James105

These are team events though, the same concept as mixed doubles in tennis, or sports such as equestrian where the horse is the one with the athletic ability. This does not mean that Andy Murray would have been able to compete against women in singles tennis if he wore a wig and called himself Andrea so it's hardly the same thing as what this topic is about - men being barred from competing against women.

This is where continued escalation takes us. Are there any responsible adult leaders left in the Western world that are ready to stand up and start the call for de-escalation and peace talks? Yes, this will mean looking a bit less virtuous, and yes other, more virtuous leaders will not be publicly happy, but secretly they will be relieved that someone bolder than them has said it. The proles will not be happy but they will get over it and there will always be another war somewhere in the world they can get behind (on the side of what the media tells them are the good guys of course) and use the "good guys" flag on their Twitter bios in place of the Ukraine one.

A female category (exclusively for biological women) and an "open to all" category for everyone else is all that is needed here. No need to over complicate matters. This will ensure that elite women have a fair playing field and elite men will continue to compete with each other. Average men will continue to be average and not win gold in women's sporting events.

Strong women can indeed compete against weak men and win, but that isn't really what is being talked about here is it.

People should have the same rights as their pet dogs. If you let a dog die of starvation the same way as this example of a human being tortured at the end of her life you would rightly be arrested for animal cruelty. https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/21/elderly-woman-dies-28-days-after-carers-stopped-giving-her-food-and-water-18475773/

The topic is about a country that has made something illegal which is also illegal in many other countries that all have something in common (Islam). Why would that be out of scope for this topic other than the fact it's an uncomfortable truth the left doesn't want to acknowledge? The only reason this particular instance has generated some outrage is that it is *not* a majority muslim country so Uganda is not privy to the bigotry of low expectations that would give them a free pass on this.

Presumably they must have ticked all the required boxes now for FIFA to award them the next world cup.

They really should be getting their info from Greta, as she really knows what she is talking about: Just need to figure out what I am going to do with the 3 months humanity has remaining as of course will need to make the most of it!

Of course there was no outrage as the BBC agreed to continue to provide it for "free" as part of an agreement they signed with the government - they reneged on this. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/06/bbc-pay-cost-free-tv-licences-over-75s-fee-deal The BBC should be cutting back on services, excessive salaries and stop trying to compete with commercial channels if they do not have enough money. There is no need for it to be so bloated.

That only applies to those over 75 and on pension credit, so excludes poor pensioners under 75 and any who do not qualify for pension credit, and it's not just pensioners that are poor that struggle to pay for their heating bills. All these people are charged the exact same amount as the billionaires which helps to fund multi-millionaire Lineker's salary.

I think what you are referring to is regressive taxes or benefits. Just like the TV licence in fact that helps to fund the multi millionaire Lineker's salary which costs the billionaire the exact same as it does that poor pensioner who cannot afford to heat their home.

Money typically. People get very rich out of wars. Obviously when escalation reaches it's inevitable end point and there is no option but peace, and the guys with the 6000 nukes have a strong bargaining hand and get their way anyway, all the warmongers and those with Ukraine flags in their Twitter bios will be shaking their head at the needless loss of life wondering how it all came to this.

Australia disincentivised the illegal immigration to their shores by offshoring asylum processing and it absolutely worked to stop small boat journeys so to say that something that has not been tried in the UK would not work when it has clearly worked elsewhere is ridiculous. A governments first priority is to keep its citizens safe. If people are illegally entering the UK without documentation then it is impossible to ascertain their intentions or if they are genuine asylum seekers. Other countries seem to have the right to say no to those arriving across their borders without documentation so why is it illegal for the UK to prevent this? The result of ignoring this problem has led to tens of thousands attempting the dangerous crossing across the channel with number only ever going up. Why not just say you want open borders as this would take a lot less words than the obfuscating you did above? Of course at the same time you would have to say you wish to destroy the NHS and the welfare state as this would be the end result of such an inane policy.

Yes, the government have failed to control the borders. This is obviously true. So why all the complaints from the left when they attempt to implement policies that are designed to control the borders? I don't get this lefty logic of complaining about an issue the government has failed on then complaining even louder when they try and correct it.

