New Tory Leader

[horsefly 4,318]

8 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

That debate brought one thing home. They are all politicans full of waffle and with of lack of substance and as PM uninspiring. Apart from that Sunak came across as the most capable. Mordaunt not so impressive and Truss I think any ability must be a behind the scenes measured out kind of ability as a quick thinking front of house creative she is not.

Spot on! Truss is truly awful when put on the spot, Starmer would destroy her at PMQs. However, she is great at telling the members precisely what they want to hear, so I suspect at Tory party meetings in the constituencies she is never exposed to any kind of difficult questioning. 

[Nuff Said 5,178]

1 hour ago, Daz Sparks said:

Back to the thread title, am I to understand that the Tory MPs are quite likely to "tactically" vote to ensure that the national party finishes up with Sunak and Truss as the final two?

It seems only fair to allow them to vote tactically, as it will be tactical voting that finally gets them out of government come the next election. ( As long as Labour and the Lib Dems don’t commit electoral suicide and insist on fighting seats where one of them could win if the other effectively stands down.)

[sonyc 5,541]

Marina Hyde, yesterday (as ever) seemed to summarise my feelings about this contest so well. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/15/britain-burns-tories-leadership-contest

Last paragraph here only.

"To pluck a question that actually matters from the full banquet of them currently pressing on the nation: why can’t people see their GPs? Does any of the candidates want to talk about that material reality for much of the population? No. Instead we are subjected to endless speeches about how this or that person’s record of “delivery” speaks for itself. Oh right: delivery. I mean, look around you. They have delivered THIS. All they do is break eggs, but you never get an omelette. As we settle into the third Conservative leadership contest in just over six years, which will guarantee our fourth prime minister in the same time period, it increasingly feels as though the key question for the millions not focused on reality-avoidance is: “Where is our omelette? WHERE IS OUR FRICKING OMELETTE?”

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

That's my reading. Sunak is almost certainly toast if Mordaunt makes it through to the members vote. Likewise for Truss if she makes it through with Mordaunt. The best opportunity for both Sunak and Truss is for them to fight each other in the runoff. So expect lots of skulduggery as the supporters of both those two try to engineer the votes to exclude Mordaunt from the final vote. It may even come to Sunak lending some votes to Truss to ensure she ends up being his competitor.

My question mark over this theory is that Truss' supporters are generally very hostile to Sunak being PM, so if I was sympathetic to Truss, but more invested in stopping Sunak and was watching some Sunak supporters voting for Truss to prop her up, then I'd seriously start considering Penny Mordaunt as a good compromise that was guaranteed to beat Sunak. 

Also, if the parliamentary party is seen to block the runaway leader from the final member runoff when she's a runaway favourite, then I could see quite major negative consequences in terms of members becoming disenfranchised. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

My question mark over this theory is that Truss' supporters are generally very hostile to Sunak being PM, so if I was a Truss supporter who was largely invested in stopping Sunak and was watching some Sunak supporters voting for Truss to prop her up, then I'd seriously start considering Penny Mordaunt as a good compromise that was guaranteed to beat Sunak. 

That is certainly a possibility, so it will be an interesting weekend to see just how it plays out. I still, think, however, Truss supporters will firmly believe that in a runoff between her and Sunak she will win easily. I don't think they will mind borrowing a few votes from Sunak if that is necessary to get into the runoff. It is the Tory Party after all! Hypocrisy and skulduggery are virtually de rigueur.

[sonyc 5,541]

Mordaunt. In her words.

A recommended read because this person could be our new Prime Minister. 

Quite a damning article - with interesting comments.

https://unherd.com/2022/07/penny-mordaunt-is-hard-to-read/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=1345d95fce&mc_eid=e03e67d9b3

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by sonyc

[1902 1,167]

Honestly, to watch 5 conservatives discuss what a mess the country is in after more than a decade in government was truly bizarre. 

