Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Britain should rejoin the EU...

I don't recall that the issue of the open land border was ever discussed, let alone voted for, in the referendum campaign.

Most of the interviews I have seen with Leave voters - anecdotal statement, I know - mention immigration as the single compelling issue for them. It's ironic then, that the Dublin Regulation, the legal framework that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to have been returned to their point of departure in the EU, was lost when we left. Another issue not explained or discussed in the referendum campaign.

This was before the referendum.

 
As I said, several studies have shown that around 80% of children who say they are gender dysphoric before puberty, are no longer gender dysphoric after going through puberty.
Yes, but that is not evidence that a majority of those who take puberty blockers would not have been dysphoric post-puberty if they had not taken them.

Imagine that there are 120 children who are experiencing gender dysphoria.

Imagine that 100 of them go through puberty. 20 of those who go through puberty continue to experience gender dysphoria.

Imagine that 20 of the original 120 take puberty blockers, and therefore do not go through puberty.

Can we say that 80% of those children who took puberty blockers would have ceased to have experience gender dysphoria if they had gone through puberty? No. We are not comparing like with like.​

The group of 100 children who go through puberty contains those for whom gender dysphoria will be permanent, and those for whom it will not be permanent.

The other group, the 20 who are taking the puberty blockers, does not necessarily contain the same range.

It is possible that those who are given puberty blockers are those in whom gender dysphoria appears more deep-rooted, who are therefore more likely to have continued to experience gender dysphoria post-puberty.

I am undecided about the issue of puberty blockers being prescribed to children experiencing gender dysphoria. If there is to be fruitful debate on this topic, then we need to be careful to not draw conclusions from the statistics that are not warranted.​
 
Yes, but that is not evidence that a majority of those who take puberty blockers would not have been dysphoric post-puberty if they had not taken them.

Imagine that there are 120 children who are experiencing gender dysphoria.

Imagine that 100 of them go through puberty. 20 of those who go through puberty continue to experience gender dysphoria.

Imagine that 20 of the original 120 take puberty blockers, and therefore do not go through puberty.

Can we say that 80% of those children who took puberty blockers would have ceased to have experience gender dysphoria if they had gone through puberty? No. We are not comparing like with like.​

The group of 100 children who go through puberty contains those for whom gender dysphoria will be permanent, and those for whom it will not be permanent.

The other group, the 20 who are taking the puberty blockers, does not necessarily contain the same range.

It is possible that those who are given puberty blockers are those in whom gender dysphoria appears more deep-rooted, who are therefore more likely to have continued to experience gender dysphoria post-puberty.

I am undecided about the issue of puberty blockers being prescribed to children experiencing gender dysphoria. If there is to be fruitful debate on this topic, then we need to be careful to not draw conclusions from the statistics that are not warranted.​
So what you’re saying is maybe doctors are really good at identifying which kids will still be gender dysphoric after going through puberty, so it’s fine to prescribe puberty blockers to that selection. Firstly, as I’ve said, it’s not at all clear that is a good outcome for that cohort and will make them healthier and happier overall. They will pass better as adults but will still probably be infertile, anorgasmic (one quote “I’ve heard an orgasm is like a sneeze?”), damaged bone structure etc.

Secondly, it doesn’t seem to be the case that doctors really are that good at identifying who will or won’t still be gender dysphoric after puberty. The proportion of gender dysphoric kids being given puberty blockers seems to have been higher in the UK than the proportion who would’ve still been gender dysphoric after puberty. Again, none of this clear as proper records were not kept by the Tavistock.

The UK was not as gung ho on this as some places; I believe there are still some states in the USA and Canada where certain doctors will prescribe puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to pretty much anyone who asks, and parents who try to stop them can get in legal trouble. This was part of the reason Trump won, it’s rare for the public to see that the right seem so obviously correct on a specific issue.

The long term longitudinal studies instigated by the Cass Review will shed more light on all this. Until then it would be far too risky to continue to medicate these children in such a life changing way, when there’s so many unknowns. I’m proud of the UK and my Labour Party for leading the way on this.
 
As I said, several studies have shown that around 80% of children who say they are gender dysphoric before puberty, are no longer gender dysphoric after going through puberty. So yes, taking puberty blockers does cause the taking of cross sex hormones. In your analogy, it would be like using medication to treat a knee complaint that in most cases would’ve gone away without any treatment.

It’s also worth adding that it’s not at all clear that puberty blockers -> cross sex hormones is a good outcome for the 20% who would still have been gender dysphoric after puberty. They will still have all the huge lifelong health problems. There have been no long term control group studies into the effects of these medications. Thankfully after the Cass Report that will happen.

