Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

I also get his "island of strangers" point:

Let me put it this way: Nations depend on rules – fair rules. Sometimes they're written down, often they're not, but either way, they give shape to our values. They guide us towards our rights, of course, but also our responsibilities, the obligations we owe to one another. Now, in a diverse nation like ours, and I celebrate that, these rules become even more important. Without them, we risk becoming an island of strangers, not a nation that walks forward together.

I think his policy that it'll now take 10 years to settle in the UK will be a great way to ensure the UK does become an island of strangers. I would think it would make immigrants more inclined to come to the UK for a period of time, generate the wealth they want and then leave, as it'll be that much harder to actually make a life here.  Or as I saw said on LinkedIn( ) :

If my parents had arrived under Starmer's rules, they wouldn't have stuck it out for long. What's the incentive to push through the rough patches if it's going to take a decade to feel secure?

Ten years in limbo tells you exactly what you are: Temporary. Replaceable. A stranger.

This policy encourages transience.

Immigrants come, immigrants go — replaced by more immigrants, who will also come and go.

We're not reducing the strangers.
We're multiplying them.

If I wasn't married to a British citizen, I would have shipped out at 5 years and another 'new' immigrant would have taken my place.

[Razgovory]

Honestly I think it would go the other way.  People who say that trans woman are women because of that is what society expects of them, but would not act on it.  I think this is important, after all this is what defines the other LGB in LGBT.  Who they are attracted to.  It also defines straight people of course.  Sex is one of the most basic human interactions, one that predates humans itself.  It is fairly revealing here I think.  Someone might say that "transwoman are women" because it is the left-wing thing to do, or because they are afraid of being ostracized, or they just want to fit in, or they really like the work of Judith Butler.  But when it comes to acting on those beliefs they would not.

Again you're really echoing Trumpist talking points here. This idea we live in a super duper left wing world where you have to pretend to agree equality, tolerance, and general wokery, are god, or else you get destroyed.

Get out in the real world and speak to working class guys... And you'll find quite the opposite tends to be in place. Performative vice signalling from some about how awful trans people are, with few daring to speak up against this.

When it comes down to it though, as said I've read a lot from straight trans women about how they'll find a lot of guys interested in sleeping with them, but who don't want to admit it.
In fact far more than predatory trans women preying on cis women, a far bigger women's safety issue here is cis men against trans women.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_transgender_relationships

For my part I can totally say that I don't know where I'd sit on going out with a trans person as I'm just not in a place of thinking about finding a new girlfriend. But in theory if I was single and met someone who ticked all my boxes, who I found super attractive, but was trans... then absolutely the issue of "What would everyone think?" would be far more of a concern than anything personal.

Comparing this to people who are fat is off, fat isn't some protected class of people.  Comparing it to race however seems apt.  I've seen videos of transexuals claim that say refusal to date a transexual is transphobic, and that's probably appropriate.  If someone said they wouldn't date a Jew they would be called antisemitic and if they wouldn't date a black person they would be called racist.  That would make most accusations of transphobia projection,  people canceling each other to cover for what they really feel in their hearts.

This isn't to say trans people should be persecuted, there is a wide gap between between "you should be lynched" and "I accept your views as true".  If the goal is, as garbon suggested, just that people should tolerate trans people, then go with that slogan:  "Trans people are human".

OK. So lets pretend I didn't say I wouldn't go out with an obese woman but rather I wouldn't go out with a black woman.
Am I saying black women aren't women?
Is that what this means?

Going way off topic and thinking about the race thing....
To say "I would never go out with a black girl" is a pretty racist and unacceptable thing to say. If you find someone saying this no matter how much they may squeal and protest "its just preference!", they're either actively or ignorantly racist.

On the other hand to say "I like skinny girls. And blondes." does express a clear preference away from black women. Nonetheless it isn't aimed at race in particular. It isn't just black women excluded by this. So it is expressing a preference not to go out with black people without being racist (necessarily, still possible you're just being clever and leaving something unsaid).

And hey, on this its a big "Never say never". I have my preferences though girls I've gone out with in the past have certainly gone against some of those. They're not absolute rules if points are scored elsewhere (this being me, "They're actually interested in me and by fluke I figure this out" is of course a key one, which served to make me go out with girls who ticked very few categories... anyway. Not there now with my gf so all good.)

The category of trans people covers a huge range of people.
On the one extreme you've the virtually non-existant bogeyman of terfs, a cis guy who throws on a dress and declares "I'm a woman!" for nefarious means.
On the other extreme you've intersex people who were wrongly assigned at birth, discovered this and transitioned early, and who even under thorough medical examination it'd be hard to show were ever the other sex at all.
In between you've a vast range of people who for varying reasons pass more and less.