I can't work out whether a new leader bounce and a quick general election can save them, but the increase in the OFGEM cap will be like a knife to the heart of the conservative party if they don't do something fairly bold pretty soon. 

Unfortunately for the conservatives and the country, the reality was that there was nothing bold on display. Literally zero ideas.

They did manage to have a fight about the nuances of trans-rights though. I'm sure that's the primary concern of the majority of the 27,000,000 households in the UK.

Edited July 16, 2022 by 1902

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

One thing you can guarantee, there will always be damning articles about strong contenders in any political competition. 

5 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Mordaunt. In her words.

A recommended read because this person could be our new Prime Minister. 

Quite a damning article - with interesting comments.

https://unherd.com/2022/07/penny-mordaunt-is-hard-to-read/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=1345d95fce&mc_eid=e03e67d9b3

 

Strictly speaking, it's an interpretation of Mordaunt's own words offered by a right of centre blogger who is clearly in Sunak's camp. As such, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. 

[1902 1,167]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

One thing you can guarantee, there will always be damning articles about strong contenders in any political competition. 

Strictly speaking, it's an interpretation of Mordaunt's own words offered by a right of centre blogger who is clearly in Sunak's camp. As such, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. 

If I'm honest, its interesting to me that Mordaunt is even a strong contender. She isn't useless, but would she have realistically been anything more than a junior minister in any previous conservative administration? That's not to say she isn't the strongest candidate of this lot, but it's interesting.

I'm not a Tory, I would probably never vote Conservative unless it was to keep out someone seriously far right, but I will say that there's been some prodigiously talented ministers in the party over the years.

Even in Cameron's government there was a feeling that  however much you may have disliked them (an awful lot in my case), Osborne, May, Hunt, Gove etc, did at least have a vague handle on their ministerial brief. None of this lot inspire confidence.

[sonyc 5,541]

12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

One thing you can guarantee, there will always be damning articles about strong contenders in any political competition. 

Strictly speaking, it's an interpretation of Mordaunt's own words offered by a right of centre blogger who is clearly in Sunak's camp. As such, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. 

Granted, it's an interpretation. Always interesting though to read an analysis of anyone's written words, especially those about whom you would never usually read about. What was odd for me was the idea of writing about Britain in the way that she has. A huge subject that feels (in the passages chosen) to be handled so reductively through cheap popular culture sound bites. Like her Paul McCartney quote. After all, he played virtually all his most famous backlog at Glastonbury not unknown ones. That was the real truth.

I shouldn't be so amazed really. Politicians are strange creatures with the need for power. And they say and write a lot of tosh.

I'm assuming for many, it is to try and fill a void somewhere. Yet I find myself wanting to hear something with more depth. A PM holds an important role in our society, acting in many ways as a parental figure of sorts. And the country needs to be able to believe in that person to provide some kind of (general) legitimacy. The present selection feels lightweight and let's face it, is not a great menu to begin with.

How I might long for a Rory Stewart to lead (even though as a non conservative I wouldn't vote for him...yet I know I would have respect).

I probably ought also offer a polite apology because I think after 12 years, I like a few others, am suffering from what one commentator on Twitter called "Long Conservative".

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

24 minutes ago, 1902 said:

If I'm honest, its interesting to me that Mordaunt is even a strong contender. She isn't useless, but would she have realistically been anything more than a junior minister in any previous conservative administration? That's not to say she isn't the strongest candidate of this lot, but it's interesting.

I'm not a Tory, I would probably never vote Conservative unless it was to keep out someone seriously far right, but I will say that there's been some prodigiously talented ministers in the party over the years.

Even in Cameron's government there was a feeling that  however much you may have disliked them (an awful lot in my case), Osborne, May, Hunt, Gove etc, did at least have a vague handle on their ministerial brief. None of this lot inspire confidence.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/penny-mordaunts-book-is-a-surprisingly-radical-plan-to-tear-down-british-pinata-politics-1745239

Another interesting take on her book coming from iNews. Apparently, her book got the endorsement of Bill Gates, Tony Blair, and Sir Elton John. Make of that what you will. 

