Author Topic: Does Starmer mean what he says?! (plus debate on inclusion)  (Read 1079 times)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #15 on: 04 Oct 2021 10:18PM »
Quote
Before we ask about money, we have to ask about how education should work with the disabled and others...

A very valid comment as to where the priorities should be.

My comment about funding was about the absurdity of suggesting that children that can't get qualifications and/or do a local work experience placement shouldn't be allowed to leave school.  On further thought, I suppose Starmer's get-out on that would be that mostly the references were to children, so they could leave at 18, but there were also references to pupils, with no age limit.

Whereas your thinking about what do children actually need to equip them for life, how long do they actually need to be in school, what would a proper curriculum be like etc. appears to be beyond the thinking of certain politicians in government and opposition. 

Again, you and I could split hairs until the cows come home about just what sort of education children need, but we've got an awful lot in common over it, primarily a belief that it should be practical.

And whilst you have reservations about charities - and some charities in a whole range of fields have shamed charities in general - I compare them with MATs, and see getting rid of those a bigger priority, and I also compare them with private companies running private 'bins' to use the word some of us mad'uns use, and I say stop the obscene profits and abuse first, then target the not-for-profits.  But if you said then guarantee every child a place in a state-run school, I'd be all for it.

It's like where we've argued over just how much Deaf education should or shouldn't focus on BSL.  I think you think English/indigenous language should be the language of education, and I'm comfortable with BSL as a first language.  But that's because I believe every child that is mentally and physically capable of it should leave school at least comfortably bilingual, and preferably trilingual.  Thus my argument wouldn't run counter to your desire for Deaf pupils that are mentally capable of it to be able to communicate fluently in English, preferably multi-format.

But our arguments about "What do children and adults actually need?  What could they reasonably and realistically achieve if we gave them a top quality education?  How far can we adjust for individual abilities and needs?" etc. don't make for politicians' soundbites.

Hmm, do I express my views in English or BSL?  Nope...

 :f_steam: :f_wah:

(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

On the edge

  • Marmite 5050
  • Diamond member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #16 on: 05 Oct 2021 12:18PM »
The issue is bilingualism not BSL really. Children don't get to choose how they are educated, that is the state and the parental choice until they are of age.  As is CI implantation etc.

Deaf have an issue with bilingualism, sign overrides their ability or desire to obtain another language properly.  We live in a hearing-speaking world so need options and those options are developed in schools (Or not as we argue).  This just gets the pat response you are anti-sign or something or, 'deaf only want sign and nothing else'. Bilingualism/English is essential because the deaf will have to cope and work in a hearing world.

How that statement is discrimination or an attack on deaf signers beats me.  It does seem most of the argy-bargy comes from deaf who didn't manage to successfully cope in the mainstream and are bitter about it, yet still resisting bilingualism because outside their area sign isn't effective for them, it is just the way it is.  That they also believe a monolingual approach of BSL only is the best way to address that does not seem realistic to me.

In the scheme of things we have to adapt and hearing don't, it is as simple as and unpleasant as that.  In the worst-case scenario where a dedicated signer needs support to communicate and cannot do it on their own, then the image of deaf people is that they are in need of help all the time.  This defeats their social-medical label and campaigns of course.  The image of a deaf person with a terp is not one of a deaf person being independent via first, or second impression.

What you see is what it is etc... Deaf demand support every day which re-inforces the reliance image.  Yes, deaf need to be in school a lot longer and bilingualism where it is possible must be an essential part of their education, however, they need to be taught to USE it as well or inclusion can't happen.  Deaf people cannot walk into a hearing area alone and manage it as it stands because they won't find others able to communicate effectively with them.  I appreciate numerous BSL campaigns and learner classes, but there is little or no sign(!) or indication that is translated to real effect at ground level.  BSL awareness is not hearing loss awareness either.