So saying you'd never go out with a trans person as an absolute cover all...I can see the point that it is sort of up there with saying you'd never go out with a black person.  Though its got quite the opposite position in society, whilst outside of shitbag circles saying you'd never go out with a black person is unacceptable, to say you would go out with a trans person has the same place.

It would be nice to see society move on from this. But I could well imagine it makes a great get out if you just don't find a trans person very attractive. Its not "Oh Kate....yeah...you look like a young Donald Trump with longer hair...can't do it, sorry", or  "Oh Mark. You're the perfect guy but.... a Millwall fan? And you're from Boston? That's the reddest flag I've ever seen" instead its the far more socially accepted "I can't go out with a trans person".

Still waiting on the source of your claim by the way. I accept that a majority of people probably do declare they wouldn't go out with a trans person but still curious to see the data.

 

The source for the stat a 2019 study of Canadians and Americans.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-sexuality-and-romance/202104/will-straight-men-and-women-date-trans-person  For a short overview.  I came across it in a book I read last year.

In many instances, people may not agree fully (or at all) with a dominant view, but do not want to be seen as opposed to it either.  Under such circumstances, people can actually zealously defend or advocate for positions they don't personally subscribe to, and persecute those who dissent therefrom, in order to protect and enhance their social or professional standing. (foot note here from Willer, Kuabara, & macy 2009) Some will go so far as to rally around the most extreme, absurd or polarizing positions available precisely to demonstrate how committed they are (Footnote S. Alexander 2014) - even to the point attaining personal credibility at he cost of the cause itself.  For instance, many highly educated white liberals, eager to demonstrate their alignment to causes like Black Lives Matter, aggressively embraced "defunding the police" even though African-Americans themselves generally rejected this aspiration.  Moreover, striking this position alienated most Americans who were not symbolic capitalists from the cause of criminal justice reform.  Symbolic Capitalists prominent embrace of "defunding the police" also became an albatross around the neck of Democratic politicians nationwide (footnote Black 2021; Goldberg 2022b).  However, publicly striking the "right" posture on this this issue seemed to matter to adherents than advancing stated preferences of Black people or building and sustaining viable coalitions that could achieve concrete change.

Most typically, however, rather than engaging in moral grandstanding, people simply decline to publicly express reservations about or disagreement they may have with institutionally dominant views, generating misleading impression of widespread support assent (footnote Noelle Neumann 1993).  As George Orwell put it, "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right thinking people will accept without question.  It's not exactly forbidden to say this, but is 'not done' to say it, just as in the mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady (footnote Orwell 1972?  That's a weird footnote...)  In environments where people are unwilling or unable to speak honestly about particular topics "preference falsification" grows increasingly common.

Wide gaps between people's rhetoric and behaviors on specific issues are often signs of preference falsification at work.  For instance, to return to a "woke" belief that I led with earlier, most in symbolic capitalists spaces would express agreement with - or avoid publicly disagreeing with- the claim that "trans woman are woman." By this, many seem to be vaguely asserting that trans people should not be subject to formal discrimination or mistreatment, and that their felt identities should be publicly affirmed (for instance, though the use of preferred pronouns, or being permitted to use facilities for the gender they identify with).  Yet the behaviors of people who profess that "trans women are women" suggest strongly that most do not literally believe that Trans woman are the same as cisgender women.  Proponents who are romantically interested in women do not treat these two populations equally as women with respect to their own dating and marriage decisions-not even remotely (foot note E.G Blair & Hoskins 2019.  The study found even among the small minority of people who expressed openness to dating a trans person, respondents frequently gravitated toward partners incongruent with their own sexual identity.  For instance gay men preferred trans woman over trans men, and lesbians tended to prefer trans men over trans women.  That is, despite professing to recognize trans men as men, women whose sexual identity is oriented around exclusive attraction to other women were nonetheless open to dating trans men, and were relatively less interested in trans women despite ostensibly recognizing trans women as women and defining themselves in terms of attraction to other women.  And similar realities hold for gay men: despite defining themselves in terms of their to other men, and explicitly recognizing trans men as men and trans women as women gay men tended to prefer trans women over trans men.  In both cases, people seem to be prioritizing the physical anatomy  of prospective partners over their express gender identity -insofar as they are open to dating trans partners at all.  In short, the tension between what people profess and how they behave with respect to their claim that "trans woman are woman" or "trans men or men" is not just common among cisgendered heterosexual. It manifests regularly among lesbian and gay Americans as well.)  Yet these same people, who overwhelmingly fail to behave as though trans and cisgender are equivalent or indistinguishable (that is implicitly disagree with the idea that "transwomen are women", may nonetheless pillory other who explicitly disagree with the proposition that there is not meaningful distance.

-Page 35 "We have Never Been Woke: the Cultural contradictions of the a New Elite"
 

Sorry, I had to type that out by hand.  I found the book very interesting and it put several things into perspective. 