May appointed her Secretary of State for Defence in 2019, but she lined up against Boris in the leadership fight, so was dispatched by Boris when he came to office. 

Generally, she comes across to me as someone quite talented, who has probably been held back by tending not to to play the game and backing the wrong horses in other debates at the wrong time, given that she clearly has a pretty significant amount of support in the parliamentary party for someone who is a relative unknown. 

In my opinion, if the Conservatives want a shot at reelection, then she probably is the only chance of getting it. 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[1902 1,167]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/penny-mordaunts-book-is-a-surprisingly-radical-plan-to-tear-down-british-pinata-politics-1745239

Another interesting take on her book coming from iNews. Apparently, her book got the endorsement of Bill Gates, Tony Blair, and Sir Elton John. Make of that what you will. 

May appointed her Secretary of State for Defence in 2019, but she lined up against Boris in the leadership fight, so was dispatched by Boris when he came to office. 

Generally, she comes across to me as someone quite talented, who has probably been held back by tending not to to play the game, given that she clearly has a pretty significant amount of support in the parliamentary party for someone who is a relative unknown. 

In my opinion, if the Conservatives want a shot at reelection, then she probably is the only chance of getting it. 

 

 

 

That's fair enough, but I don't see it, I can't imagine that many of Thatcher's cabinet for example would have stumbled as often as she did last night over relatively benign questions.

I'm not saying she is terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but would she have been a potential prime minister?

I will say this, I like that she has had a fairly normal life history before going into politics. Comprehensive School, University of Southampton, Royal Navy, MP, Minister. It means she did get there from work as opposed to just having the right contacts.

[Herman 9,828]

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/penny-mordaunts-book-is-a-surprisingly-radical-plan-to-tear-down-british-pinata-politics-1745239

Another interesting take on her book coming from iNews. Apparently, her book got the endorsement of Bill Gates, Tony Blair, and Sir Elton John. Make of that what you will. 

May appointed her Secretary of State for Defence in 2019, but she lined up against Boris in the leadership fight, so was dispatched by Boris when he came to office. 

Generally, she comes across to me as someone quite talented, who has probably been held back by tending not to to play the game and backing the wrong horses in other debates at the wrong time, given that she clearly has a pretty significant amount of support in the parliamentary party for someone who is a relative unknown. 

In my opinion, if the Conservatives want a shot at reelection, then she probably is the only chance of getting it. 

 

 

 

Funnily, or not, enough the anti-vaxxers have noticed her link to Bill Gates so there is a small conspiracy snowball just starting its descent.😬

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

9 minutes ago, 1902 said:

That's fair enough, but I don't see it, I can't imagine that many of Thatcher's cabinet for example would have stumbled as often as she did last night over relatively benign questions.

I'm not saying she is terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but would she have been a potential prime minister?

I will say this, I like that she has had a fairly normal life history before going into politics. Comprehensive School, University of Southampton, Royal Navy, MP, Minister. It means she did get there from work as opposed to just having the right contacts.

No, but then most of Thatcher's cabinet had experience of persistent and intense scrutiny, which is obviously going to be a weakness for Mordaunt given she has never really experienced this level of scrutiny before. 

[1902 1,167]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No, but then most of Thatcher's cabinet had experience of persistent and intense scrutiny, which is obviously going to be a weakness for Mordaunt given she has never really experienced this level of scrutiny before. 

And I would argue that that the problem. 

Whether it's inability or inexperience, a prime minister needs to be able to deal with intense scrutiny and react promptly and in a considered manner.

I dont see much from the Tories that says they have the candidates who can do that. Ultimately that's a problem for the country as a whole.

