Evidence re GC women and white supremacism please?

Biological males are 95+% easily identifiable among biological females - no outing involved. Women are especially able to identify them.

Why is an open category 'excluding' males who have a gender identity that means they don't want to compete with males?

And you claim that your new 'special women' category would have no effect on biological females? What is the point of your 'special women' category? Why would anyone wish to enter that category? And you seem to think that offering a special women category for a male to compete in and win would not effect female people? Why? It is still a category that is going to have to refer to competitors being women or female, so therefore any person claiming a place in that category is denying a female a place in a category for women or females.

Your logic doesn't hold up. Allowing any male to compete as a female in any category label that is a category where someone can win as a 'woman' or a 'female' is harmful to the female athletes that are within that category.

You assume wrong, obviously based on your very own rather entrenched prejudice, that I don't 'give a damn'. I am all for males to compete without them having to 'out themselves' but to not compete in any female category. Is it my priority, no? But that doesn't mean that I don't give a damn. But obviously you have some pretty entrenched ideas about what I do and don't believe. Why don't you tell me more about what I believe. I look forward to it.

If you don't believe what I say then it is up to you to show me some facts that contradict what I have said. If I give you a fact, and you come back with the same myth that I have just contradicted, then either you don't understand what I have said or you want to believe that somehow I have ulterior motives and want to harm women. I've told you some facts, you are unable to contradict them, the 'no comment needed' is that you have lost the argument.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm not expecting you to obey a command. I'm telling you some facts. Two different meanings of the word 'telling'.

Proposing an 'open' category is just a way of excluding transwomen. It is not a form of compromise.

Even if it was true that the category I propose would just allow a 'male' to claim first, that has no effect on the biological females. A biologically female athlete would be able to say 'I came first in a race against my peers' and they would have prize money. As for outing trans people, I don't think that you give a damn about that, you would out any transwoman you could.

I've just told you that prostitution isn't about women sold for sex or selling themselves for sex. Why do you persist with your Victorian attitudes? I've told you that the vast majority of prostitutes can afford to keep themselves in other ways but find that prostitution suits them. Believe me, most of them have got more money than you have. I have respect for them and their dignity.

I’ve just told you

… your Victorian attitudes

I’ve told you

Believe me

No further comment needed.

Victorian like locking up innocent women in Magdalen Laundries. Four orders of nuns were involved in that and two of those four founded Ruhama. They are liars. They pretend that the welfare of women is their primary concern when they harm women.

"A society that allows a certain number of women to be sold for sex is not a society that sees women as people worthy of respect and dignity, and trying to intellectualise or rationalise this fact is really just more of this postmodern bullshit of fighting stigma being thought of as more important than actually tackling problems."

I've just told you that prostitution isn't about women sold for sex or selling themselves for sex. Why do you persist with your Victorian attitudes? I've told you that the vast majority of prostitutes can afford to keep themselves in other ways but find that prostitution suits them. Believe me, most of them have got more money than you have. I have respect for them and their dignity.

As for trafficking, do you realise that word doesn't usually mean coercion? Trafficking is the organised movement of people for some form of work that is illegal, usually only applied to prostitution. There is something called modern slavery which exists in prostitution and exists in other forms of work too. The best way to combat this is understood by experts such as Emily Kenway. I can recommend her book The Truth about Modern Slavery. You will find the way to tackle problems with people like her and not Ruhama.

"For example, in sport there are compromises that could be made. Each sport would be different. In marathon running, men and women could run together. At the end of the race it would be announced who was fastest. It would also be announced the fastest woman. There would be a category for women that would exclude trans women or someone like Caster Semenya (I know she wasn't a marathon runner). There would be another category that would include them. That should make everybody happy but it won't because in culture wars people never want to compromise."

Except that in Marathons there is prize money for those attaining places.

Could you please tell us what is the point of having two female categories, one for female only people and one for whoever the fuck wants to be included? What is the second category measuring? And what prize money would you suggest is offered. Or are you proposing a make believe category with no prize money being offered but is merely there for people to choose to make them feel good?

What would you name these categories? "Female" and "inclusive women's"? And won't entering into the second category just mean a) that trans people are outed and b) that it will just be another category for a male to claim first?

How about instead, there is an 'open' category for every single athlete who wishes to enter, and female category where only those of the female sex are allowed to enter?

Oh wait? That HAS been proposed by the people you accuse of 'never wanting to compromise' and been adopted by athletic events already.

I think that you are keen to believe that you are 'middle ground' and that you want to frame feminists as 'extreme' and participating in some kind of 'culture war'. When in reality, you don't quite seem to have the depth of understanding of what has and hasn't been proposed, accepted and why when it comes to sport.

