General Election 2024

[UndercoverElephant]

My elder adopted child has identified as a trans male for the last three years. For him this is a social identity, as far as I can tell he has no sexual inclinations. He uses testosterone but has no interest in any further physical changes.

He is no physical threat to anybody, being small and underweight even in female terms.

He does feel threatened by the anti woke brigade. Given his early trauma, adoption, ADHD and autism he finds it difficult to mix with any group.

He has seemed much happier these last three years. It gives him an identity he never had before.

I am not a threat to trans people. I don't care what people choose to do with their own bodies and there is no point in arguing with them about what is going on in their own minds. However, if your child claims that he is male then I've got a problem with it. Nobody has the right to make claims about objective reality, which they expect others to accept, based solely on their subjective lived experience. Objective reality doesn't care about human subjective experience. I make no apologies about this, regardless of how threatened people may feel. The reason for this is that if they are threatened by something, then that thing is reality itself, not me.

There is only one objective reality, and we must share it. That is where my morality starts, and it is non-negotiable. We cannot negotiate with reality, no matter how hard we may want to. I have applied that to myself for my whole life, and I offer no exceptions to anybody, ever.

[Ralphw2]

My child makes no claim about their physical body. They are an individual for whom physical gender is irrelevant. Of the two stereotypical social identities they are much more comfortable identifying as male. Legally the genders are equal, except that females get extra rights (and responsibilities) in relation to child bearing and protection against their usually superior physical strength of males.

Autism and gender dysphoria are correlated. The human body is not always neatly categorised as male or female, at both genetic and phenotype level there can be ambiguity or apparent contradiction. A lot of the apparently genetic caring responses that females typically display and are socially expected of females can be missing in autistic individuals.

On a purely practical note, my child's change of name and title leads to all sorts of complications when it comes to proving their legal identity. Now they have both driving licence and passport it is easier, although the passport shows female.

This has all happened with no input or cooperation from the NHS. It is almost impossible to even get on to the waiting lists, which are years long, without the cooperation of your gp. Our GP practice does not cooperate as policy on this issue.

I do not know how to define and categorise autism, but that is another question. The world is not always so obviously black and white.

[UndercoverElephant]

My child makes no claim about their physical body. They are an individual for whom physical gender is irrelevant.

We have to be very careful about language, because it is language that is the vehicle of abuse favoured by the trans activists. There is no such thing as "physical gender". "Gender" is a social construct. It has nothing to do with hard science (ie that which is theoretically reducible to the physical). If you are saying their physical sex is irrelevant to them then that is fine so long as they accept that it isn't irrelevant to the rest of society.

Autism and gender dysphoria are correlated.

Yes, I am aware of this. I also have a family friend with a child in exactly the same position: autistic, biologically female, "identifies as male".

The human body is not always neatly categorised as male or female, at both genetic and phenotype level there can be ambiguity or apparent contradiction.

Sex is binary in all vertebrates. Sometimes this goes wrong, as do most biological features.

On a purely practical note, my child's change of name and title leads to all sorts of complications when it comes to proving their legal identity. Now they have both driving licence and passport it is easier, although the passport shows female.

This has all happened with no input or cooperation from the NHS. It is almost impossible to even get on to the waiting lists, which are years long, without the cooperation of your gp. Our GP practice does not cooperate as policy on this issue.

I do not know how to define and categorise autism, but that is another question. The world is not always so obviously black and white.

Many things are not black and white, but sex in vertebrates absolutely is. "Autism" is such a broad category, as currently understood, as to be meaningless. The family friend who is trans and autistic is normal in many ways, though socially very awkward. I also have a nephew who is severely autistic -- including completely non-verbal and incontinent. That these conditions are both called "autism" devalues and debases the difficulties of my in-laws. The truth is that most of their hopes and dreams have been destroyed by the existence of this child. Hard to hear, but those are the facts.

[mr brightside]

There have always been people who were confused about their sex, and believed they somehow had been born into the wrong body, yes. What is new is the claim that men who "identify as woman" actually are women, or that men can become women.

Individual bodies have to grow a pair of balls and actually legislate/dictate on this to set a precedent. Parkrun were the latest organisation to bottle it.

I'm not a very fast fell runner as men go, but as things stand I could start identifying as a woman, start winning LV40 categories, and have a reasonable claim on the prizes; a situation that is utterly ludicrous.

It's just a hornets nest that nobody wants to even think about kicking, they just roll over.

[mr brightside]

Back to the election before Adam bollocks us all; I've started to observe the mannerisms of the main party leaders. Starmer speaks slowly and concisely with little in the way of exaggerated statements or flamboyance, he is trusting his training as a barrister to make him sound trustworthy and sensible. Sunak is quite different, when he speaks I get the impression of falsehood and false confidence. This does not come through in his words, but in his facial expressions and his tones; he talks like corporate big businessmen. Farage is the only one of the new leading three who seems to be unafraid to be himself. The self he is being however comes across as a bit cocky and perhaps complacent in the face of risk. I think he knows exactly who he is and doesn't believe that he needs to masquerade as anyone else.

[Mark]

For a start the word "overpopulation" will become part of mainstream political debate. I have literally been banging on about this for 30 years, and for that entire time it has been getting harder and harder to get people to listen. Yes, Farage is saying we need to the native population to produce more children. Are you opposed to prioritising making it possible for the native population to actually be able to afford to have families?