Edited July 16, 2022 by 1902

[horsefly 4,318]

34 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Granted, it's an interpretation. Always interesting though to read an analysis of anyone's written words, especially those about whom you would never usually read about. What was odd for me was the idea of writing about Britain in the way that she has. A huge subject that feels (in the passages chosen) to be handled so reductively through cheap popular culture sound bites. Like her Paul McCartney quote. After all, he played virtually all his most famous backlog at Glastonbury not unknown ones. That was the real truth.

I shouldn't be so amazed really. Politicians are strange creatures with the need for power. And they say and write a lot of tosh.

I'm assuming for many, it is to try and fill a void somewhere. Yet I find myself wanting to hear something with more depth. A PM holds an important role in our society, acting in many ways as a parental figure of sorts. And the country needs to be able to believe in that person to provide some kind of (general) legitimacy. The present selection feels lightweight and let's face it, is not a great menu to begin with.

How I might long for a Rory Stewart to lead (even though as a non conservative I wouldn't vote for him...yet I know I would have respect).

I probably ought also offer a polite apology because I think after 12 years, I like a few others, am suffering from what one commentator on Twitter called "Long Conservative".

Perhaps it should be called "Long sTory", because that's all we've had in the last 12 years, long stories that bear no relation to reality.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,596]

28 minutes ago, 1902 said:

And I would argue that that the problem. 

Whether it's inability or inexperience, a prime minister needs to be able to deal with intense scrutiny and react promptly and in a considered manner.

I dont see much from the Tories that says they have the candidates who can do that.

No Prime Minister can prove whether or not they're up to that until they have the job. Conservative MPs should factor that into their equation, but if I were in their shoes then I'd be prioritising the fact that she reaches much better into swing voter territory than either Truss or Sunak, so I'd be gambling on her rising to the challenge of being PM instead of backing either of two experienced, but surefire losers, to lead the party at a GE. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[1902 1,167]

9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No Prime Minister can prove whether or not they're up to that until they have the job. Conservative MPs should factor that into their equation, but if I were in their shoes then I'd be prioritising the fact that she reaches much better into swing voter territory than either Truss or Sunak, so I'd be gambling on her rising to the challenge of being PM instead of backing either of two experienced, but surefire losers, to lead the party at a GE. 

I don't disagree. Truss would be a disaster for them, I think Sunak would just kind of fade away, it would 35% to Labours 39% under him but he isn't going to reach more than that consistently I wouldn't have thought, he is far too vulnerable given his record.

[TheGunnShow 6,015]

9 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

he knew Blair was a neoliberal who wasn't going to tax him correctly

Blair was hardly going to win the 1997 election by standing as a neoliberal. If you can remember back to that time, the Tories were an exhausted bunch riven by internal divisions over policies, particularly Europe, who as a group had come to the end of their natural life, and it was Blair offering fresh ideas that made him appealing to the electorate. this was the driver for Blair's success at the general election and people like Murdoch rode along on his coat tails. I wonder how many Labour supporters on this forum believe that it was Murdoch's support for Blair that made them vote for Labour in 1997, because this is the basis of HorseFly's claim?

Whilst I agree that the Tories were definitely looking for a consistent identity under the big hat at that point as the likes of Hague and IDS had trouble keeping different fractions on course, I thoroughly doubt Murdoch would be that keen on getting his media landscape endorsing Blair if Blair had more traditional centre-left economic policies.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

17 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

No Prime Minister can prove whether or not they're up to that until they have the job. Conservative MPs should factor that into their equation, but if I were in their shoes then I'd be prioritising the fact that she reaches much better into swing voter territory than either Truss or Sunak, so I'd be gambling on her rising to the challenge of being PM instead of backing either of two experienced, but surefire losers, to lead the party at a GE. 

I think you're right that Mordaunt represents the best chance of the Tories being re-elected, but frankly constituency members of all parties seem to regard that as a mere subsidiary issue when compared to their particular ideological bandwagon. The Labour membership voted for Corbyn, and in the past the Tories elected Hague, Howard, and IDS. Rationality tends to be a rare commodity in political party leadership elections.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I'm not so sure the Tories are in as much trouble as is made out. They haven't plummeted in the polls because of policies but because of lies and sleaze mostly from their leader. But people were still saying things like got Brexit done, got the vaccine rollout done, paid people money to stay at home.