The left needs to drop the issue of puberty blockers. You guys have lost the argument. The overwhelming majority of the public can see that the pro puberty blockers position is obviously wrong, it’s harmful to the broader progressive cause to keep defending it. More important issues where the left is correct, like climate change, get lumped in with it in the minds of the public.
This is the real reason you are here. To peddle this shit.
 
Not sure why some people apparently consider images of dorky-looking Rejoin protesters to be a devastating riposte when we all know what the pro-Brexit protesters looked like

oh come on half of these people are celebrating trump winning because it teaches those liberals a lesson

they have crossed the Rubicon
 
Do you all think puberty blockers are great then? I don’t know much about the politics of this forum. Is it mostly left with a mix of right? (I don’t think puberty blockers are a left/right issue mind you). Genuine question; enlighten me
Are you sure about that? 🤣

The left needs to drop the issue of puberty blockers. You guys have lost the argument.

The UK was not as gung ho on this as some places; I believe there are still some states in the USA and Canada where certain doctors will prescribe puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to pretty much anyone who asks, and parents who try to stop them can get in legal trouble. This was part of the reason Trump won, it’s rare for the public to see that the right seem so obviously correct on a specific issue.
 
Eh?
What’s bollocks?
It wasn't Tony Benn rising from the grave to say 'i told you so'...it was, as I said successive moving of goal posts over the years whilst pretending they weren't that had the impact....the euro did have the headaches the nay sayers said it would...eg Greece and the constitution that wasn't (but is)
 
This was part of the reason Trump won, it’s rare for the public to see that the right seem so obviously correct on a specific issue.

The long term longitudinal studies instigated by the Cass Review will shed more light on all this. Until then it would be far too risky to continue to medicate these children in such a life changing way, when there’s so many unknowns. I’m proud of the UK and my Labour Party for leading the way on this.

Ugh
 
So what you’re saying is maybe doctors are really good at identifying which kids will still be gender dysphoric after going through puberty, so it’s fine to prescribe puberty blockers to that selection. Firstly, as I’ve said, it’s not at all clear that is a good outcome for that cohort and will make them healthier and happier overall. They will pass better as adults but will still probably be infertile, anorgasmic (one quote “I’ve heard an orgasm is like a sneeze?”), damaged bone structure etc.

Secondly, it doesn’t seem to be the case that doctors really are that good at identifying who will or won’t still be gender dysphoric after puberty. The proportion of gender dysphoric kids being given puberty blockers seems to have been higher in the UK than the proportion who would’ve still been gender dysphoric after puberty. Again, none of this clear as proper records were not kept by the Tavistock.

The UK was not as gung ho on this as some places; I believe there are still some states in the USA and Canada where certain doctors will prescribe puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to pretty much anyone who asks, and parents who try to stop them can get in legal trouble. This was part of the reason Trump won, it’s rare for the public to see that the right seem so obviously correct on a specific issue.

The long term longitudinal studies instigated by the Cass Review will shed more light on all this. Until then it would be far too risky to continue to medicate these children in such a life changing way, when there’s so many unknowns. I’m proud of the UK and my Labour Party for leading the way on this.
There are no states in Canada.
 
Those who remain in the Labour Party remind me of the ones who did not walk away from Omelas.

(This is a reference to a short story by Ursula Le Guin).

I don't know how anyone could be proud a party that banned its members from discussing the slaughter being inflicted upon the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, and whose leaders in government continue to be complicit in what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch describe as genocide.

I don't know how anyone can be proud of a party that took a decision to reverse its position on the two-child cap, and therefore ensure that hundreds of thousands of children continue to be impoverished.

I don't know how anyone can be proud of a party whose leadership in government has deprived millions of pensioners of their Winter Fuel Allowance.

To get back to the thread: I have noticed that many of the most vocal re-joiners are unashamed supporters of the immiseration inflicted upon the people of Greece by the EU and the IMF.

The problem with the EU Referendum “debate” was that the voices that predominated on both sides were pro-bourgeois. Someone at a public meeting I attended likened the arguments of socialists in the debate to a mouse squashed between two elephants. I voted Remain, but I have more in common politically with socialists who voted Leave than Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who voted Remain.​
 
Last edited:
I believe there are still some states in the USA and Canada where certain doctors will prescribe puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to pretty much anyone who asks, and parents who try to stop them can get in legal trouble.
Exactly where are these remarkably laissez faire states?
Names and credible sources please.
 
Those who remain in the Labour Party remind me of the ones who did not walk away from Omelas.

(This is a reference to a short story by Ursula Le Guin).

I don't know how anyone could be proud a party that banned its members from discussing the slaughter being inflicted upon the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, and whose leaders in government continue to be complicit in what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch describe as genocide.

