RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:I'm honestly thinking more along the lines of taxation. Hit them where it hurts. They get away with paying no tax because they're a "tech" company and the platform is not based in the UK, its in a tax haven like Ireland or Luxembourg. So introduce point if consumption. Every ad seen by a UK based server is taxed. Bingo.

I'd do the same to all those American companies. And the UK has been one of the only countries with the ability to do that. After brexit that may not be the case...

That would take a global deal or a willingness to block certain sites. Also we likely have a problem with how transient companies are perhaps going to be with new technology coming online

We might get an agreed tax position for Facebook and Twitter just in time to see them vanish into nothing. Even the internet could be gone inside the next few decades

Why would it need an international deal? Its local consumption. And then, yes, you block them, clearly announcing it on all media outlets.

If others have laws that facilitate a norm we don't want our only option is to block

And whilst I do largely agree the sort of companies we're discussing are publishers we will have problems if we're going to introduce state censorship to t'interweb

Two odd positions are perhaps about to be taken on gender classification, here in the UK we might be allow a non-medical self certification approach, whereas Trump presumably with a nod to his base is going with a definition based on sex at birth. Both approaches have big problems with them

Digby wrote:Two odd positions are perhaps about to be taken on gender classification, here in the UK we might be allow a non-medical self certification approach, whereas Trump presumably with a nod to his base is going with a definition based on sex at birth. Both approaches have big problems with them

The self-certification element is a difficult one - I absolutely understand why many women are opposed. Equally, this is surely a distressing time in a person's life and I don't want the state to be cruel through its procrastination. Yet there has to be a middle ground that respects the rights of individuals on both sides of the argument.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Two odd positions are perhaps about to be taken on gender classification, here in the UK we might be allow a non-medical self certification approach, whereas Trump presumably with a nod to his base is going with a definition based on sex at birth. Both approaches have big problems with them

The self-certification element is a difficult one - I absolutely understand why many women are opposed. Equally, this is surely a distressing time in a person's life and I don't want the state to be cruel through its procrastination. Yet there has to be a middle ground that respects the rights of individuals on both sides of the argument.

I don't want to state explicity what the tests might be, but self certification isn't acceptable, not least as where does that end?

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Two odd positions are perhaps about to be taken on gender classification, here in the UK we might be allow a non-medical self certification approach, whereas Trump presumably with a nod to his base is going with a definition based on sex at birth. Both approaches have big problems with them

The self-certification element is a difficult one - I absolutely understand why many women are opposed. Equally, this is surely a distressing time in a person's life and I don't want the state to be cruel through its procrastination. Yet there has to be a middle ground that respects the rights of individuals on both sides of the argument.

I don't want to state explicity what the tests might be, but self certification isn't acceptable, not least as where does that end?

I think people who think self-certification isn't acceptable don't understand what's being actually being proposed. It's not suggesting that one can decide to be legally male one day and legally female the next and swap over depending on what you had for tea. It's making a legal declaration, which lying on is a criminal offence, and which you cannot reverse for a set period (proposed at 2 years). No-one is going to do that on a whim, especially since being trans in our society at the moment is still pretty shit, even with your gender being legally recognised.

As for the "women's safety" arguments, they are mostly specious. You do not require a birth certificate that reads female to enter the ladies' toilet, so nothing about that is going to change wih this. And the "penises in our bathrooms" argument is bollocks anyway, as if you are seeing someone else's genitals in the ladies' toilets, you're using them wrong. Women only shelters will still (legally - it's a declared exemption) be able to provide separate provision for trans women if they feel it's needed. There will be no impact on womens' rights - they'll just be extended to more women. The scaremongering arguments about men changing to prey on women ignore that it's not going to be a case of deciding to declare yourself female that morning and, even if that were the case, any service which is women only isn't going to say, "Well, he's got a full beard and refers to himself as Derek, but he's got a birth certificate that says girl, so our hands are tied."

Puja

^ This guy gets it.

It's not about protecting anyone, and it never has been. It's about taking away the right of trans people to exist.

Replace "trans" with "black" or "colored," and let's see how blasé people will be about it.

