he had enough consensual sex to not have to pursue non consensual sex.
Rape is not about lacking opportunity for consensual sex, it is about getting off on power. And getting away with it because people insist on making excuses like this for the powerful.
Obviously, yes. Especially when you are a member of a dominant ethnic group, cosplaying at being “other” when you will never be involuntarily othered, and explaining your (entirely illegitimate) choice via racial stereotyping.
It is absolutely not the same as identifying as gay or trans or whatever other besieged minorities you are slyly pouring scorn on. People don’t choose to get fucked over for who they are regardless of what they do. They are who they are and they’re surrounded by desperately insecure fuckwits who can only make themselves feel better by making the lives of others worse.
Trans women who are using gender-affirming hormones are not “biologically male”. It takes about two years on hormones for their performance to equalise with cis women. The only advantage that remains is greater speed, due to the greater height gained from undergoing a male puberty. There are plenty of tall cis women, especially in sport, so this doesn’t really count as an unfair advantage. And, of course, trans kids who were lucky enough to get puberty blockers in time will fall in the same height range as their chosen gender.
I’m not going to pretend that it’s an easy question. It isn’t, and it’s not unreasonable for cis women athletes to be concerned. But the proportion of athletes who are trans is tiny and the proportion who are champions in their sport is even tinier. I do think that hormonal transition is a pre-requisite (because otherwise they would be “biologically male” with respect to the physical characteristics which matter in sport) but I don’t think anyone should be getting their knickers in a twist beyond that, and they should definitely not be using it as an opportunity to be cruel.
Most of the ‘discourse’ is pure transmisogyny, based on lies and fantasy demons. Most top professional athletes are biologically extraordinary, that’s why they are at the top.
Working-class lads and lasses make far more effort to look good when they’re out because no one is going to want them for their pay cheque; wealthy people can afford to look effortlessly casual.
Working-class nightclubs ban trainers and demand shirts with collars; posh nightclubs have no such rules.
Working class lads who earn a decent wedge in areas which still have affordable rents will quite likely be spending more on their car than their rent.
Struggling salesmen go out and buy a new car because projecting success is part of their means to be successful. (No, I do not understand why you wouldn’t look at a rep in a Porsche and think “they’re overcharging, I’ll go elsewhere” but, apparently,this is what they do.)
It’s easy to sneer at the wealthy indulging in these behaviours (and we should, of course, sneer). But there’s nothing strange or startling. They’re just doing it from a much wealthier base with a much stronger safety net because daddy will always be there to pay off the credit card.
It’s not about individual responsibility, it is about the structural inequities that persist. No one is suggesting that living descendants are personally responsible. It is perfectly reasonable to point out that they are personally profiting.
I’d love to see that email where she tries to draw comparisons with the treatment of Victorian housewives. There is a lot to say about that but hard to know where to start without knowing exactly what she said. But if, for example, she thinks it is a good thing that women can now inherit property, she needs to think about how redressing that sort of imbalance is possible when the structural inequity is between and not within families. Taking the (imagined) point to its logical conclusion, her wealth belongs to the descendants of the enslaved people who created it but were prevented from owning it.
That’s a fantastically efficient way to destroy their business. There’s no way to get honest reviews of employers from employees who know their identities will be exposed whether they consent or not. Doesn’t even matter if the review is after leaving that job, future employers can go nosing too.
Maybe you could direct your righteous anger at the people misselling the app, not the people who use it to help them get pregnant or to avoid becoming pregnant in a proto-fascist society that has removed their right to an abortion?
Because it was based on the possibility of her getting citizenship elsewhere. In Begum’s case, she was technically eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of the ruling, although that is no longer true, and was not true in any meaningful way at the time of the decision.
Every Jewish person is technically eligible for Israeli citizenship. And that could be used to deprive them of British citizenship, with this ruling as precedent.
No, they don’t have to be rational. It’s counter-intuitive but you can accurately draw a line with an irrational length, even though you can’t ever finish writing that length down.
The simplest example is a right-angled triangle with two side equal to 1. The hypotenuse is of length root 2, also an irrational number but you can still draw it.
This absolutely was a fraud. The (unfair) contract required postmasters to make good any shortfalls. The hundreds who were prosecuted either refused or ran out of their own money to make up the shortfalls. Many were sacked because they refused to sign the accounts, losing their livelihoods, pensions, life savings, homes and good names as a result. Thousands more were just quietly putting their own money in, sometimes unfairly suspecting an employee of theft, due to errors the Post Office knew about but refused to admit.
And a primary driver of the scandal was the imperative to make the Post Office profitable so that it could be privatised, with investigators paid partly based on how much money they recovered. New Labour and the Coalition both have much of this blood on their hands.
Gut-wrenchingly awful. The senior people responsible need to lose their livelihoods, pensions, life savings, homes and good names. I’m not a fan of carceral solutions and Noel Thomas, imprisoned for nine months before his conviction was overturned, says he would not wish it on anyone. He is right. But destitution is something these people visited on hundreds of people for their own financial gain and those gains need to come back to the people they harmed.