SKS and Labour have not had to do anything except fire the bullets that Johnson made for them. But this nation is predominantly centre right and don't give two hoots about some of the laws that have been brought in that may have stifled their freedoms. Ask the citizens of China how they feel about a one party oligarch running their nation when they have been dragged out of the Chairman Mao era and now are citizens of the world albeit under greater restraint than we have.

Now Labour have to come up with policies that can be costed and which will be popular. They need to hammer the public with their own ideas and not how rubbish the Tories are. They have the opportunity to grab the 18-25 group with policies that those in that group see as ones that will give them some hope for a future when they become house owning, grocery shopping, car buyers.

[king canary 7,679]

33 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm not so sure the Tories are in as much trouble as is made out. They haven't plummeted in the polls because of policies but because of lies and sleaze mostly from their leader. But people were still saying things like got Brexit done, got the vaccine rollout done, paid people money to stay at home.

Maybe about 3 months ago I'd have agreed but the public focus is now firmly on the cost of living crisis and unless the Tories can find a way to help people out of that then they are in real trouble.

[PurpleCanary 5,583]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm not so sure the Tories are in as much trouble as is made out. They haven't plummeted in the polls because of policies but because of lies and sleaze mostly from their leader. But people were still saying things like got Brexit done, got the vaccine rollout done, paid people money to stay at home.

SKS and Labour have not had to do anything except fire the bullets that Johnson made for them. But this nation is predominantly centre right and don't give two hoots about some of the laws that have been brought in that may have stifled their freedoms. Ask the citizens of China how they feel about a one party oligarch running their nation when they have been dragged out of the Chairman Mao era and now are citizens of the world albeit under greater restraint than we have.

Now Labour have to come up with policies that can be costed and which will be popular. They need to hammer the public with their own ideas and not how rubbish the Tories are. They have the opportunity to grab the 18-25 group with policies that those in that group see as ones that will give them some hope for a future when they become house owning, grocery shopping, car buyers.

There is a plausible argument that England is centre-right, although I wonder about even that, but throw in Scotland, Wales and all but the mad Unionists in Northern Ireland and there is a clear anti-Tory coalition.

[Nuff Said 5,178]

6 hours ago, 1902 said:

If I'm honest, its interesting to me that Mordaunt is even a strong contender. She isn't useless, but would she have realistically been anything more than a junior minister in any previous conservative administration? That's not to say she isn't the strongest candidate of this lot, but it's interesting.

I'm not a Tory, I would probably never vote Conservative unless it was to keep out someone seriously far right, but I will say that there's been some prodigiously talented ministers in the party over the years.

Even in Cameron's government there was a feeling that  however much you may have disliked them (an awful lot in my case), Osborne, May, Hunt, Gove etc, did at least have a vague handle on their ministerial brief. None of this lot inspire confidence.

I’m not sure I share your respect for the Tories like Osborne, May, Hunt and Gove. The first two seemed to suffer from an attack of relative liberalism as soon as they lost power which is frustrating to say the least, Hunt is loathed by 90% of NHS staff for his long stint as Health Minister and we all know about Gove’s various blips, chemical and otherwise.

 

On Mordaunt, I think her main advantage is that she is relatively inoffensive. Whether that’s enough qualification to be Prime Minister is highly debatable. We’ve already seen she gets nervous in debate, can she really offer what’s needed to lead the country out of the hugely difficult situation it’s in under fire from multiple sources?

[1902 1,167]

56 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m not sure I share your respect for the Tories like Osborne, May, Hunt and Gove. The first two seemed to suffer from an attack of relative liberalism as soon as they lost power which is frustrating to say the least, Hunt is loathed by 90% of NHS staff for his long stint as Health Minister and we all know about Gove’s various blips, chemical and otherwise.