I do know quite a few working class people, but in the US people who are working class have gone over entirely to Trump, and I've often heard them express the feeling that they must watch what they say.  And that seems fairly justified, just look at this forum: simply questioning "are Transwoman woman" receives a great deal of hostility and contempt. Say it in public in left wing circles and you will receive the cold shoulder.  The result, I think is that gives a false impression of higher support. The belief that "Transwoman are woman" tends to be relegated to the educated classes, which mostly excludes of the working class.  From what you tell me, in Britain, or at least your interpretation of Britain, working class is mostly a pose.  Some sort of cultural-political identifier.  In the US at least, it's about what you do, how well educated you are, and how much money you make.

If you said that you wouldn't go out with black women you probably aren't saying they are not women, but rather an inferior type of human.  I'm not sure how that would help your case here.

[Josquius]

Sorry, I had to type that out by hand.  I found the book very interesting and it put several things into perspective. 

Well thanks for typing it all out. You didn't have to do that.... Though is this book one that has been posted about here before? Was there an interview with the author posted?
If so... I do remember it's ideas being... Rather wrong. Definite hints of that here. This implication you can't defend what is right purely because it's right and instead must be doing it to score points with some liberal in-crowd.
I see this sort of behaviour far more from the right tbh. Taking absolutely idiotic positions and opposing things just to "own teh libs".

I mean for another example on how you don't have to practice what you preach - what about gay marriage?
I'm 100% for gay people being able to get on with life as they want, a gay relationship being just as valid as a straight one, etc....
.... But I've absolutely no interest in men personally and absolutely would not go out with one myself.

I do know quite a few working class people, but in the US people who are working class have gone over entirely to Trump, and I've often heard them express the feeling that they must watch what they say

Yes. They say that here too. It's part of the victim complex far right populists thrive on.
This idea you can't talk about certain things or else... Immigration for instance... When you actually hear way too much about those things. Many media sources endlessly go on about them on a loop.
With trans people too this idea theres a dogma you have to accept any guy who proclaims himself a woman can now do anything a woman can... It's just bollocks. The truth of the current climate as any trans person will tell you is very much the opposite.

The belief that "Transwoman are woman" tends to be relegated to the educated classes, which mostly excludes of the working class. 

Yes. We were making progress but in recent years as the far right has really put trans people in its sights this has gone backwards somewhat.

From what you tell me, in Britain, or at least your interpretation of Britain, working class is mostly a pose.  Some sort of cultural-political identifier.  In the US at least, it's about what you do, how well educated you are, and how much money you make.

All cultures have their norms and expected behaviours.  There's no pose about this.
Being working class is down to the majority of your life being subject to a manual labourers wage, bonus points for pivotal young years.

We've done this one before. Interestingly by your definition of working class as well as mine, since I'm waiting to start my new job and am earning FA, I'm currently more working class than you. :p

If you said that you wouldn't go out with black women you probably aren't saying they are not women, but rather an inferior type of human.  I'm not sure how that would help your case here.

Isn't this the opposite of what you were saying before?
People have preferences. It's only natural.

For instance I prefer dark girls to blondes.... Do I see blondes as an inferior species?
Or is that just my personal and completely unimportant for anything taste?

But anyway. Even if we do class women you don't find attractive as lesser women... That still makes them women.

[Sheilbh]

Was a key attack vector cisgendermen pretending to be women and attacking cisgender women in toilets/changing rooms?

Now that transmen (who may look very much like cisgender men) are required to use the single sex spaces of their biological sex, how are women safer? How do you prevent a creepy cisgenderman from pretending he's a transman? Are we going to strip search people when they go enter toilets?

Again to my knowledge there's not been a single case on bathrooms or changing rooms in the UK. Certain facilities are required by law to provide single sex toilets (schools and some employers basically) - but there is no requirement or anyone to only provide single sex toilets. So my suspicion is that most places that are required to provide single sex toilets will also provide gender neutral toilets and if they're not I suspect gender neutral toilets will basically become the norm.

I don't think it'll be significantly different than it is now or than it has been or the last 25+ years with relatively few people really caring - but those who do being able to make complaints. It's not a bathroom but I think it would clearly have an impact on the case in the NHS where they suspended a cisgender nurse who argued with a trans doctor over her use of the changing room. The doctor accused the nurse of bullying and harassment following these three incidents, the hospital suspended the nurse and she sued for unlawful harassment.

But I think part of this - which the domestic abuser suing to be allowed to join a women's self-defence class - is the way the law works in this area. The general rule is that in providing a facility or services you cannot discriminate on the basis of any protected characteristics, with the broad exception of sexual orientation (to protect gay and lesbian spaces) and religion (so a Jewish organisation can stay a Jewish organisation, say). There are also specific narrower exemption on the basis of sex. But that is it. So you cannot have a trans-exclusionary women's group or lesbian organisation (because there is no exemption in relation to, it's an outdated phrase, "gender reassignment" as a protected characteristic).