Deaf inclusion cannot work with BSL alone, and hoping hearing mainstream is going to sign for them, not even with a law. They KNOW it, so there is less impetus to move outside and make the stressful effort of trying as it stands.  Inclusion is a relative thing for the deaf and how do we address that mindset?  Nobody is saying stop signing we are saying alone it won't enable inclusion they say they want unless (A) Everyone hearing signs too, or (B) you have unrestricted access to terps in the social sphere.  Frankly, I don't see interpreter support as being able to enhance deaf inclusion socially.

Nobody feels comfortable chatting to 3rd parties all the time and deaf won't use them that way. One person too many. I am not negative but the directions deaf seem to want to take today are not helping them get what they want.  I think adults are a lost cause in many respects the focus has to be on the future with deaf children.  It is if the percentage of deaf children can make that break or not. 


I think most can and will, if education adjusts to realities, not pipe dreams and deaf dogma. I don't care what deaf adults say unless it is their child too, many want to lay down rules and overrule parents, and nobody is going to put up with that.  If deaf are included in society properly does it matter if the deaf community folds?  The clubs seem to be folding already, and the chools.  There is a bit of a Canute syndrome with some deaf.
« Last Edit: 05 Oct 2021 12:30PM by On the edge »

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #17 on: 05 Oct 2021 01:06PM »
I still have a problem with the way you seem to lump people together.

Maybe it's a regional thing?  Yes, there are some people who are Deaf signers who don't want to try to cope with English as well, but I don't see any evidence that they're more than a minority of Deaf signers, and then if you further take away from that group those that are physically or mentally incapable of coping with lipreading and reading, you've got an even smaller number.  (For comparison, bear in mind, that some people, albeit a small minority, use sign, particularly Makaton, for reasons other than deafness.)

I also find it difficult how perhaps we think in different terms generationally.  I see a difference between generations in lots of ways and when it comes to education think in terms of how tomorrow's generations might do things, not just how older generations might do/have done things.

By way of analogy, I consider it reasonable to make adjustments in our society for older generations that in all seriousness can have difficulties with modern technology.  Ah, you may say, but everyone can get to understand and use a modern smartphone and computer.  Now look at the proportion of, say, over sixties that have dementia, including early dementia or MCI.  (The euphemism MCI is one of my pet hates but I've lost the battle on it).   Look at the proportion with no realistic access to proper support to learn new things.  Realistically, society makes adjustments or has a headache.

There are people alive today who spent their childhood in all sorts of unpleasant institutions that have given them long term problems and we need to adjust for that.  Incidentally, in all seriousness, you may wish to consider that some Deaf signers were deeply traumatised and stigmatised as youngsters and that if you want to get them to rely less on BSL, you need to ask yourself if you'd make similar demands on those with other major childhood experiences.  Well, actually, society often does, then wonders why so many go over the edge.  Compare with women who were horribly gender-demeaned and hurt as children and remind yourself that getting them not to be what may seem to be ridiculously 'over-feminist' is about what's been done to them.

As I type this, I'm wondering something.  When you try to persuade a signer to communicate in English, do you put your case in English or BSL?  If they're primarily a signer, when someone argues that in English, I think after a few years of people doing it, they can end up psychologically 'hearing' someone saying "I'm mother tongue English and totally fluent in English and I can argue my case really, really well in English.  It's not really worth your trying to reply, is it, because if your reply isn't in English, I'll tell you off, and if it's in English but it's not very good English, I'll focus on why I think your English is rubbish, not on the arguments for how we could move forward as a society, how we could change things to genuinely welcome signers into English environments."

Quote
Yes, deaf need to be in school a lot longer

Why?

That sounds to me like another step towards the old institutions.

If you think that a proportion of deaf people need more education beyond school, then maybe that will apply to some, but I struggle with the generalisation, and I struggle to see why it couldn't be done in the context of adult education centres. 

(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #18 on: 05 Oct 2021 09:53PM »
I'm still trying to make sense of why you feel so strongly about Deaf people who want to be able to use BSL as their everyday language. This post may seem like an interrogation, but please understand from the outset that I don't consider you obliged to answer my questions.

Apart from anything else, I'm wondering what else I can learn.  I know that you've previously taught me something very important, which is that in some places funding intended for deaf people is focussed almost entirely on culturally Deaf people, which I hadn't known.