Canada leads the way again.

"Alberta man changes gender on government IDs for cheaper car insurance"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.4754416

There's already some examples where self certification has gone badly wrong, which isn't to say the tests should look to persecute or we should even consider the Trump nonsense

J Dory wrote:Canada leads the way again.

"Alberta man changes gender on government IDs for cheaper car insurance"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.4754416

There will always be people who will exploit any system, but that is no reason for the people who actually need this to suffer because of it.

J Dory wrote:Canada leads the way again.

"Alberta man changes gender on government IDs for cheaper car insurance"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.4754416

A few things to note:

1) There'd be no advantage to doing that in the UK, as you can't be charged differently based on gender.
2) That'd be illegal in the UK as it's making a false declaration. I think it's something like a £5k fine, which is more than the car insurance.
3) That guy managed to get a doctors' note, showing that some people will go to any lengths regardless of how difficult you make it.
4) That guy is a dick.

Puja

Puja wrote:
I think people who think self-certification isn't acceptable don't understand what's being actually being proposed. It's not suggesting that one can decide to be legally male one day and legally female the next and swap over depending on what you had for tea. It's making a legal declaration, which lying on is a criminal offence, and which you cannot reverse for a set period (proposed at 2 years). No-one is going to do that on a whim, especially since being trans in our society at the moment is still pretty shit, even with your gender being legally recognised.

As for the "women's safety" arguments, they are mostly specious. You do not require a birth certificate that reads female to enter the ladies' toilet, so nothing about that is going to change wih this. And the "penises in our bathrooms" argument is bollocks anyway, as if you are seeing someone else's genitals in the ladies' toilets, you're using them wrong. Women only shelters will still (legally - it's a declared exemption) be able to provide separate provision for trans women if they feel it's needed. There will be no impact on womens' rights - they'll just be extended to more women. The scaremongering arguments about men changing to prey on women ignore that it's not going to be a case of deciding to declare yourself female that morning and, even if that were the case, any service which is women only isn't going to say, "Well, he's got a full beard and refers to himself as Derek, but he's got a birth certificate that says girl, so our hands are tied."

Puja

By leading the way I was referring to self certification.

I think the guy is a legend, sticking it to the Man, well until he makes an insurance claim at least.

Digby wrote:There's already some examples where self certification has gone badly wrong, which isn't to say the tests should look to persecute or we should even consider the Trump nonsense

Can you offer me some examples?

Puja

I think fears over self-certification are very much akin to the Voter ID argument. Yes, laxer standards of proof might possibly result in someone cheating the system. But very few could, even fewer will, and those that do will achieve so little with their fraud that's it's more pitiable than concerning.

I have not yet heard a single argument against it that is not factually incorrect/impossible, or so wildly implausible as to fit into the, "Yeah, I guess someone *could* do that. Why would they?" category.

Compare that to the active harm that the current system offers. Every time a trans person outs themselves, they risk violence, discrimination, verbal abuse, or a combination of the three, thanks to our wonderful culture (fanned by the delightful media who portray them as perverts, child molesters, and dangerous weirdos, since they're not allowed to do that to gay people anymore). Imagine having to face that every time you get IDed for alcohol (quite common for trans men). Or if you're applying for a mortgage. Or you want to get a contract mobile phone or open a bank account. Or if you get pulled over by the police. Or any one of a dozen other common interactions where your passport, driving licence, or credit file is needed.

It is balancing some hypothetical and implausible situation where harm might possibly be caused in a really weird and unlikely scenario, against evidenced and current harm that is happening everyday.

I'm not really sure why this is a choice. The only explanation that I have is that our society isn't bothered if trans people suffer if the solution might have some possible slight downside to cis people, regardless of how minor or implausible that downside is.

Puja

Why is self certification the answer and not addressing the issue over perhaps a 12-24 month period in collaboration with social/medical teams as part of an agreed process?

Digby wrote:Why is self certification the answer and not addressing the issue over perhaps a 12-24 month period in collaboration with social/medical teams as part of an agreed process?

Because that's solving a problem nobody is having.