So the law itself is quite binary - this is why, in my view, the move to self-ID changes things. It changed acquiring a gender recognition certificate from an assessment, a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and two years of living in your acquired gender to three months of living in your acquired gender and a declaration (like a deed poll). So the example of Isla Bryson - there would be no legal basis to say that (1) they're not really a transwoman but a predatory, sexually violent man (my view) or (2) we can exclude them from women's only facilities. That's why I think the GRA needs reform but my preference would be that for most of the Equality Act it the exemptions move from being based on sex to sex unless individual has a GRC.

As I say I think the court got the law right in its analysis. The case started because Scotland has a law requiring public authorities to reserve 50% of their seats for women and an organisation sued to clarify the law after a trans woman was appointed. My view of where the law should be is that the trans doctor can use their gender's changing room and the trans woman should count as part of the 50%, but there's a process to stop someone like Isla Bryson.

I'd add incidentally on transmen that's part of why the court ended up where it did. There are specific provisions around pregnancy and maternity discrimination which are drafted as being about when "a woman" suffers that type of discrimination (I think the current campaigns on menstruation and menopause discrimination are similar). Part of their point was that if transmen are men and they are or have been pregnant they would be excluded from protection against pregnancy or maternity discrimination. Basically there are points in the legislation that can be read as "biological sex or gender status" and others that can be read as "biological sex" and it's not always clear and there is nothing in the legislation to make that clear.

I think his policy that it'll now take 10 years to settle in the UK will be a great way to ensure the UK does become an island of strangers. I would think it would make immigrants more inclined to come to the UK for a period of time, generate the wealth they want and then leave, as it'll be that much harder to actually make a life here.  Or as I saw said on LinkedIn( )

I totally agree on this bit. The changes to visas around qualifications, salary, language tests etc I'm fine with. The increased fees and longer route to settlement I don't agree with.

Although it is also unclear because Starmer said this would be based on people's "contribution" so the analysis I've seen is that it's likely going to be a points-based system of some sort - so you know working in the public sector will likely earn you a lot of points, volunteering in the community may earn points etc. No idea how that'll work.

[Razgovory]

Sorry, I had to type that out by hand.  I found the book very interesting and it put several things into perspective. 

Well thanks for typing it all out. You didn't have to do that.... Though is this book one that has been posted about here before? Was there an interview with the author posted?
If so... I do remember it's ideas being... Rather wrong. Definite hints of that here. This implication you can't defend what is right purely because it's right and instead must be doing it to score points with some liberal in-crowd.
I see this sort of behaviour far more from the right tbh. Taking absolutely idiotic positions and opposing things just to "own teh libs".

I mean for another example on how you don't have to practice what you preach - what about gay marriage?
I'm 100% for gay people being able to get on with life as they want, a gay relationship being just as valid as a straight one, etc....
.... But I've absolutely no interest in men personally and absolutely would not go out with one myself.

I do know quite a few working class people, but in the US people who are working class have gone over entirely to Trump, and I've often heard them express the feeling that they must watch what they say

Yes. They say that here too. It's part of the victim complex far right populists thrive on.
This idea you can't talk about certain things or else... Immigration for instance... When you actually hear way too much about those things. Many media sources endlessly go on about them on a loop.
With trans people too this idea theres a dogma you have to accept any guy who proclaims himself a woman can now do anything a woman can... It's just bollocks. The truth of the current climate as any trans person will tell you is very much the opposite.

The belief that "Transwoman are woman" tends to be relegated to the educated classes, which mostly excludes of the working class. 

Yes. We were making progress but in recent years as the far right has really put trans people in its sights this has gone backwards somewhat.

From what you tell me, in Britain, or at least your interpretation of Britain, working class is mostly a pose.  Some sort of cultural-political identifier.  In the US at least, it's about what you do, how well educated you are, and how much money you make.

All cultures have their norms and expected behaviours.  There's no pose about this.
Being working class is down to the majority of your life being subject to a manual labourers wage, bonus points for pivotal young years.

We've done this one before. Interestingly by your definition of working class as well as mine, since I'm waiting to start my new job and am earning FA, I'm currently more working class than you. :p

If you said that you wouldn't go out with black women you probably aren't saying they are not women, but rather an inferior type of human.  I'm not sure how that would help your case here.

Isn't this the opposite of what you were saying before?
People have preferences. It's only natural.

For instance I prefer dark girls to blondes.... Do I see blondes as an inferior species?
Or is that just my personal and completely unimportant for anything taste?

But anyway. Even if we do class women you don't find attractive as lesser women... That still makes them women.