But are there other aspects of not liking demands some culturally Deaf people make? 

The way you speak of deafness and disability leaves me not sure how you feel about the links between them.  Also, you've said something a couple of times that seems to say you're uncomfortable with adjustments for disability & deafness, but I don't really have a feel for what sort of adjustments you think are reasonable.  I'm not asking for a long list (which isn't saying you mustn't post one!), more trying to get a feel.  The vibe I get is that you think that disabled people, particularly some Deaf people, expect too much in the way of adjustments, but I may have got the wrong end of the stick, which is why I'm asking.

The other thing I've itched to ask but hesitated because I don't know how to word it. Unless I've completely misunderstood, you're in Wales.  How do you feel about Welsh schooling and Welsh people wanting to be able to deal with public bodies in Welsh?  Personally, from my side of the border, it seems entirely reasonable, but I'm sort of mentally mapping it on.

I know that over time you've said negative things about charities and we've often (but not always) disagreed over issues where charity is involved, mainly, I think (?) because the sort of charities you've been involved in have been very different from the sort I'm involved in.  For me, the first thing I think of when someone says charity is the Statute of Elizabeth, then inheritances given to communities (e.g. mansions given for hospitals before the NHS) and what I think of as 'community charities'.  What I'd think of as big name charities come last.  I see a small number of big name charities as getting most public visibility but as being often rather irrelevant to my life except for useful shops, publications & equipment. 

On the other hand, if I've got the vibes right, you feel about RNIB the way I do about BPUK.  "Nice someone tried to do something for people with a problem/issue/condition that I have, but you don't represent my views so please stop acting as if you do."

That's a lot of questions and I do fully understand and accept that you're not obliged to answer any of them, OtE.  It's just that you have such passion in your views that I want to understand them better.  Even if we end up still disagreeing on a lot, I've already seen some things differently.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

On the edge

  • Marmite 5050
  • Diamond member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #19 on: 18 Oct 2021 09:53AM »
I've lost patience with Labour, it is ironic they are making most noises in and around S E England and London, have all the extremes anyone could ever want, yet only Wales voted for them in office.  Wales traditionally hates tories historically so would vote for anyone but a tory regardless of how badly others perform.  As oldies cannot change their views and do vote, and younger voters are too busy on FB to vote the situation goes on and on. 

Not that I care who runs Labour into the ground they are a spent force and attract too many idiots. In reality, Momentum runs Labour an ultra left-wing arm of dubious nere do wells who want the UK like the old USSR was who favours Korbyn, another Marxist.

In Wales the first minister there still defies a leave decision of Brexit in Wales whose voters defied LAbour there, the first time they have.  Despite the welsh labour party defying its own electorate, they still prefer them to Tories.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #20 on: 18 Oct 2021 12:51PM »
You are entitled to disagree with Labour and dislike Corbyn, but firstly, to describe his views as marxist would not be a fair description, whether in the academic sense, or either of the two main modern political senses.  He could reasonably have been thought to agree with some of Marx's views, thus supporting public services such as the NHS, whilst, unlike Marx, not objecting to the existence of private services, e.g. private healthcare as an extra option as opposed to an essential. 

Secondly, Momentum has never pushed for support for the UK to be like the USSR, not least because the USSR didn't stick true to the ideals it claimed to espouse, but veered off into those distortions of power and politics that can be seen when any state goes too far to the right or left. 

I find myself wondering how far you understand the difference between marxism, trotskyism, communism, socialism etc.  I'm rather supposing that you're on the right of the political spectrum.  Would you be happy if I confused pre-Chicago-boy neoliberalism with post-Chicago-boy neoliberalism?  Would you be happy if I confused the concepts of economic liberal and social liberal, or if I confused, say, American and British uses of the word liberal, with their distinct differences on the political spectrum?

But given Starmer's purge of the left wing of the party, and the politicians and strategists he is gathering round himself, it seems clear that he will be following New Labour, so we will see a furtherance of Tony Blair's privatisation of a range of public services and facilities.  To use the NHS as an example again, I see no reason to see that he wouldn't take steps to bring in further privatisations and outsourcing.