 

On Mordaunt, I think her main advantage is that she is relatively inoffensive. Whether that’s enough qualification to be Prime Minister is highly debatable. We’ve already seen she gets nervous in debate, can she really offer what’s needed to lead the country out of the hugely difficult situation it’s in under fire from multiple sources?

I didn't say they made good policy decisions @nuff said! I thought they were abysmal usually, however they weren't really as incompetent. I think that's the striking thing about this lot, all of them have been toying with Chris Grayling territory here and there.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

18 hours ago, 1902 said:

I'm sorry but that's not actually accurate. What was or what wasn't a gender may seem very obvious to you, a product of a (presumably)  UK based upbringing sometime within the last 90 years, but to claim that's been the universal view through 1000s of years of human history is simply not the case. 

Take for example of the Hijra in the subcontinent, who have been an accepted part of society for at least 900 years. 

Gender is cultural, and that's been a flexible thing in many human societies.

The argument here is not whether something is acceptable in society or not. Like most people, I care not a whit whether a man wishes to put on a dress and walk down the street. I believe it is a common occurrence in Scotland. What I and most people understand is that your behaviour and your belief does not determine your gender.  It doesn't and it can't because your gender and sex is based in biology. It is biology that determines your sex and your gender. 

If it wasn't based in biology there would be no need for a trans person to change their biological characteristics through slicing off parts of their body. 

If it wasn't based in biology there would be no need for kids to take puberty-blocking drugs 

That they do all these things is an admission that gender is grounded in biology. 

It is a delusion to think that changing your body characteristics will make you change your gender. If you want to maintain this delusion then that is up to you but you cannot force or demand others to share in your delusions. 

Likewise you do not get to chose your own pronouns. The rules of language belong to all of us, and though language does change over time, it is usage that determines the rules. In other words, rules of language are not imposed top-down by certain groups. Trans people do not own language and cannot dictate to me what words I use, especially when those words have served their purpose well for thousands of years. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

18 hours ago, horsefly said:

What an absolute pile of tosh!

Firstly, you betray your lack of grasp of "science" by using the gross pleonasm "truthful facts". All facts are truths, the words "truth" and "fact" are interchangeable not combinable; there is no category of facts that are false (You have been in the thrall of Trump for too long). To even think it makes sense to formulate a sentence that says, "The great thing about science is that it reveals truthful facts, so that we no longer have to rely upon conjecture", shows an appalling grasp of how scientific theory works. Einstein remains the influence that he is precisely because he made many conjectures about things he couldn't prove, but have been subsequently discovered because of advances in technology and method (gravitational waves being a recent example). Please feel free to repeat your sentence in front of scientists and ask them if their theories are "conjecture" free, but if you do it's best you prepare yourself to be laughed out of the room. Scientific progression fundamentally depends upon the formulation of conjectures which require the rigours of experiment, theory, and evidence to test them.

Secondly, it is only ignorant people like you that are unable to distinguish between scientific concepts and social concepts (the difference between sex and gender in this case). It is one of the most fundamental conceptual  distinctions required to make human life intelligible. It really is not difficult to recognise that some people belonging to a particular biological sex category (genetically xx or xy) socially identify themselves with the opposite of their (scientific) biological determination. Indeed the whole trans issue only makes sense because such a phenomenon is possible. If you find it impossible to free yourself from personal prejudice concerning sex and gender try something less controversial such as the concept of a "thief". No such concept arises in a purely scientific taxonomy because from the scientific perspective no such property exists in the natural world. "Theft" only makes sense from the perspective of the social superstructure within which human beings interact according to moral principles. Does theft exist as a part of the natural order in which only scientific concepts apply? "No", says the scientist. Does theft exist as part of the social order in which moral concepts apply? "Yes", says the scientist aggrieved that his pipette has been stolen by a colleague. 