That's quite surprising it is considered as an accepted source on here considering it gets a 'Mixed' rating on the media bias site (which was used as reasoning for why a post from GB news was removed even though GB news has the same rating): https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ "Overall, we rate The Guardian Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years."

https://www.dw.com/en/new-german-migration-official-aims-to-send-refugees-to-africa/a-64667296 I wonder if our Gary would be brave enough to compare 2020s Germany to 1930s Germany with this kind of thinking. Looking forward to him tweeting about it now that he has got his freedom of speech back.

Maybe gun sales are down for the quarter. Every single time an announcement like this is made gun sales go up as scared Americans go out and buy some more guns. If you want to increase sales of something then the easiest way is to tell people that stocks are running low and they will soon be rationed or, as in this case, new laws will be coming soon to restrict purchases. I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA have cottoned on to this and actually lobby for gun control knowing full well it will never get passed just to increase sales. Or maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to the US and guns.

That works right up until you need to decide which prison to put the person in if they have committed a crime or that person wishes to compete in sports, or one of the many other reasons that certain spaces are separated by sex. At that point it becomes essential to know what that persons birth sex is so that the rights of biological women are not trampled over in pursuit of "the latest thing/cause" that has been jumped on by all the usual suspects.

It's directly relevant. Bills are not made in a vacuum and lawmakers look at other countries experiences for research. What I posted was a relevant link that shows how important it is to safeguard children, especially when it comes to making choices that permanently alter their bodies before they are mature enough to make that choice. I'll try again just for the hell of it - which right(s) do trans people specifically not have that other humans have? It seems all these bills are attempting to safeguard kids and I don't know how anyone could say that is "sinful". Are there any that take rights away from adults?

This one comes under the category of safeguarding kids from having their bodies permanently altered before they are mature enough to make a decision. Some parents are simply homophobic and would prefer a "daughter" rather than a gay son. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/02/tavistock-trust-whistleblower-david-bell-transgender-children-gids

Okay well there are over a hundred there so lets pick one at random. The birth certificate. This is an accurate record of someones birth that (presumably trans) want to change to become a lie. Non trans people do not have the right to change their birth certificates and I am not allowed to change my date of birth to what I identify as (10 years younger) as that would be changing a fact into a lie. This is understandable but presumably trans people have the ability to legally change their names just like everyone else does if they wish to be known by a different name? These are not "anti-trans" bills. They just affirm the same rights everyone else has. Which right do trans people specifically not have that other humans have?

What rights are they being denied? As far as I can make out they are not allowing kids to make permanent life altering changes to their bodies until they are an adult, in much the same way as kids cannot get tattooed until they are 18. Other than that, what rights are they missing that other humans have?

The sun obtained a video of him asking a "friend" how to access the Onion (slang for dark web) on his phone. The pedophile has only served half his sentence and can be put back in prison for breaking bail conditions. I would think any attempt to access illegal material would be a one way trip back to jail even if it is unsuccessful. Hopefully his "friend" is also having his hard drive forensically analysed as well. Clearly prison has done nothing to rehabilitate him (if that is even possible). The parole board should be held accountable for their decisions to release predators like this back into the wild after only serving half their sentence and their reasoning for letting him out should be made public.

Yes, I find it quite amazing how much these people can get paid for saying "that was a good goal" and "he will be disappointed with that" or variations thereof. I find the football analysis provided by the content creators on YouTube significantly more insightful and struggle to comprehend why the BBC did not take the opportunity with this walkout to have a clear out and bring fresher faces in. It doesn't need elite ex pros to present football highlights on comparable wages to what they were receiving for playing football where their real talent actually was. Des Lyneham didn't have a football career and no-one would claim he wasn't an effective MOTD presenter because of this.

Try not to be so sensitive. I've no idea what alt-right actually is but I am no fan of the Tories so could not care less what happens to them. The problem with people on the left though is that they do tend to see minorities as one single homogenous group who all share the same views and are not able to see them as individuals that have their own minds. Try reading this article to get a different opinion of what other holocaust survivors thought of what Lineker said: https://www.thejc.com/news/news/shame-on-you-holocaust-survivor-tells-lineker-over-asylum-policy-tweet-4zb8cBppRtzYvTlwpQUNos