Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] The 2024 US Election - *MATCH DAY*

Who will win the 2024 Presidential Election?

  • President Joe Biden - Democrat

    Votes: 3 0.7%
  • Donald Trump - Republican

    Votes: 173 41.9%
  • Vice President, Kamala Harris - Democrat

    Votes: 217 52.5%
  • Other Democratic candidate tbc

    Votes: 20 4.8%

  • Total voters
    413
  • This poll will close: .


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,501
I agree that would make me uncomfortable, mainly because I think I'd be making them uncomfortable. But I have never even seen a shared toilet where there is a urinal in the same space as the sinks / cubicals. Obviously that is a stupid solution.

Gender neutral toilets are JUST TOILETS. I have one in my home. So do you. One person can go in at once. At many, many cafes, bars and restaurants the toilets are gender neutral... because there is only a small number of toilets. Cubicals separate from the sinks seems the easy solution.

Obviously doesn't stop men attacking women.
Many new theatres are forcing shared communal toilets or converting existing toilets to be mixed use. One example being The National Theatre. The urinals are side by side with cubicles for mixed use.

A gender neutral toilet at home is, you’ll admit, a stupid example made petulantly, as I was clearly referring to public toilets. Similarly, one single mixed use toilet in the back of a Starbucks is also different to a communal toilet area as described above.
 




A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,537
Deepest, darkest Sussex
I appreciate this is now just massively derailing the thread, but surely the toilets thing is just a red herring in this? If evil men want to attack women then they won't just not do it because the toilet issue has been solved, they'll go somewhere else to do it.

The issue is a culture where men think it's desirable or acceptable to attack women in the first place.

In that context, electing Trump as US President seems at best counterproductive.
 


FatSuperman

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2016
2,922
Why are you banging on about toilets? Most of my posts have been focussing on homes for abused women. And if you argue there that men can go in anyway, even though it's against the rules, so there is no point having rules to stop them, I would decidedly disagree.

I don't care who uses toilets as long as they, broadly speaking, look like they might be that gender and behave correctly. I do care, albeit at third hand because it isn't something that has ever touched my life, about the homes for abused women.

Because that is the example that has been used a lot. On the topic of refuge, I believe you already know that anyone entering is assessed for their risk - both the risk they are in and the risk they pose to others. Women often arrive with children, and some refuges have a policy where older male children are not allowed. So it's not quite as cut and dry as making a law that says "female at birth only". Female drug addicts and people with violent histories are also not often admitted to a refuge with communal spaces. It's obviously a challenge to assess and deal with the complex needs of people seeking refuge - or any kind of help, and their individual circumstances and risks need to be understood - to best help them, and understand the risks they might pose to others using the service.

I haven't given it enough thought. But to try and answer your underlying question in good faith; if I ran a refuge, with communal areas, perhaps shared toilets, common rooms or even bedrooms, then I would be incredibly cautious about letting trans people, violent women, drug abusers, women with older male children in to the refuge. Perhaps I would outright ban all of these people until I had a way of keeping them safe and separate. I would take a leaf out of other refuge's that are having many more single occupancy solutions.
 


FatSuperman

Well-known member
Feb 25, 2016
2,922
Many new theatres are forcing shared communal toilets or converting existing toilets to be mixed use. One example being The National Theatre. The urinals are side by side with cubicles for mixed use.

A gender neutral toilet at home is, you’ll admit, a stupid example made petulantly, as I was clearly referring to public toilets. Similarly, one single mixed use toilet in the back of a Starbucks is also different to a communal toilet area as described above.
Of course, I was more making the point I haven't seen this and I agree it's a stupid idea. Feedback from every gender should tell them that.

We don't need a law on it though do we?
 






Zeberdi

“Vorsprung durch Technik”
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
6,947
"The Americans will quit this war, first of all they will not encourage the war," Orban, a close Trump ally, told state radio on Friday ahead of the informal EU summit he is hosting in the Hungarian capital.

Orbán says Europe can’t afford to finance support to Ukraine of Trump backs out.


 


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,501
Of course, I was more making the point I haven't seen this and I agree it's a stupid idea. Feedback from every gender should tell them that.

We don't need a law on it though do we?
The National Theatre is a government funded building, not a private enterprise, and these decisions shouldn’t be made unilaterally - which they were. I don’t know if a law is the right term, but there needs to be oversight on this.
 