Of course people have preferences, heterosexuals prefer the opposite sex, gays prefer men and lesbians prefer women.  The point of this that heterosexual men prefer cisgendered women, heterosexual women prefer cisgendered men, gays prefer cisgendered men and if they do date trans they prefer tran woman rather than trans women because they don't really, at the most basic level, see them as woman.  Lesbians prefer cisgendered women and if they do date trans they prefer trans men, not trans woman.  The preference betrays the actual view point.

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to the idea people can be punished for saying the wrong sort of thing.  I mean, garbon blocked me because I said something about trans he didn't like.  If he was my boss he probably would have fired me.  I suspect you have a blind spot here because you actually support it.  That people who say the wrong thing should be punished.  That is a position you can take of course, but you can't simultaneous say that it doesn't happen.

[Josquius]

Of course people have preferences, heterosexuals prefer the opposite sex, gays prefer men and lesbians prefer women.  The point of this that heterosexual men prefer cisgendered women, heterosexual women prefer cisgendered men, gays prefer cisgendered men and if they do date trans they prefer tran woman rather than trans women because they don't really, at the most basic level, see them as woman.  Lesbians prefer cisgendered women and if they do date trans they prefer trans men, not trans woman.  The preference betrays the actual view point.

I prefer curvy brunettes with a good sense of humour and who are into sci-fi.
If I was single and a girl game along with an hourglass figure and a witty Star Trek t-shirt but who was blonde would I tell her to go away?
The meaning of the word prefer by nature is not exclusive.

Anyway. Your logic is just fundamentally flawed here. Trans women are of course trans women, they're not cis women. They're still women though. I don't have to be going out with one to see them as completely valid women just like all the other women in the world who have never been cursed by my touch.

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to the idea people can be punished for saying the wrong sort of thing.  I mean, garbon blocked me because I said something about trans he didn't like.  If he was my boss he probably would have fired me.  I suspect you have a blind spot here because you actually support it.  That people who say the wrong thing should be punished.  That is a position you can take of course, but you can't simultaneous say that it doesn't happen.

Because as I've pointed out before you really are just echoing the same old far right talking points. Seriously Raz, if you still see yourself as a decent progressive guy you need to do a review of your social media and news sources as recently a lot of Trumpist stuff is really passing through you.

I hear this all the time from my football-crowd. "Oh you can't say anything anymore", "If you slip up and say he to a t*#3y [transmen don't exist] then you get sent to jail", "This stuff isn't actually that right wing, its just the world has gone way too left wing".
All the while some of them  regularly crack transphobic, homophobic, occasionally even in 2025 racist (though that is dropping over the years) jokes and rants with no issue.

You insist that progressive people just support trans rights because there's some sort of badge of honour in showing how progressive you are, but this just flies in the face of reality. I don't win any friends by not getting on board with trans bashing and instead having to really moderate myself to point out "They're not hurting anyone so what's the big deal?".

This idea that left wingers just believe left wing things for some sort of nefarious right-coded means is just wrong. Because it was in a book it doesn't make it valid.

[garbon]

Again to my knowledge there's not been a single case on bathrooms or changing rooms in the UK. Certain facilities are required by law to provide single sex toilets (schools and some employers basically) - but there is no requirement or anyone to only provide single sex toilets. So my suspicion is that most places that are required to provide single sex toilets will also provide gender neutral toilets and if they're not I suspect gender neutral toilets will basically become the norm.

I don't think it'll be significantly different than it is now or than it has been or the last 25+ years with relatively few people really caring - but those who do being able to make complaints. It's not a bathroom but I think it would clearly have an impact on the case in the NHS where they suspended a cisgender nurse who argued with a trans doctor over her use of the changing room. The doctor accused the nurse of bullying and harassment following these three incidents, the hospital suspended the nurse and she sued for unlawful harassment.

Okay so unwarranted re:toilets but likely but gives bigots another mallet with which to target hated minorities. And that seems like equally applies to that changing room example.

But I think part of this...<snip>

I broadly agree with this

I'd add incidentally on transmen that's part of why the court ended up where it did. There are specific provisions around pregnancy and maternity discrimination which are drafted as being about when "a woman" suffers that type of discrimination (I think the current campaigns on menstruation and menopause discrimination are similar). Part of their point was that if transmen are men and they are or have been pregnant they would be excluded from protection against pregnancy or maternity discrimination. Basically there are points in the legislation that can be read as "biological sex or gender status" and others that can be read as "biological sex" and it's not always clear and there is nothing in the legislation to make that clear.

Perhaps but it was always going to cut weird. And in fact, that's the same situation we find ourselves in now with the added bonus of bigots being emboldened. Especially as Starmer's response was 'great, that's all settled, let's move on'.

I totally agree on this bit. The changes to visas around qualifications, salary, language tests etc I'm fine with. The increased fees and longer route to settlement I don't agree with.

As an immigrant for the last 10 years, I'd note the fees always increase far outpacing inflation. Each visa that I've had has got more expensive.