I find it interesting what you say about older people in Wales not changing their views and younger people being too busy to vote.  It's very different where I am.  All ages demonstrating, campaigning, organising, helping with voting etc. across the political spectrum.  Not being a member of the Labour party, I don't get to hear what goes on in their meetings, but I do know people who belong to it, just as I know members of other parties. 

Mind you, I know some people do get entrenched.  There's a local couple I know who are in their eighties and I've no idea what goes on their voting slips, but he's never going let her see him as anything other than Tory and she's never going to let him see her as anything other than Labour!

Oh well, things we're disagreeing on again.  Never mind, you can have a smile at my initial reaction to the use of Korbyn, thinking "But he's not red-haired.  Oh, it's the 'has a sense of humour' meme of Korbyn & Korbin he's referring to."  Finally, the penny dropped, red-haired as a play on red-politics.  I didn't get it at first because  I think of Korbyn as a fashionable American name, where politically our red is their blue!

(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

On the edge

  • Marmite 5050
  • Diamond member
  • *
  • Posts: 223
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #21 on: 19 Oct 2021 11:50AM »
You are entitled to disagree with Labour and dislike Corbyn, but firstly, to describe his views as marxist would not be a fair description, whether in the academic sense, or either of the two main modern political senses.  He could reasonably have been thought to agree with some of Marx's views, thus supporting public services such as the NHS, whilst, unlike Marx, not objecting to the existence of private services, e.g. private healthcare as an extra option as opposed to an essential. 

Secondly, Momentum has never pushed for support for the UK to be like the USSR, not least because the USSR didn't stick true to the ideals it claimed to espouse, but veered off into those distortions of power and politics that can be seen when any state goes too far to the right or left. 

I find myself wondering how far you understand the difference between marxism, trotskyism, communism, socialism etc.  I'm rather supposing that you're on the right of the political spectrum.  Would you be happy if I confused pre-Chicago-boy neoliberalism with post-Chicago-boy neoliberalism?  Would you be happy if I confused the concepts of economic liberal and social liberal, or if I confused, say, American and British uses of the word liberal, with their distinct differences on the political spectrum?

But given Starmer's purge of the left wing of the party, and the politicians and strategists he is gathering round himself, it seems clear that he will be following New Labour, so we will see a furtherance of Tony Blair's privatisation of a range of public services and facilities.  To use the NHS as an example again, I see no reason to see that he wouldn't take steps to bring in further privatisations and outsourcing.

I find it interesting what you say about older people in Wales not changing their views and younger people being too busy to vote.  It's very different where I am.  All ages demonstrating, campaigning, organising, helping with voting etc. across the political spectrum.  Not being a member of the Labour party, I don't get to hear what goes on in their meetings, but I do know people who belong to it, just as I know members of other parties. 

Mind you, I know some people do get entrenched.  There's a local couple I know who are in their eighties and I've no idea what goes on their voting slips, but he's never going let her see him as anything other than Tory and she's never going to let him see her as anything other than Labour!

Oh well, things we're disagreeing on again.  Never mind, you can have a smile at my initial reaction to the use of Korbyn, thinking "But he's not red-haired.  Oh, it's the 'has a sense of humour' meme of Korbyn & Korbin he's referring to."  Finally, the penny dropped, red-haired as a play on red-politics.  I didn't get it at first because  I think of Korbyn as a fashionable American name, where politically our red is their blue!


There are very distinct differences between how the English vote and how the Scots/Irish and Welsh do. Wales we tend to view anything done in England is to our detriment really! (Not that I personally subscribe to that view, occasionally they recognise we exist).  We are currently discussing independence again.  The Labour party has done nothing for Wales, it is a relentless drag on progress.  But again Tories are the lowest life forms on the planet. as welsh are concerned.  Any politician that stands against them gets the welsh vote.  I remember reading of a town in Texas that elected a dog that was deceased as mayor because the locals loved the dog, not the old mayor.  Wales is a bit like that. Substitute sheep for dogs`.