I have asked you what it is that you actually propose to protect women from being exploited without harming vulnerable women. Have you got a solution?

Your mind reading ability is on the fritz because funds and support not being available to help women exit prostitution is something that makes me very angry and it’s an issue I’ve raised with my political representatives. But they don’t want to prioritise the views of women arguing for helping other women because they’re largely all neo-liberal, middle-class men for whom this isn’t an important issue, other than for headlines, and isn’t viewed as a failure of society to care for the vulnerable, rather it’s a function of the marketplace.

As for the rest of your post: if it makes you happy to think that prostitution is women selling a service rather than the fact that women are not seen as full/real human beings and thus a certain type of man sees us as bodies for sale or rent, and they enjoy the power imbalance of using a trafficked woman or a woman who can’t afford to keep herself without resorting to selling access to her body, then I don’t know what to tell you other than your thinking doesn’t sound as empathetic as you think it does. A society that allows a certain number of women to be sold for sex is not a society that sees women as people worthy of respect and dignity, and trying to intellectualise or rationalise this fact is really just more of this postmodern bullshit of fighting stigma being thought of as more important than actually tackling problems.

When you talk about 'bodies for sale' can you not see how Victorian that sounds?

Victorian like campaigning for women’s rights?

There is so much wrong with all of this I just don't know where to start.

I'm not sure that your reasons are so different from Evangelical Christians or nuns. When you talk about 'bodies for sale' can you not see how Victorian that sounds? Women don't sell their bodies or sell themselves, they sell a service. Sex workers have dignity and they don't need to be saved.

There are a tiny minority of sex workers who are drug addicts. There was a very good study of Dublin drug addicts in Dublin done by Mary O’Neill and Ann-Marie O’Connor.

If you read Paid For by Rachel Moran she states that there is a Ruhama report that says that 38% of Irish prostitutes have attempted suicide. What happened is that Ruhama took O’Neill and O’Connor's excellent work and pretended that it applied to Irish prostitutes in general and not Dublin drug-addicted street prostitutes. I can believe that 38% of drug addicts (male and female) have attempted suicide but there is no evidence that it is true of prostitutes in general.

I've got a copy of this Ruhama report that has now been withdrawn. It gives a reference for their false statistic, but the reference is for a different one of O’Neill and O’Connor's reports, one that doesn't have 'drug using women' in the title. This is intentionally misleading. I would call it a lie.

Women are still being arrested in Ireland. Funds have not been made available for women to exit prostitution. This is what it says in the official report by Dr Geoffrey Shannon. What aren't you 'really angry' with this? If your reasons are what you say they are then you would be. I respect O’Neill, O’Connor and Dr Shannon, I have no respect for Ruhama or for you.

I agree with you that there are big problems with transgender beliefs. I am not a woke person and I don't believe everything that the transgender lobby say. I can see both sides of the argument and I can see compromises that are rejected by both the transgender lobby and the gender critical side.

For example, in sport there are compromises that could be made. Each sport would be different. In marathon running, men and women could run together. At the end of the race it would be announced who was fastest. It would also be announced the fastest woman. There would be a category for women that would exclude trans women or someone like Caster Semenya (I know she wasn't a marathon runner). There would be another category that would include them. That should make everybody happy but it won't because in culture wars people never want to compromise.

So I was trying to highlight what can happen when religious conservatives align themselves with Radical Feminists. You can think that they have different motives but when you have Radical Feminists who don't want women having sex with men anyway that shows their true motives with some issues. They won't say that though, they will say that they are trying to protect women.

There have been a number of reports on the effectiveness of the Nordic Model. For example, the Skarhed report. The only one that gives all of the relevant statistics is the 2015 report by two Swedish women Endrit Mujaj and Amanda Netscher (Lansstyrelsen). It also explains the difference between incidence and prevalence statistics and why only incidence statistics should be used to track changes.

No sex workers were murdered in Sweden for a good many years before the introduction of the Nordic Model in 1999. The last one to be murdered was in the 1980s sometime. Since the introduction there have been two murders of sex workers that we know about.

I thought you would have known that, considering that you supposedly care so much about women. Instead you want to perpetuate a myth that the law has prevented women's deaths. You also want people to believe that sex workers must be either dirt poor, drug addicts or threatened with violence.

Lots of people think that no woman could choose to make money from providing a sexual service. They think it would be so unpleasant that they must forced into it through violence, or addicted, or destitute. It would be unpleasant for you, but not all women are like you.

Look at the facts instead of trying to impugn the integrity of someone who disagrees with you. Don't pretend that you are saving women's lives when that is not the case.

Nah Morrissey has made plenty of racist comments over the years.
He's also vegetarian, so obviously that means if you don't eat meat you are aligned with racism, by Twitter logic.