Curious Orange

Punxsatawney Phil
Jul 5, 2003
10,226
On NSC for over two decades...
I do get, I'm trying to explain that the problem isn't the trans people, it's the men that are looking to abuse women - irrespective of how they dress and how they identify. So focusing the solution on stopping anyone identifying as trans, does not solve the problem. Men can just waltz into women's toilets if they want to, they don't even need to put a wig on. If we enact your ban, the number of assaults on women will go down by a number incredibly close to 0. But if for example we had some solution to make women's toilets safer regardless of the gender identity of people going in to them, you can bet we'd have a better result.

My point, is that the focus is continuously on the trans people when we all know that isn't going to make the difference. And the reason we focus on it is simply because they are different.

Exactly, the issue is actually one of males in female spaces, it has (or should have) nothing to do with how individual people feel about themselves or how they choose to present, as those things are simply not relevant. There is an unwritten societal contract that males do not enter female spaces, which we follow because we understand that this is a safeguarding issue for them.

I have in the past joked that maybe the solution is to change the signs to show either a penis or no penis depending on the usage of the space. But I expect people aren't quite ready for such a blunt and crude solution. :ROFLMAO:

And yes, I realise this would cause issues for a tiny portion of society, but I have no issue with communal spaces, or females using male ones (there were always girls using the stalls in the gents in the club at my Uni and nobody gave a toss).
 








Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,250
Cumbria
Musk exercising his power already

1731085910681.png
 




A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,537
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Musk exercising his power already

View attachment 192097
I genuinely would not be surprised if Musk, who we know has been talking to Putin a lot, is Trump’s handler. As a private citizen his communications are not monitored so he can give Uncle Vlad the full lowdown of everything Donnie does.
 


Lyndhurst 14

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2008
5,241
1731091684988.png


Unfortunately like most Microsoft programmes this could take a while
 


BadFish

Huge Member
Oct 19, 2003
18,199
Of course, I was more making the point I haven't seen this and I agree it's a stupid idea. Feedback from every gender should tell them that.

We don't need a law on it though do we?
As a society we have broadly chosen to accept gender dysphoria as a thing and empathise with the people affected by it. This means that we will have to make a few adjustments to how we do things.

We are in the middle of that adjestment period and we will make a few mistakes before we get it right. But we are smart and we will get there.

Of course we will also have those that can't or won't empathise or learn about the issue 'it's simple, but men are men and women are women' or 'they don't even know what a women is', dismissing it as 'woke nonsense' etc. You are always going to get them during periods of change, some people don't like change and aren't prepared to do it for the benefit of someone else.

What concerns me is those who choose to weaponise the whole thing. As has been mentioned our acceptance and adaptation to gender dysphoria takes up way more space than it should. This is harmful to those who are dealing with it on a personal level. This is the predatory behaviour that concerns me and one I believe is far more prevalent than someone pretending to be trans to get into women's spaces to attack them (has this even happened? Do predatory men even need to do this to attack women, they seem to have lots of opportunities already?).
 




vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
28,272
The Pentagon have had informal discussions regarding the possibility that Trump may issue illegal orders to deploy the US military domestically reports CNN.


Wouldn't have happened under Joe Biden...
 


jcdenton08

Offended Liver Sausage
NSC Patron
Oct 17, 2008
14,501
As a society we have broadly chosen to accept gender dysphoria as a thing and empathise with the people affected by it. This means that we will have to make a few adjustments to how we do things.

We are in the middle of that adjestment period and we will make a few mistakes before we get it right. But we are smart and we will get there.

Of course we will also have those that can't or won't empathise or learn about the issue 'it's simple, but men are men and women are women' or 'they don't even know what a women is', dismissing it as 'woke nonsense' etc. You are always going to get them during periods of change, some people don't like change and aren't prepared to do it for the benefit of someone else.

What concerns me is those who choose to weaponise the whole thing. As has been mentioned our acceptance and adaptation to gender dysphoria takes up way more space than it should. This is harmful to those who are dealing with it on a personal level. This is the predatory behaviour that concerns me and one I believe is far more prevalent than someone pretending to be trans to get into women's spaces to attack them (has this even happened? Do predatory men even need to do this to attack women, they seem to have lots of opportunities already?).
As I said before, this idea of weaponisation is a two-way street. Pushing a pro-trans agenda (please see my prior posts for a definition of this) is a thing. Pushback is a thing. Homophobes and people full of hate are a thing too.

I address this because of this section;

As has been mentioned our acceptance and adaptation to gender dysphoria takes up way more space than it should. This is harmful to those who are dealing with it on a personal level.

Discussing the issue is the entire point. Pro-trans groups actively want discourse on this subject to normalise the matter in people’s consciousness. They want this to become a hot-button issue because it serves their interests, namely finding true equality in society as they see it.