I just think all this stuff emanating from Momentum/Islington or S E Counties is dangerous 'inclusive' nonsense that hasn't been thought out at all.  It's a mish-mash of extremes with common sense left out of it all.  The drive for independence (From Scots mostly), is as much a 'defence' against stupid decisions made in London being foisted on the rest of us.  While London is happy to have near half it population as non-brits, it is not a situation many are comfortable with.


It is just seen as a hotbed of demands from people who aren't like us, rarely mix with us,  and don't want the same as us either, own schools, own language provisions etc...  Obviously, the way you word these concerns gets the racist and discrimination tag by default.  Then it goes covert and real racism emerges.  The current Brit response is cest la vie then ignore it all, that is the brit way, which of course means demands others make, even reasonable ones, are getting lip-service that's all.  Like most, I get fed up trying to express concern then getting shouted down or called all manner of names instead.


I don't consider myself racist or discriminatory, nothing is black and white anyway and there is no universal cure-all that will work.  I don't know how many laws/acts/rules have been passed since 1900 but am guessing it a lot! That is ignoring the conveyor belt of do this or else we got as EU members as well.  Many were geared to equality, inclusion, and democracy, and the jury would still be well out as to how effective most were or ever will be.  Disabled had 5 in recent times we are still out of it.     


Reading current issues in media and elsewhere complete failure springs to mind, and increases in the polarisation of people and views.  The stock response of getting down on one knee seems then a bit ridiculous and pointless as well as offering 'red flags' to the racist bulls. 


My own disability was re-branded as something else, it's cause (And effects),  blamed on others and even the way I communicated was rewritten.  I was zeroed with the simple capitalisation of the single term for my issue.  It is a form of identity theft.  Keir wants Momentum out? he hasn't the clout to do it, and, labour challenged him in their own recent meetings and booed him Momentum are a rabble run by very adept stirrers basically.  Credited with the jokes of 'Please support Gay Whales' or 'one-armed black lesbians.'


Inclusion? NOT as we understand it.  So we vote for them telling us how to act and think instead of the tories?  THat isn't choice.

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #22 on: 19 Oct 2021 01:13PM »
I can't see Starmer winning an election however dire our current government is. He's not saying or doing the things that need saying and doing to lead people away from following the status quo. He's not a prospective Prime Minister in my view and the leader of a political party should be.


Backtracking on the conversation somewhat, a major problem of the majority of young people choosing to go to university is those that complete their degrees have a qualification they want to use for their employment. They're failing to get jobs in these fields and continue to wait for these positions relying on the bank of Mum and Dad to live on while we have a massive shortage of people working in hospitality, haulage, caring careers etc.


I don't have a massive real life group of connections but I know of three young people in exactly this position. One, the child of a close friend has an engineering degree and is becoming more and more depressed to a debilitating degree by his lack of gaining interviews for positions. He, and the other two that I know less well, won't entertain doing any other work/employment while waiting for their chosen career path to get going. Possibly encouraging so many young people to go to university is raising their aspirations to a level where it's creating employment vacancies that would previously have been filled by young people not going to university?


I think we could provide incentives for people with medical qualifications to remain in the NHS for 5 years which I think would mean far less would leave the NHS at that point.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #23 on: 19 Oct 2021 08:01PM »
OtE -

Having regard to your attitude towards Islington, with its high high level of severe deprivation and reliance on foodbanks, and other voluntary donations of free essentials, free help, free social care etc. freely given by others in the same community, in the absence of the good (albeit not perfect) welfare state this country had for a few decades, if the desire of the people there for inclusiveness, which, living in a different urban area further north I can also relate to, then you give the impression, OtE, of living in a somewhat privileged community/social environment, which might explain the voting habits, or rather non-voting habits of the people where you live that you refer to.

As for an area with lots of non-Brits, well I'll admit to a bias, living as I do in an urban area which has for a long time relied on not only locals but incomers. 