I see one change is to increase the amount of visas given to people who went to elite universities. I'm not sure the UK is doing anything with its policies to encourage people to want to fill those new vacancies.

And when I look at this article looking where there are workforce shortfalls, it feels like many of those will be hurt by a move to more 'elite' immigrants.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/jobs-shortages-list-immigration-visa-sector-skills-workers-b1174975.html

Although it is also unclear because Starmer said this would be based on people's "contribution" so the analysis I've seen is that it's likely going to be a points-based system of some sort - so you know working in the public sector will likely earn you a lot of points, volunteering in the community may earn points etc. No idea how that'll work.

I read that and thought it meant if you have more money/earning more money, we are more likely to make it easier for you to stay. That seems most inline with the current PBS:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-points-based-immigration-system-employer-information/the-uks-points-based-immigration-system-an-introduction-for-employers

• Offer of job by approved sponsor - 20
• Job at appropriate skill level - 20
• Speaks English at required level - 10
• Salary of £20,480 to £23,039 or at least 80% of the going rate for the profession (whichever is higher) - 0
• Salary of £23,040 to £25,599 or at least 90% of the going rate for the profession (whichever is higher) - 10
• Salary of £25,600 or above or at least the going rate for the profession (whichever is higher) - 20
• Job in a shortage occupation as designated by the Migration Advisory Committee - 20
• Education qualification: PhD in a subject relevant to the job - 10
• Education qualification: PhD in a STEM subject relevant to the job - 20

[Razgovory]

Of course people have preferences, heterosexuals prefer the opposite sex, gays prefer men and lesbians prefer women.  The point of this that heterosexual men prefer cisgendered women, heterosexual women prefer cisgendered men, gays prefer cisgendered men and if they do date trans they prefer tran woman rather than trans women because they don't really, at the most basic level, see them as woman.  Lesbians prefer cisgendered women and if they do date trans they prefer trans men, not trans woman.  The preference betrays the actual view point.

I prefer curvy brunettes with a good sense of humour and who are into sci-fi.
If I was single and a girl game along with an hourglass figure and a witty Star Trek t-shirt but who was blonde would I tell her to go away?
The meaning of the word prefer by nature is not exclusive.

Anyway. Your logic is just fundamentally flawed here. Trans women are of course trans women, they're not cis women. They're still women though. I don't have to be going out with one to see them as completely valid women just like all the other women in the world who have never been cursed by my touch.

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to the idea people can be punished for saying the wrong sort of thing.  I mean, garbon blocked me because I said something about trans he didn't like.  If he was my boss he probably would have fired me.  I suspect you have a blind spot here because you actually support it.  That people who say the wrong thing should be punished.  That is a position you can take of course, but you can't simultaneous say that it doesn't happen.

Because as I've pointed out before you really are just echoing the same old far right talking points. Seriously Raz, if you still see yourself as a decent progressive guy you need to do a review of your social media and news sources as recently a lot of Trumpist stuff is really passing through you.

I hear this all the time from my football-crowd. "Oh you can't say anything anymore", "If you slip up and say he to a t*#3y [transmen don't exist] then you get sent to jail", "This stuff isn't actually that right wing, its just the world has gone way too left wing".
All the while some of them  regularly crack transphobic, homophobic, occasionally even in 2025 racist (though that is dropping over the years) jokes and rants with no issue.

You insist that progressive people just support trans rights because there's some sort of badge of honour in showing how progressive you are, but this just flies in the face of reality. I don't win any friends by not getting on board with trans bashing and instead having to really moderate myself to point out "They're not hurting anyone so what's the big deal?".

This idea that left wingers just believe left wing things for some sort of nefarious right-coded means is just wrong. Because it was in a book it doesn't make it valid.

I'm a brunette with a sense of humor and like sci-fi.  Do you prefer me? No, of course not.  I have a male body. You seem to be operating on an axiom, Trans women are women and then operating on an assumption that everyone believes this axiom.  You talk about preferences, but why would nearly everyone have the same preference?  If even half the population really accepted that trans women are women should you see more people have a preference that includes trans women?  Why would gay men prefer trans woman to trans men?  Why would Lesbians prefer trans men to trans woman?  The numbers are so low for straight people that the preference for both the rabid transphobe and the enlighten progressive are the same.  Why would they have the same preference?  Because they see the gender as their physical bodies.

I don't think that social status is the only reason people support Trans Rights, and I don't think that Trans Rights is exactly the same as saying "Trans women are women".  You can support someone's rights as a human without indulging their beliefs.  I can support the rights of Mormons without believing that Joe Smith was a prophet of God.  What is odd about this particular issue is that what people say and what they do is two different things.  Progressives date pretty much the same as transphobes.  Their preferences don't change despite professed beliefs.  And that is strange.  People who aren't racist are much more likely to have an interracial marriage than people who are racist. The gap between action and professed belief indicates that the belief is not strongly held.  The recent change in British politics about this and the rather muted response is further evidence that this is not strongly held belief.