The NAACP continue to champion black causes and steer the conversation back to black issues, because that is their agenda. Right wing groups steer the conversation another way because that is their agenda.
 


Deportivo Seagull

I should coco
Jul 22, 2003
5,467
Mid Sussex
"The Americans will quit this war, first of all they will not encourage the war," Orban, a close Trump ally, told state radio on Friday ahead of the informal EU summit he is hosting in the Hungarian capital.

Orbán says Europe can’t afford to finance support to Ukraine of Trump backs out.


The US defensive have made bucket load of money out of the war in Ukraine. It has also seen a massive leap in weapon technology in that it’s a testing ground for next generation weapon and defence systems. Trump will have a very hard time resisting pressure from the defence sector who have significant clout, added to this is that the top military staff still see Russia as the old enemy. Finally Trump has never delivered on one thing he has ever promised!
 


lasvegan

Well-known member
Jan 30, 2009
2,199
Sin City
I’m not hanging my hat on Jimmy Kimmel.

His list of people and groups that Trump’s presidency is likely to be bad for is one I would have written myself.

It’s one a lot of people would write.
“It was a terrible night for women, for children, for the hundreds of thousands of hard-working immigrants who make this country go, for health care, for our climate, for science, for journalism, for justice, for free speech. It was a terrible night for poor people, for the middle class, for seniors who rely on social security, for our allies in Ukraine, for NATO, for the truth, and democracy and decency. And it was a terrible night for everyone who voted against him. And guess what? It was a bad night for everyone who voted for him too, you just don’t realize it yet.”

I somehow can’t imagine you saying that, all bleary eyed, you’re way too smart (I don’t mean to be condescending). And please don’t waste any time worrying about us all, after all, it is all nonsense.

Be happy for your friend in CA, they made great strides on Tuesday. I lived there for 15 years, such a beautiful state, ruined by the progressive liberal democrats over the last 20 years or so.

 




hart's shirt

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
11,076
Kitbag in Dubai
Complete and utter shambles. Someone else's fault, someone else to blame.

In politics, your true opponents aren't always found on the other side of the house. They're often in your own party and wanting your job.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo

Former US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said Democrats might have fared better in Tuesday's election if President Joe Biden had exited the race sooner.

Pelosi - one of the most powerful politicians in Washington - told the New York Times that "had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race".

Pelosi told the New York Times: "The anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary."

Pelosi argued that Harris would have done well in such a primary process and it would have made her "stronger going forward".

"But we don’t know that. That didn’t happen. We live with what happened," the California congresswoman, who was re-elected to her 20th term in the House on Tuesday, said.

"And because the president endorsed Kamala Harris immediately, that really made it almost impossible to have a primary at that time. If it had been much earlier, it would have been different."

Speaking to political news outlet Politico, Harris aides also laid the blame at Biden’s feet and said he should have bowed out sooner.

“We ran the best campaign we could, considering Joe Biden was president,” said one unnamed aide. “Joe Biden is the singular reason Kamala Harris and Democrats lost tonight.”

However, a former Biden aide told Axios, another political news outlet, that Harris was making excuses.

"How did you spend $1 billion and not win?” said the aide, adding an expletive.

An unnamed former Biden aide told Politico this week that former President Barack Obama’s advisers were to blame because they “publicly encouraged Democratic infighting to push Joe Biden out, didn’t even want Kamala Harris as the nominee”.

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat, blamed the election loss on those who plotted to oust Biden.

“For those that decided and moved to break Biden, and then you got the election that you wanted, it’s appropriate to own the outcome and fallout,” he told political outlet Semafor in an interview.

Congressman Tom Suozzi, New York Democratic congressman, said the election loss was partly due to the party's focus on "being politically correct".

He said the party had struggled to counteract Republican attack lines on "anarchy on college campuses, defund the police, biological boys playing in girls' sports, and a general attack on traditional values".

Ritchie Torres, another New York Democratic congressman, posted on X, formerly Twitter, blaming "the far left”.

He said radicals within the party had “managed to alienate historic numbers of Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and Jews from the Democratic Party with absurdities like ‘Defund the Police’ or ‘From the River to the Sea’ or ‘Latinx’”.

Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran for president as a Democrat in 2016 and 2020, accused the party in a lengthy statement of abandoning working people.

"While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change," he wrote. "And they’re right."

He argued Democrats probably wouldn't learn from the election outcome.

But Democratic National Committee Chairman Jaime Harrison responded on X that Sanders' accusation was "straight up BS".
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here