Farage is not against all overpopulation.
Just immigrant overpopulation to the UK (where's his partner from again ?)
Regarding babies, he's basically in favour of white ones (hence the removal of the 2 child cap), but not babies of any other colour.
That's why I said about him being at the far end of the spectrum on race...

The planet and the climate only recognises the total number of babies - not whether they are white/brown/yellow/black...
In fact, white babies are probably worse, as they are more likely to be born to high wealth/consuming parents...
Farage may well bring a debate about population, but his motivation for discussing it won't help the planet..

[UndercoverElephant]

It's just a hornets nest that nobody wants to even think about kicking, they just roll over.

A lot of people have been intimidated into silence and co-operation, yes. But not quite all of us.

[UndercoverElephant]

For a start the word "overpopulation" will become part of mainstream political debate. I have literally been banging on about this for 30 years, and for that entire time it has been getting harder and harder to get people to listen. Yes, Farage is saying we need to the native population to produce more children. Are you opposed to prioritising making it possible for the native population to actually be able to afford to have families?

Farage is not against all overpopulation.

What are you basing that on?

Regarding babies, he's basically in favour of white ones (hence the removal of the 2 child cap), but not babies of any other colour.
That's why I said about him being at the far end of the spectrum on race...

That is a position you are attributing to him, not one he defends himself.

Farage may well bring a debate about population, but his motivation for discussing it won't help the planet..

Nobody's motives about anything will help the planet. I don't actually care about his motives. I care about what he says, and what he does.

I have already said there are many things I disagree with Farage about. The point I am making is that he actually says some important things I do agree with, and they are diametrically opposed to what the Greens are saying even though the Greens are supposed to be motivated by environmentalism. What use are their holier-than-thou motives when their actual policies are as detached from ecological reality as everybody-else's?

My personal hero in this debate is Garrett Hardin. An ecologist who has been relentlessly attacked for the last 50 years because of his allegedly terrible motives. He's right wing, he's a racist, he believes in eugenics, he's an eco-fascist.... In reality he just fearlessly and eloquently explained ecological truths that most people didn't want to hear, because it contradicted their ideological beliefs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin

That wikipedia page, inevitably written and maintained by an army of his critics, presents him much as you present Farage. If you read his books, it is clear that his primary concern was numbers of humans, not their genetic heritage. However, when challenged on that he did not shy away from making scientifically justified statements on that topic too that a lot of people did not want to hear.

[UndercoverElephant]

Let's get back on topic. The poll movements are now clear:



Labour and the Tories are both falling at the same rapid rate, while Reform is gaining even faster and the libdems are regaining support back to around their long-term maximum. Labour's manifesto was dull and safe -- a lot of the Labour support is soft, because it is tactical anti-tory with little enthusiasm for Starmer or this centrist New New Labour. The Tories have clearly given up. Most of the big names are nowhere to be seen and Sunak himself looks completely beaten and like he just wants this to end. Labour also just want to get to polling day, while committing to as little as possible and minimising their vote leakage. So we have a situation where neither the Tories nor Labour are doing anything to try to win the election. Meanwhile Farage has a shot to nothing -- he's absolutely in his element, has everything to play for and nothing to lose.

What a strange election it is turning out to be. It's not like 1997 at all, because of an intense sense of gloom pervading everything. Including the weather.

[clv101]

I agree with that totally, the only thing that could help Labour now is if Murdoch et al come out in full throated support in the next week or so, which they may well do, if just to buy themselves some influence and access to Starmer's government.

[UndercoverElephant]

I agree with that totally, the only thing that could help Labour now is if Murdoch et al come out in full throated support in the next week or so, which they may well do, if just to buy themselves some influence and access to Starmer's government.

It won't be full-throated. More likely something like "The tories are finished for now and need some time in opposition to get their act together. It's time to give Starmer a chance, but we're going to be watching him carefully."

[UndercoverElephant]

Latest MRP from Survation:

https://archive.ph/mcXr5

Lab 456
Con 72
LD 56
SNP 37

22,000 people sampled.

[clv101]

Some dubious results in that model - they show Labour taking Carmarthen, where I think Plaid is much more likely and Labour taking Louth and Horncastle, Victoria Atkins seat, which is just bonkers. Atkins got 73% of the vote in 2019 (64% and 51% in 2017 and '15). Labour polled 17.5% in 2019. No way Labour are taking that seat with a unknown councillor not even from the constituency!

[UndercoverElephant]

Some dubious results in that model - they show Labour taking Carmarthen, where I think Plaid is much more likely and Labour taking Louth and Horncastle, Victoria Atkins seat, which is just bonkers. Atkins got 73% of the vote in 2019 (64% and 51% in 2017 and '15). Labour polled 17.5% in 2019. No way Labour are taking that seat with a unknown councillor not even from the constituency!

UKIP got nearly 11,000 votes in Louth and Horncastle in 2015. It is entirely possible that Labour takes that seat.

[UndercoverElephant]

Latest MRP (sort of):

https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts

LAB: 441
CON: 96
LDEM: 66
SNP: 22
PC: 3
REF: 2
GRN: 1