Whether it was Norman invaders who saw fit to build a church near me, and contributed to the local church-based welfare state for centuries, or all those that helped build our trade and our environment, be that Dutch (including during the Boer War) and South Asians (before and after Independence and the Partition) and Irish (including during the Hunger, the War of Independence, and the Emergency), and Poles (usually thought of as during WW2, but also before and after), and Jews (that braved centuries of persecution and still do), and people from a whole range of other parts of the world, particularly parts colonised and exploited at the behest of those with power and influence in this country...I live somewhere where being English means being a mixture of centuries of blending locals with newcomers who braved hostility to contribute to what we are and what we have.

My favourite Christian song goes back to my younger days.  "When I needed a neighbour, were you there...and the creed and the colour and the name don't matter, were you there?"  There's a verse "When I needed a healer..."  When I was a child, I had a GP who was an immigrant.  Like many Jewish immigrants, he braved antisemitism to come here.  Without him, I wouldn't have survived childhood.  My current GP's family is from Uganda.  We left a mess there by colonising, bringing lots of Indians, particuarly Gujaratis, creating nasty racial and social division instead of unity, then so very many people saying "Not our problem" when it resulted in yet another bloodbath.

And me?  Well, I'm English born as were both my parents, but like most people where I come from, I've got bits of foreign in me. Didn't stop this country asking me to defend it.  Didn't stop me putting my life on the line again and again.  This country's terribly good at saying "Please come and help us" then "Bog off, we don't need you any more.  Yes, we know you've now cut your ties with where your family came from and you've nothing to go home to, but you shouldn't have believed our urgings to come here and help us out."  People who aren't wholly indigenous are treated as British so long as they're wanted, but as foreign when they're not.  At least I'm English & British enough not to be turfed out unless and until someone gets all ethnic about it instead of nationalist.

But then I live in a country where a significant proportion of leading politicians from various political parties have got bits of foreign, and I swore an oath of allegiance to a queen with foreign origins as well as British.

I really wish I hadn't engaged in conversation with you, OtE.  I wasn't aware of your views in relation to immigration and ethnicity. 

It will not stop me, when walking down the street where I live, alive and safe, being thankful for the centuries upon centuries of immigrants that are the people that are now my neighbours.  When I need a neighbour, they're there.

OtE, I have found it interesting to debate with you, but I now feel very uncomfortable.  I'd always seen disability boards as places that favoured inclusion not objected to it.





(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #24 on: 19 Oct 2021 09:41PM »
I think I'd better back off.  I'm feeling rather fragile at the moment and don't want to overreact.
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #25 on: 20 Oct 2021 03:47PM »
Part of what I feel uncomfortable about isn't so much disagreement with an individual, it's a sense that things I tend to take for granted in the area in which I live are very different in other parts of the UK.

Well of course they will be.  We're all different.  But I think I'm a bit spoilt by a sense of community where I am.

It's like the issue of the deaf community.  I'm used to moving in circles where we're largely united, with the different parts of the deaf community, be they Deaf, deaf or HoH, be we signing, speaking, writing or mix & match, working together and helping one another, just as people with different disabilities and needs work together.   So OtE's references to the deaf community where he is, which appears very divided as between deaf, Deaf & HoH, is an eye opener for me.   

No, not everyone's nice where I am.  We have people like muggers and bullies and burglars and people who don't use what intelligence they've got etc.  Some of our local politicians, belonging to various parties or none, are incompetent and/or corrupt.  We have our divisions, but I don't sense the same sort of clear and universal divisions between, for instance, age groups and people of different origins and disadvantages that evidently exist where OtE lives.  I've added this message after explaining I need to back off to cool down, to say that I realise I'm lucky in many ways and that it's not until people tell me more about where they are and the people they know that I realise just how lucky I am in many ways and how little I focus on that.

Like anyone I can learn. 
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9054
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #26 on: 20 Oct 2021 05:08PM »
I'm glad you added the above post, Sunny.  I wouldn't want anyone to feel less than comfortable here on OuchToo, but members aren't always going to hold identical views about sensitive subjects and people are entitled to express that - within the rules, of course!