But why evince a belief you don't really hold?  Because that is the expected belief in the spaces that progressives want to be.  They aren't trying to impress your football friends.  They are trying to impress each other in high status work places, universities, and political gatherings of other progressives.

Do you believe in ostracizing or use of social sanction against people who say transphobic stuff?

[Josquius]

This is clearly going round in circles and has nothing to do with anything so I'll make this the last reply. Make a new thread about it if you want.

I'm a brunette with a sense of humor and like sci-fi.  Do you prefer me? No, of course not.  I have a male body.

You're a brunet, not a brunette.

That you have a male body would indeed be a key reason I wouldn't be attracted to you. But we're talking about people with female bodies here so....

You seem to be operating on an axiom, Trans women are women and then operating on an assumption that everyone believes this axiom.  You talk about preferences, but why would nearly everyone have the same preference?  If even half the population really accepted that trans women are women should you see more people have a preference that includes trans women?  Why would gay men prefer trans woman to trans men?  Why would Lesbians prefer trans men to trans woman?  The numbers are so low for straight people that the preference for both the rabid transphobe and the enlighten progressive are the same.  Why would they have the same preference?  Because they see the gender as their physical bodies.

Again I have to ask what on earth are you talking about when you say a trans person here?
It really sounds like you're talking about the terf's phantom of a regular guy who declares he is a woman and not someone who passes in the slightest.

When I was searching for stats I somehow stumbled on this reddit thread where a straight guy is attracted to a trans woman, but then freaks out when he finds out she is trans:

https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/1klcyhv/i_started_a_sexual_relationship_with_a_customer/

This is a story I've heard a thousand times. It seems very very common for trans women.
Clearly a lot of straight men find trans women attractive. The reasons they reject trans women have nothing to do with their attraction to them.

It doesn't seem to be something where there's much valid research about any aspect sadly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attraction_to_transgender_people
The small survey mentioned here does show most people who say they're into trans people are straight.

But again we are looking at the wrong thing here. What people claim is their preference. Not how they actually act in reality- looking at what people do and not what they say is much better practice.
And you see a lot of straight/bi trans women getting together with straight guys.

I don't think that social status is the only reason people support Trans Rights, and I don't think that Trans Rights is exactly the same as saying "Trans women are women".  You can support someone's rights as a human without indulging their beliefs.  I can support the rights of Mormons without believing that Joe Smith was a prophet of God.  What is odd about this particular issue is that what people say and what they do is two different things.  Progressives date pretty much the same as transphobes.  Their preferences don't change despite professed beliefs.  And that is strange.

You probably will find a statistical difference. Looking at what the majority of people do is worthless of course. You can't say "Only 1% of left wingers are together with trans people thus left wingers hate trans people" when you consider only a similar small percentage of people are trans, and the numbers of rightists with them will be far less.
But again the idea you have to actually date a trans person to support them is daft.

People who aren't racist are much more likely to have an interracial marriage than people who are racist.

Worth mentioning here I do notice an awful lot of racists tend to get together with east asian women. Remember Lettow? No stats though.

The gap between action and professed belief indicates that the belief is not strongly held.  The recent change in British politics about this and the rather muted response is further evidence that this is not strongly held belief.

Do you know how relationships tend to work?
I'm completely open minded and fine with going out with a girl of any race. I have in the past. That my partner is white (unless you're a nazi she is anyway) means I'm racist?

But why evince a belief you don't really hold?  Because that is the expected belief in the spaces that progressives want to be.  They aren't trying to impress your football friends.  They are trying to impress each other in high status work places, universities, and political gatherings of other progressives.

Again you'd be surprised at the views people in white collar work environments have. I've met some real serious right wingers in such circles.
For really left wing people you don't really find them in "high status environments", they're doing artsy stuff somewhere.
The norm tends to be rightish liberals. Not racists. But certainly into capitalism. What with it being their job.

Why evince a belief you don't really hold? Social expectation. Trans women are labelled as not women thus going out with one is labelled as gay and we are not yet far enough into the 21st century that "gay" has become an entirely acceptable thing for straight men.
Hence asked in a survey would you go out with a trans woman "No I'm not queer!"
Approached by a hot trans woman would guys go with them?...a lot do. And then freak out about it for fear of what others might think.

[Razgovory]

Sorry josq, every trans person I have met doesn't pass and most trans people haven't had surgeries.  They have the bodies they were born with, and even with a surgery they still have the same body.  It has just been altered cosmetically.  Your answers just don't comport with reality.  Why would a gay man be afraid of being accused of being queer for preferring trans woman over trans men?  That makes no sense.  Saying that you see lots of Trans with straight men is rather pointless.  Besides being simply anecdotal it is selection bias.  You could say that you see lots of male-male couples but that is not good indicator of % of the population is gay. 