The only person to have abandoned science here is YOU. Your crass understanding of science, and your inability to distinguish between scientific and social concepts, shows you don't have a clue about the nature and limits of either of those realms. Such ignorance is indeed "pitiful" and "dangerous", so I suggest you do something urgently with regard to disabusing yourself of your appalling grasp of these issues.

I fully recognise that facts and truth are fully bound together. Unfortunately, our woke friends, of whom no doubt you include yourself a member, are very happy to talk about their own 'truth'. One Meghan Markle, as an example often talks about personal truth, which obviously is a manipulation of the language, as it is impossible for everyone to have personal truths as that would also require facts to be personal. 

But this is what exactly the woke want to achieve. By describing what in reality are personal experiences as personal truths it allows them to carry the delusion that a trans woman is a woman as though it is a fact. In the same way they consider gender to be determined by personal experience and since personal experiences is a personal truth it must be a fact. Which it can't be as it then has to ignore all of biology, and you simply cannot ignore that gender and sex is grounded in biology. 

[horsefly 4,318]

3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

I fully recognise that facts and truth are fully bound together. Unfortunately, our woke friends, of whom no doubt you include yourself a member, are very happy to talk about their own 'truth'. One Meghan Markle, as an example often talks about personal truth, which obviously is a manipulation of the language, as it is impossible for everyone to have personal truths as that would also require facts to be personal. 

But this is what exactly the woke want to achieve. By describing what in reality are personal experiences as personal truths it allows them to carry the delusion that a trans woman is a woman as though it is a fact. In the same way they consider gender to be determined by personal experience and since personal experiences is a personal truth it must be a fact. Which it can't be as it then has to ignore all of biology, and you simply cannot ignore that gender and sex is grounded in biology. 

Oh dear! Do you think anyone is going to fall for this pathetically sad attempt to distract from the pile of rubbish you wrote before? When people talk of their "personal truth" they typically mean to refer to truths about their personal experience, not, as you imply, a belief that all truths are purely personal. It is a mark of your unthinking prejudice that you fail to recognise such a distinction. 

Your previous post displayed very clearly that you have not the slightest grasp of how science works, nor of the distinction between scientific concepts and social concepts and their areas of application. Yet again that is proven in your last sentence in this post  where again you conflate the concepts of gender and sex as if they belong to exactly the same category of distinctions. Any serious consideration of trans issues needs to recognise that extremely complex issues arise precisely because biological sex determination conflicts with the gender concepts an individual experiences and confronts in social reality.

Even from a purely scientific perspective your over-confidence in sex determination is unwarranted. There exist people known as hermaphrodites (something quite common across the natural world). There are also men who have an extra y chromosome (are they more of a man than us men who have just one y chromosome?). You need to grow up, rid yourself of prejudice,  and accept that the interplay between biological determination and gender experience is complex and represents for some people a genuine need to physically transform their body to match the psychological reality they experience. It only takes a rudimentary familiarity with classical literature to be aware that these issues have been with us throughout the history of human civilisation. And as 1902 pointed out above, a cursory acquaintance with anthropology would also soon disabuse you of your naïve assumption that sex and gender are considered the same thing in every culture. 

Issues concerning the nature and extent of trans rights are extraordinarily complex, requiring honest, sober, and compassionate discussion from all sides. Your use of the word "woke" reveals very clearly that the real motive of your post is to stoke a culture war rather than engage in rational debate. Your attempt to use an appalling grasp of science to defend your ill-disguised prejudice, and refusal to acknowledge the very real plight of a section of our population, is indeed "pitiful" and "dangerous".. 

[Herman 9,828]

Has anyone else changed their beliefs so drastically, so quickly?

 

[TheGunnShow 6,015]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

Has anyone else changed their beliefs so drastically, so quickly?

 

U-turn upon U-turn upon U-turn. Some U-turning can be seen as reviewing and taking stock. Constant U-turning smacks of opportunism.