate.

I would centre on unjustified authority but freedom can also exist with social justice, common values and expresssion. I suppose it comes down to an accepted definition of freedom that is beneficial for all. While I would advocate that there are leaders and followers/wise men and fools my concern is authority as a means of control.

 

[nimrod]

I know, but if you feel you are the font of all truth and wisdom go with it if it makes you feel good. I don't mind criticism in fact encourage it -at the risk of me being called a troll, ****ard or talking bollocks.



I would centre on unjustified authority but freedom can also exist with social justice, common values and expresssion. I suppose it comes down to an accepted definition of freedom that is beneficial for all. While I would advocate that there are leaders and followers/wise men and fools my concern is authority as a means of control.

i have a mate that does this sort of thing. he spouts out stuff that makes no sense or is inconsistent with other things he says and when i point it out he switches to a sadly standard ad hominem about me.

 

[Papper]

i have a mate that does this sort of thing. he spouts out stuff that makes no sense or is inconsistent with other things he says and when i point it out he switches to a sadly standard ad hominem about me.

That's a bit unfair.

Unfortunately I cannot see change occuring through a mass rejection of the political class therefore a freedom or will (to change) must emerge that is entirely in keeping with the same process that keeps the political class as authoritative. Destroy it from within - therefore democracy while perhaps tyrannical must be in place to be the stimulus for anarchy.

This is where I am at. Maybe Utopian but the concept suits me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndsWuYfRgjE

 

[Paul]

This is where I am at. Maybe Utopian but the concept suits me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndsWuYfRgjE

Nice Sentiment but very Utopian, and not all aspects thought through.

 

[nimrod]

That's a bit unfair.

Unfortunately I cannot see change occuring through a mass rejection of the political class therefore a freedom or will (to change) must emerge that is entirely in keeping with the same process that keeps the political class as authoritative. Destroy it from within - therefore democracy while perhaps tyrannical must be in place to be the stimulus for anarchy.

This is where I am at. Maybe Utopian but the concept suits me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndsWuYfRgjE

not unfair at all. "you feel you are the font of all truth and wisdom go with it if it makes you feel good." - was the unfair post. if you don't like the response you get, don't make posts like that.

i'll look at the YT when I get the chance but have a newborn so time is limited! i'm basically knackered.

 

[Papper]

not unfair at all. "you feel you are the font of all truth and wisdom go with it if it makes you feel good." - was the unfair post. if you don't like the response you get, don't make posts like that.

i'll look at the YT when I get the chance but have a newborn so time is limited! i'm basically knackered.

To be fair it was maybe a very poor attempt at humour in response to ' Not my job to educate you ' so my apologies for that but I think I understand your point in respect of democracy, tyranny and anarchy.

 

[Templeton Peck]

https://electronicintifada.net/blog...hronicle-pay-damages-over-anti-semitism-libel

Delighted.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-perverse-preference-for-failure-over-success

Agreed with pretty much all of this.

I hate the Tories and I long for the day they get pied off (especially the current lot who are genuinely grotesque on every level), but you can't vote for "Not the Tories". You have to offer something reasonable in terms of both policies and personality or you won't get the support you require (Tory voters would happily send Pol Pot into office even now he's dead, they work to different standards).

And the Blair era was pretty damn good domestically. You can say they could have done more but they were coming off the back of 18 years (!) of classic Tory reign where everything was falling to bits as they can never be bothered investing in any public services.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

And the Blair era was pretty damn good domestically. You can say they could have done more but they were coming off the back of 18 years (!) of classic Tory reign where everything was falling to bits as they can never be bothered investing in any public services.

And thats the issue. This country will vote pink/ purple if the labour party put themselves in the right position but they have spent the last decade failing to understand that completely. Blair was absolutely electable . Corbyn , Milliband, Foot , Kinnock would lose to pretty much anyone who stood against them. Wake up and smell the coffee Labour.

 

[Paul]

But to the Labour faithful Blair was not Labour he was Tory lite, and as such a pariah.
They have a decision to make, water down their raison d'etre or never govern for the foreseeable future.

 

[White Wolf]

I mentioned the same thing to my friend as we were watching - there was definitely a sense that they were scared to say Blair.

Plenty of people I know support RLB and are actively hostile to other options, I don't get it. A couple have explicitly said they'd rather lose with a Corbynista than win with a centre-left candidate! Baffles me. Not going to get anywhere if you are too scared to trumpet the achievements from the last time Labour were in government.

 

[leedswolf]

It depends on what you believe underpins the Labour Party. Personally I don't get non-Labour supporters telling me what the Labour Party should do. If they follow this centrist mantra, they aren't the 'Labour' party that I support or indeed have been an active member.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

But then again Phil, it's lapsed voters like me that they need to target (let's ignore for a second where I live and that my vote barely counts).

I haven't voted Labour in any election at all since 2010. But I'm broadly speaking a social democrat, I should be voting Labour. I voted Labour in every election from 1999 to that point.

 

[leedswolf]

So Dan, why have you lapsed? What is so different with the Labour ideology today than 20/30/40/50/60/70/etc years ago which you disagree with?

We had a version of 'Labour' under Blair/Brown which departed from the traditional ideology (privatisation, PPIs, etc.), but surely traditional Labour values are the most important tenets?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Didn't like the AusterityLite platform of Miliband and Balls (I actually quite liked both of them on a personal level).

Could never get on board with JCorbz.

 

[leedswolf]

You're mentioning individuals though. I agree about Milliband/Balls and the policy, but to not vote Labour because of Corbyn? The policies were generally sound.