I think, regarding inclusion of traditionally disadvantaged groups, that unfortunately some of the extremists have spoiled the whole well-meaning concept and by doing so, stoked unnecessary prejudice in their ferocious denial of common sense reality.  For instance, I personally don't think it's unreasonable for women not to want a person self-identifying as female to share a changing room/toilet if said person still has full male genitalia.    (I'm sure in other places on t'Internet I'd be well and truly 'cancelled' for daring to state such a view  :f_whistle: )

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #27 on: 20 Oct 2021 06:00PM »
I'm in full agreement with you on that Kizzy. Even to the extent that they may have had surgery to remove the genitalia and be taking female hormones so have transitioned. I think my view is influenced by years of violence from a man and being raped as a young child by a male. Those people would still be those people after surgery. My common sense brain says that I can't tar all men with the same brush but emotionally the damage is done unfortunately.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5605
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #28 on: 20 Oct 2021 06:58PM »
I'm the reverse of that.  I have been sexually assaulted at different times by both cisman and ciswoman.  Yes, that has included being vaginally penetrated by a woman with a hard object in her hand.  I will always feel safer in mixed environments because I trust men more than women to step in and physically protect me.  I found that in the army.  Also, when I was an in-patient on a psychiatric unit where a senior nurse was beating up patients, getting away with it because management didn't know how to stop it without admitting that it was happening, it was generally the male patients that protected the female patients and the female staff.

When I have visited friends and relatives in my nearest general hospital, I've always observed that male patients had quieter rooms and were more likely to be in rooms with fewer patients.  I don't think that's fair and I think the conditions for women would be better if they had the option of sharing the men's rooms with their better conditions.

As for changing rooms, I never understood why people want the sort of changing rooms where all the women go in one room and all the men in another.  Why not have non-gendered individual and family cubicles?  My local swimming baths have individual cubicles round the edge of the pool.  I feel safer that way, because if someone tries to get in whilst you're there, the other swimmers will see it and someone will intervene.  By contrast, I've used pools where there were shared changing rooms, and if you're in there, if there aren't others there, who's to see if someone does something dodgy?

That being said, I do understand and accept that some women feel very unsafe unless in all female environments.  I just want the choice for my own safety of mixed environments.

Meanwhile, whichever side of the argument we're on in relation to that, the way the arguments are made in some political circles doesn't help.  For example, I am angry about how far using the insistence that only women have cervixes as a way of distinguishing between natal women and transwomen is setting back years of efforts to get people with a Y-chromasome and a vagina and cervix to have proper check ups and cervical smears. Some were mutilated and registered as female, some, mutilated or not, were registered as male, and some regard themselves as unisex. But our society doesn't accept unisex as a valid sex/gender.

For the sake of a little less rigidity of expression, accepting that some people born with Y chromasomes plus some male genitalia and legally registered from birth as male can have cervixes, lives could be saved.  Never mind, who cares if men with dsd die of cancer?

Maybe someone should send a basic biology book up to Heaven and tell Him to get His act together and stop making people that don't fit into neat categories.

Politicians and activists that have concerns about things like shared facilities and transpeople don't need to throw people with dsd under a bus in order to pursue their aims, and they don't need to throw those of us that want the safety of mixed environments under a bus to get unambiguously single sex environments for those that feel safer in them. 
(I'm an obsessive problem-solver, so feel free to ignore any suggestions or solutions I offer, even if they sound terribly insistent.)

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4608
Re: Does Starmer mean what he says?!
« Reply #29 on: 20 Oct 2021 08:52PM »
There's no way for us both to feel safe in that case sunny.


I realise that my life has been altered and changed due to trauma and it limits my life in many ways. I can't see a male GP for example, I'd panic if shut in a room with a man.


Both times that I have had wisdom teeth out under GA the hospital has gone out of their way to sort the gender issues out for me. The second wisdom tooth was at a time when there were no female dentists so I had a female chaperone who was with me in the anaesthetic room and who stayed with me all the time I was under the GA and was with me in recovery. I never saw the dentist. I'm thankful that these adjustments could be arranged.