Firstly, it costs money to have social and medical teams involved over 12-24 months and right now, that is partly paid by the trans person in the form of a sizeable fee for application.

Secondly, how is a social or medical team supposed to know better than the person in question about something that is largely internal. Apart from anything else, the average GP appointment lasts 5-10 minutes nowadays, which would achieve the square root of fuck-all here. Why is it sensible to say someone can't know their own gender, but a bunch of strangers can?

Thirdly, social/medical teams are made of people and are not immune from bigotry, whether overt or just ingrained bias - what do you do if your doctor decides that you're "not feminine enough" or "not masculine enough" to fit their definition of what a woman or a man is supposed to be? I know of people rejected from trans medical procedures by doctors because they weren't girly enough - didn't wear dresses or have long hair or were gay. And vice versa -I have a friend who had to change doctors because he kept his boyfriend after coming out as trans and the doctor thought that wasn't showing commitment to living like a man. It's not uncommon - doctors can be bigoted fuckheads too!

Even if all the above weren't things, what benefit is gained to society by that plan rather than self-certification? What risks are we allaying, what problems are we heading off by doing that?

Puja

That single sex services across society might be compromised, whether sports, roles with positive discrimination, hospitals, gyms, rape centres, prisons... the list goes on

It's perhaps not fair as things stand, and government should often times stand for the minority and certainly persecuted group

Digby wrote:That single sex services across society might be compromised, whether sports, roles with positive discrimination, hospitals, gyms, rape centres, prisons... the list goes on

It's perhaps not fair as things stand, and government should often times stand for the minority and certainly persecuted group

Compromised how?

As I mentioned, it's illegal to make a false declaration and anyone who tries fraudulently to switch gender would be easily caught if they're trying to access women's only services while being male.

And why? Out of that list, sports and roles with positive discrmination, would require rhe person to live full time as a woman to avoid being booted (and reported to the police) and being trans isn't a barrel of laughs most days, so I don't know why someone would fake it. Especially for positive discrimination - surely you're better staying a man and getting the advantages of standard discrimination?

Hospitals and gyms suggest you're thinking of predatory behaviour (which is the stereotype the media like to perpetuate), which is also illegal. You'd have to pretend to be trans to get in, committing one crime, and would be booted the second you were revealed as not trans and/or a pervert.

Rape centres already have a legally enshrined exemption, as that is a place where having a penis can cause problems in terms od people dealing with trauma. They make separate arrangements where needed.

As for prisons, anyone thinks being or pretending to be trans in prison would be any kind of an advantage, then they deserve what their plan gets them. They'd have to pretend 24-7, with bigoted prisoners and bigoted guards making their lives hell. And to get what?

Flipping your question around - what about trans women who need those services, but haven't jumped through all the hoops yet for a GRC? Is it sensible to take someone presenting as a woman, with hormones giving her the traditional woman's body into a male prison? Or say she doesn't need positive discrimination because her birth certificate says man? Or deny her access to women's only spaces which she might need?

Puja

Hmm, I actually wrote a lengthy response to the previous with some legal and societal issues raised and hit submit, seemingly the internet has eaten my homework

Suffice to say whilst I don't agree I also can't be asked to attempt to rewrite, which is perhaps a blessing and in any event there's no shortage of commentary in the media on this. I'd also note whilst I'm not sold on self certification I am a little perturbed I find myself agreeing with Trevor Phillips

Digby wrote:Hmm, I actually wrote a lengthy response to the previous with some legal and societal issues raised and hit submit, seemingly the internet has eaten my homework

Suffice to say whilst I don't agree I also can't be asked to attempt to rewrite, which is perhaps a blessing and in any event there's no shortage of commentary in the media on this. I'd also note whilst I'm not sold on self certification I am a little perturbed I find myself agreeing with Trevor Phillips

That's a shame - I would have been genuinely interested in examples that go against my opinion, as I am struggling to see where the actual problem is. Always worth re-examining your opinions every now and again. Can appreciate you not wanting to give the internet the satisfaction of starting again though.

Bloody technology eh? What's the use of it.

