Sunak telling Robin White that biological sex is important live on GB news

[fromorbit]

'Particularly when it comes to questions around women's safety and health, biological sex is important.' Parents need to be involved in schools.

Rishi Sunak is asked 'why should LGBT people vote Conservative?'
GB News forum footage here:
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1757143443111841900

Thing is, I don’t know what was on the thread. There were 8 posts when I last looked, and then 30 on the deleted thread.

Am also following the case, and interestingly the press live blog was suddenly closed after lunch without explanation while they heard further forensic evidence. It may simply be that the court reporter was suddenly called away, of course.

They say they’re an “educational charity” they are not.

Educational yes, as in educating the public; specific to education, no.

That’s made clear from its charitable purpose statement.

THE PURPOSES OF THE CHARITY ARE: 3.1 THE NON-PARTISAN ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE ECONOMIC SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES AND THEIR EFFECT ON PUBLIC POLICY AND THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS IN THE UK AND THE PROMOTION AND PUBLICATION OF OBJECTIVE RESEARCH; 3.2 THE PURSUIT OF SUCH OTHER PURPOSES WHICH ARE EXCLUSIVELY CHARITABLE WITHIN THE LAWS OF ENGLAND AND WALES AS THE DIRECTORS OF THE CHARITY (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE TRUSTEES") SHALL DETERMINE

Do you think that schools aren’t pushing gender identity ideology?

Setting aside the issue of the defendant's sex for the moment, discussing their "other horrible activities" is likely to be contempt of court unless they were raised as evidence in the case. That'd definitely be enough to get those posts deleted.

I can only comment on the schools in my Trust and the schools my friends work in and no, I don’t think they are “pushing” anything of the sort.

I stopped reading at “non-Partisan”.

I’m would be little surprised if it is contempt as it in the newspapers. I do not mention any detail at all. It may be the case that it is being raised as evidence. Shall I do a Private Eye and say that the alleged ‘activities’.

I stopped reading at “non-Partisan”.

The logical conclusion is that you'd prefer a partisan think tank.

It's great that your school/trust is so fabulous. Near me, a 5yo female child was transed, and I know two teenage girls being transed. Both those girls have teachers at the school influential roles (pastoral care, PSHE). It's causing major issues in the school with teachers scared to talk and parents questioning why there are now "gender neutral toilets" which no one asked for. There's also a high school with a cluster of social contagion.

These are schools just in a 5mile radius.

Parents care a lot about this. And they talk.

Oh, just had a gander at the newspaper reporting. One headline is that the accused has admitted to those ‘other horrible (my own opinion) activities’ in court.

‘The court heard on Monday (February 12), that X (sic, my substitution) has pleaded guilty to Y (sic, my substitution) as it was read out in the agreed facts.’

I suspect that is being raised as evidence if the defendent has admitted to them in court.

I've only had one warning, saying I looked like a "troll hunter," when KJK was Down Under. I also got banned for a week last autumn, after someone took a daft suggestion on a parking thread seriously.

For that, I emailed and got one back saying they would let me back, as long as I abided by the site rules, which I've been doing my best to do.

I've had a few deleted on FWR, no contact about them.

No, think tanks should be partisan but very few actually are. They push political agendas and notoriously lack transparency regarding sponsorship and donors. Anyway that is besides the point of this thread- I was merely challenging people using contentious sources as evidence.

I will have to take your word for that. I just don’t see what a school or staff in a school would have to gain by pushing any sort of gender ideology.

Are you getting partisan and non-partisan mixed up?

I obviously meant non-Partisan

That wasn't obvious to me as you said you stopped reading at non-partisan.

Generally speaking, if someone means the opposite of what they say, what is it that makes it obvious? I really struggle with this kind of communicating. Am I supposed to know something about the poster's views other than what they write in a post?

Can't tell if it's just me that doesn't find it "obvious" and needs to ask to clarify.

Reading a short paragraph though. So tiring. I understand.

The rest of my post and previous posts were all saying this particular think tank is Partisan (right wing) not impartial, not objective. I would say that would make my initial sentence an obvious mix up.

I give up trying to have a remotely intelligent or meaningful conversation on here. There appear to be posters constantly waiting in the wings to be passive aggressive/rude/condescending. Deliberately jumping on anything to get a tiny rise.

It was obvious to me she stopped reading at "non-partisan" because that is untrue so not worth her time continuing to read an untrue statement.

There do appear to be a lot of these lobby groups masquerading as "non partisan charities" out there. Always worth a quick Google, if Tufton Street is in the address treat with caution.

I give up trying to have a remotely intelligent or meaningful conversation on here. There appear to be posters constantly waiting in the wings to be passive aggressive/rude/condescending. Deliberately jumping on anything to get a tiny rise.

There are a lot of neurodivergent people who struggle when people don't type what they mean. It's not deliberate or aggressive.

Just lost a post. Tldr, I ask for clarification when I struggle to understand linguistic nuances and I don't really know how to word it in a way that a poster won't read as aggressive or insincere. I try to take posts at face value rather than assuming anything else behind them.

I'm also baffled by "waiting in the wings" - I'm reading on and off throughout the day on a phone, like most people.

Personally if I miss out a "not" or something that changes the meaning of what I typed, I clarify without assuming anything unwritten is obvious.

Apparently my deletion was for making a personal attack so I will attempt to remake the point as a general observation and not aimed at any single individual. Here goes…

It is often difficult to know when a man considers himself to be a woman unless he signals it in some way either through clothing or a name change or making an announcement. Also it often takes a lot of cognitive effort to use the wrong pronouns for many men who consider themselves as women because the wrong pronouns are counterintuitive.

I ask for clarification when I struggle to understand linguistic nuances and I don't really know how to word it in a way that a poster won't read as aggressive or insincere. I try to take posts at face value rather than assuming anything else behind them.

That's all I was doing too. I genuinely thought the poster had the two mixed up. I even googled to make sure I hadn't mixed them up first.

And when contentious sources are used, it is more useful to address the points raised. Dismissing a source due to what you feel are political alignments is not a debate. It is outright dismissal and rejection because of a source.

Address the issue. Read the article and point out flaws in data and in logic. And misrepresentation .

Dont expect people to consider you have engaged when you have not in evidence engaged.

Why should think tanks be non-partisan? I don’t think there’s any rule or law that says they have to be politically neutral.
The onus is on the individual to consider their conclusions and the rationale that led to those conclusions, taking into account any bias, and decide whether those conclusions are reasonable. In some cases I will agree with what they say, in others disagree.

Well that poster also made an untrue statement:

They say they’re an “educational charity” they are not.

Policy Exchange, whether you think it is partisan or not, is not an “educational charity”.