You are confusing several different things.  "I don't believe that Trans woman are women" is not the same as "I hate trans people" or even "I don't support trans people".  I can support the right of Mormons to exist without believing the same things they believe.  So that is just a false dichotomy.

The question in the study was not "have you dated a trans person?"  it is "Would you date a Trans person?".  The number of trans people don't really factor into it.  And since number of people who would date a trans person is so low, for straight people 2% the number is going to be very low no matter what political persuasion it is.  Even rightists were just 2% and leftists were twice that it would still be only 4%.  The truth is the matter is that in the bedroom, straight, gay or lesbian, very few people think that "trans women are women".

But thanks for letting me get the last word.

[Sheilbh]

Okay so unwarranted re:toilets but likely but gives bigots another mallet with which to target hated minorities. And that seems like equally applies to that changing room example.

Yeah I think basically that's right.

I broadly agree with this

I'd add this is part of the wider complication of the Equality Act and Gender Recognition Act - they're both really complicated pieces of legislation and I think any change (like self-ID) needs to be considered pretty broadly.

For example (which is related to some of what the Supreme Court said) I knew GRCs were confidential. I didn't know the GRA created a criminal offence or people who breach that confidentiality without consent. That feels like something that would need reform if they had significant legal effects.

And when I look at this article looking where there are workforce shortfalls, it feels like many of those will be hurt by a move to more 'elite' immigrants.

Yeah - although I do always slightly struggle with businesses bleating about skills shortages and inability to find workers as it normally means they're not willing to pay much. One of the reasons unions are so strongly behind defence industries is that they're highly skilled jobs, that are well-paid and have strong apprenticeship/training scheme - I suspect a lot of that is because, for security reasons, the sector is often easier to get into if you're a citizen. That industry seems able to find recruits.

Similarly I've heard about some NHS trusts basically not recruiting UK junior doctors (required to complete their training) because it is cheaper to recruit abroad - and I have always had mixed feelings but do increasingly sympathise with Diane Abbott's criticism of that type of immigration (from about 20 years ago) that we're sort of asset stripping poorer countries of their human resources. The Philippines and Nigeria also need medical professions.

Having said that the emigration numbers for British medical staff, especially to Australia but also the US and Canada (where they're better paid) is wild so maybe that's just where we are in the chain.

I read that and thought it meant if you have more money/earning more money, we are more likely to make it easier for you to stay. That seems most inline with the current PBS:

Yeah we'll see.

I agree on the current points system but my sense given that Starmer was talking about integration and "contribution" to British society is that it'll be different - but you could well be right.

[Legbiter]

Again to my knowledge there's not been a single case on bathrooms or changing rooms in the UK. Certain facilities are required by law to provide single sex toilets (schools and some employers basically) - but there is no requirement or anyone to only provide single sex toilets. So my suspicion is that most places that are required to provide single sex toilets will also provide gender neutral toilets and if they're not I suspect gender neutral toilets will basically become the norm.

As an aside I just realized Britain finally had an actual cultural impact on the Nordics. Last time was probably Cool Britannia/Tony Blair mid to late 90's. It's in the TERF movement. Mumsnet seems to have effortlessly cross-pollinated and rapidly innoculated the normiesphere against the North American trannysphere. It is now firmly seen by the majority as a mental health/fetish/Tzimisceian fleshcrafting issue. Not anything a normie has to have a political opinion on. 

[Josquius]

Again to my knowledge there's not been a single case on bathrooms or changing rooms in the UK. Certain facilities are required by law to provide single sex toilets (schools and some employers basically) - but there is no requirement or anyone to only provide single sex toilets. So my suspicion is that most places that are required to provide single sex toilets will also provide gender neutral toilets and if they're not I suspect gender neutral toilets will basically become the norm.

That would be delicious.
Because of all those scary trans people let's just cancel the idea of women's loos. 

As an aside I just realized Britain finally had an actual cultural impact on the Nordics. Last time was probably Cool Britannia/Tony Blair mid to late 90's. It's in the TERF movement. Mumsnet seems to have effortlessly cross-pollinated and rapidly innoculated the normiesphere against the North American trannysphere. It is now firmly seen by the majority as a mental health/fetish/Tzimisceian fleshcrafting issue. Not anything a normie has to have a political opinion on. 

I think it's standard with the far right in general no?
There seems to be a lot of contact between British fascists and those in Sweden at least.

[Razgovory]

Is that Icelandic?  It's not English.

[Legbiter]

I think it's standard with the far right in general no?
There seems to be a lot of contact between British fascists and those in Sweden at least.

This is way worse than the "far right" gaining 5% in some poll. It's been thoroughly internalized by a previously blissfully ignorant female majority who got bombarded by a couple dozen Reddit-tier trans activists like the Persian initial assault in 300, before British mumsnet delivered the memetic antidote.