Without knowing what he said, I have known people to use "subspecies" incorrectly as a substitute for "race" because they assume different races of humans are like subspecies of other animals - they also tend to think both are the same as breeds of domestic animals. So it's not in that case meant to imply they are less human than other races. It's the fact that races exist at all that they think means there are various subspecies of humans.

Of course not knowing what he said beyond that, his point as a whole could have been racist, I don't know. Or maybe he was just referencing Chinese culture, as you suggest may be the case.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of scientific illiteracy without good evidence, it's so common it's really rather depressing.

PorcelinaV · Today 12:05

If you want to be charitable, you could maybe say that Morrissey was making a cultural point in a bad, stupid way, and hopefully isn't an actual racial supremacist.

Perhaps some members of Britain First aren't racist? I dunno.

But how do you think this example is going to apply to GC sharing a belief with conservatives?

There are certain empirical questions here, so I guess it's not completely impossible.

The benefits and risks of transitioning are a medical scientific question. Biological male advantages in sport, even with testosterone suppression, is a scientific question. Increased crime if single sex spaces are weakened is an empirical question.

Hypothetically people could lie about this stuff, or try to downplay study results in an unethical way. Either the GC side, or the trans-activist side, could sometimes be guilty of providing false information.

But are the GC feminists and conservatives actually doing this in practice?

Also, a lot of the issue isn't empirical.

Refusing to change the definition of "man" and "woman" is much more "logical" than "empirical". It doesn't come down to scientific studies.

Wanting to protect single sex spaces doesn't really depend on anything that controversial. (Ignoring rejecting TWAW.) It's partly controversial to what extent it could increase crime. But it's a fact that some women are uncomfortable changing in front of the opposite biological sex say.

As far as I could tell, Morrissey wanted to be critical of Chinese culture regarding animal welfare, (not a problem); but decided to do this by making a racist statement about them.

If you want to be charitable, you could maybe say that Morrissey was making a cultural point in a bad, stupid way, and hopefully isn't an actual racial supremacist.

Helleofabore · Yesterday 16:07

And it doesn't mean his can't be both an arsehole and a charming person.

Yes, I can agree with that.

If he does this regularly though, his show would have trouble getting anyone to come on more than once, and not even once if they think he is just an arse.

I suppose that people may not realise just how awful he is, or may think that they'll be able to get their points across.

I do believe though that describing him personally as 'delightful' doesn't mean that KJK has 'aligned' with his views on more than one single issue, if they are even in full agreeance on that single issue.

Again, I agree and with KJK, she may not have known his reputation. Like Julie Bindel, she will use any platform to make her points and why not? JB writes in the Mail, not because she subscribes to their overall philosophy, but because they will publish her and she gets her message out to a much wider range of readers.

No bad thing, in my opinion.

Why should it come as a surprise that Christian men would protect elderly women? Christians have always put themselves alongside those who disagree with them. It is the only way they can extend the message; either through preaching or serving those not yet Christian. Even in the Bible, Jesus aligned himself with the disliked and spoke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees - the priests who where are the top of the purity spiral of their day.

How can you effect change if you do not mix with those you disagree with?

Just popping in from Sweden to say that 'they' haven't kept statistics from anyone.

Almost all information is public here, including your boss's salary and your doctor's address.

The Nordic Model is hugely scrutinized, because a massive, vicious, and highly profitable industry wants it to fail.

But it works, if your desired outcomes include women not being murdered by sex buyers. If your desire is getting to fuck impoverished, drug addicted and trafficked women, then of course it's not going to look so successful to you.

In general I find many people on the left, and conservatives, agree on a lot of these kinds of moral questions, like prostitution. And often for the same reasons really, around things like exploitation, the dignity of the human person, and so on.

It's social liberals who want to remove all social barriers to behavior that have a different perspective.

Often the biggest difference to me is that the leftists will talk about social structures to prevent things (laws, conventions, etc.) but on the conservative side, although they may well want those things too, they tend to talk more about people taking personal responsibility.

This is interesting, and also goes to show how different the political assumptions are in the US from Europe.

Yes, I guess so. Certainly some of the replacement theory advocates can get kind of nutty, but I remember when you had public figures in the US, not always in politics but sometimes pop culture types, talking about how the future was non-white and therefore "liberal". So it seemed pretty clear to me that however crazy they sounded, the theory had its origins in that same thinking which many on the left agreed with.

Now, while the demographics still seem to be on the expected trajectory, Hispanics look to be increasingly a voting block for the Republicans, and there are some signs that the black vote is becoming less attached to the Dems as well. This is particularly true among younger (as in, under 30) black Americans.