Puja

I'm genuinely intrigued here. My "gut" says self certification is not good, but the rest of me says "why?".

So what are the negative points to self certification?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45969100

Bombs sent to the Clintons, Obama, Soros, CNN and a few democrat sensors/candidates.

Obviously nothing at all with Trump defining the opposition, and the neutral press as being the enemy of the people, traitors, deserving of death etc etc.

But the left are the "uncivil" bunch... when faced with actual treason, violence, sexual assaults, corruption etc (ironically, Fox had to interrupt a piece on exactly that in order to comment on the CNN bomb)

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
It does, but how liable is a subsidiary for a criminal act (or civil legal action) that happens elsewhere in the wider organisation? Does the U.K. operation control operations or have any impact on how the data is used and managed or is it just here for advertising purposes?

I don’t actually know the answer to that, but that is part of the fun in prosecuting multinationals.

But my main point here is that a unilateral approach to this won’t be effective, unless a country adopts th Chinese approach and blocks a host of websites, which wouldn’t be acceptable here.

If they won't obey the law, block the website.

So, the U.K. passes a law which demands that Facebook et al are treated as proper media outlets. Facebook allows posts which contain fake news and are prosecuted. They stick 2 fingers up and are blocked (assuming that would be effective).

Is there a freedom of speech issue here possibly?

I’m not ideologically opposed to what you’re suggesting, these sites should be accountable and there should be some regulation. But that legislation needs a graduated approach to be effective and that won’t happen with a unilateral approach.

I agree that the approach should be graduated. Start with fines, then block if still not complying. We block Pirate Bay etc because they are illegal, same should go for any online website operating in the uk, big or small.

Stom wrote:I'm genuinely intrigued here. My "gut" says self certification is not good, but the rest of me says "why?".

So what are the negative points to self certification?

I think that's the thing - self-certification feels like it might be prone to people fucking about and so it feels instinctively wrong, but when you sit and think about it, it's very hard to come up with a plausible scenario where it would cause a problem.

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45969100

Bombs sent to the Clintons, Obama, Soros, CNN and a few democrat sensors/candidates.

Obviously nothing at all with Trump defining the opposition, and the neutral press as being the enemy of the people, traitors, deserving of death etc etc.

But the left are the "uncivil" bunch... when faced with actual treason, violence, sexual assaults, corruption etc (ironically, Fox had to interrupt a piece on exactly that in order to comment on the CNN bomb)

I personally, as a white person, would like to publically disavow these terrorists and state that I don't support these attacks. Since every Muslim's expected to do so, it seems only fair.

And today, Trump has claimed the attacks are because of the hostility of the media and called for them to reduce the tension. Nice.

I do like that the bomber was so incompetent that not a single one of the packages exploded. It does show the intelligence levels of these people.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:I'm genuinely intrigued here. My "gut" says self certification is not good, but the rest of me says "why?".

So what are the negative points to self certification?

I think that's the thing - self-certification feels like it might be prone to people fucking about and so it feels instinctively wrong, but when you sit and think about it, it's very hard to come up with a plausible scenario where it would cause a problem.

Which Tyler wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45969100

Bombs sent to the Clintons, Obama, Soros, CNN and a few democrat sensors/candidates.

Obviously nothing at all with Trump defining the opposition, and the neutral press as being the enemy of the people, traitors, deserving of death etc etc.

But the left are the "uncivil" bunch... when faced with actual treason, violence, sexual assaults, corruption etc (ironically, Fox had to interrupt a piece on exactly that in order to comment on the CNN bomb)

I personally, as a white person, would like to publically disavow these terrorists and state that I don't support these attacks. Since every Muslim's expected to do so, it seems only fair.

And today, Trump has claimed the attacks are because of the hostility of the media and called for them to reduce the tension. Nice.

I do like that the bomber was so incompetent that not a single one of the packages exploded. It does show the intelligence levels of these people.

Puja

Plus, you can send a bomb to Hilary. You can send a bomb to Obama. You can even send a bomb to CNN. But to then send a bomb to Robert De Niro?!?!