I don't know how anyone can be proud of a party that took a decision to reverse its position on the two-child cap, and therefore ensure that hundreds of thousands of children continue to be impoverished.

I don't know how anyone can be proud of a party whose leadership in government has deprived millions of pensioners of their Winter Fuel Allowance.

To get back to the thread: I have noticed that many of the most vocal re-joiners are unashamed supporters of the immiseration inflicted upon the people of Greece by the EU and the IMF.

The problem with the EU Referendum “debate” was that the voices that predominated on both sides were pro-bourgeois. Someone at a public meeting I attended likened the arguments of socialists in the debate to a mouse squashed between two elephants. I voted Remain, but I have more in common politically with socialists who voted Leave than Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who voted Remain.​
On Gaza I agree. I think it is a complete disgrace that the UK and the Labour Party has shown any support at all for the current Israeli government given what they are doing. We should not be selling them any weapons, we shouldn’t be allies with them. I don’t really understand the reasons behind this policy but whatever they are they’re not good enough. Makes me feel ashamed that we are indirectly complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Also disastrous for our soft power around the world and for Islamic terrorism at home. At least the uk government have said they would arrest Netanyahu under the icc warrant, unlike France and the usa.

Two child benefit cap - I do think they should change it, money is very tight, hopefully they will get to it during this parliament.

Winter fuel allowance - I agree with the government. Not means testing it at all makes no sense whatsoever to me. Paying hundreds of pounds to even the wealthiest of pensioners, many of whom bought property at a fraction of the current price, seems obviously a policy that needed changing. I’m surprised at the reaction, which is as if they had taken it away from all pensioners - in fact those on certain benefits still get the WFA. I can see that some people might slip through the net, I don’t know if maybe it could be tweaked slightly but granular means testing like that is easier said than done and can end up costing more money than it saves.
 
On Gaza I agree. I think it is a complete disgrace that the UK and the Labour Party has shown any support at all for the current Israeli government given what they are doing. We should not be selling them any weapons, we shouldn’t be allies with them. I don’t really understand the reasons behind this policy but whatever they are they’re not good enough. Makes me feel ashamed that we are indirectly complicit in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Also disastrous for our soft power around the world and for Islamic terrorism at home. At least the uk government have said they would arrest Netanyahu under the icc warrant, unlike France and the usa.

Two child benefit cap - I do think they should change it, money is very tight, hopefully they will get to it during this parliament.

Winter fuel allowance - I agree with the government. Not means testing it at all makes no sense whatsoever to me. Paying hundreds of pounds to even the wealthiest of pensioners, many of whom bought property at a fraction of the current price, seems obviously a policy that needed changing. I’m surprised at the reaction, which is as if they had taken it away from all pensioners - in fact those on certain benefits still get the WFA. I can see that some people might slip through the net, I don’t know if maybe it could be tweaked slightly but granular means testing like that is easier said than done and can end up costing more money than it saves.
Which benefits qualify pensioners to receive the Winter Fuel Allowance? Certainly not Housing Benefit or Council Tax Support. Millions of people on the state pension have been deprived. Do you think that receiving less than £11,000 per year makes someone rich?
EDIT: I do apologise, for I was wrong. The full state pension for a single person is now more than £11,000 per year.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't Tony Benn rising from the grave to say 'i told you so'...it was, as I said successive moving of goal posts over the years whilst pretending they weren't that had the impact....the euro did have the headaches the nay sayers said it would...eg Greece and the constitution that wasn't (but is)
I'm aware of those sort of Brexit arguments, but I still don't really see how that's a reaction to my comment about the long, nationalist euro-sceptical campaign that can be traced back to 1961, certainly not a reaction that said "bollocks". :confused:
 
I'm aware of those sort of Brexit arguments, but I still don't really see how that's a reaction to my comment about the long, nationalist euro-sceptical campaign that can be traced back to 1961, certainly not a reaction that said "bollocks". :confused:
The youngest voter in the 71 referendum was 63 at the time of 2016 one...whichever way that 13% of the population voted then...and it was a very different beast by 2016, not really a foundation
 
The youngest voter in the 71 referendum was 63 at the time of 2016 one...whichever way that 13% of the population voted then...and it was a very different beast by 2016, not really a foundation
Sorry, just don't get what you're on about. The post you said was "bollocks" to was a purely factual point about the long-running and ultimately successful anti-european campaign to get the UK out of the Common market.EC/EEC/EU.

The plebiscite to ratify the UK's 1973 accession was in 1975.
 
We can't just adopt the Euro, we would have to join the European Central Bank first and I can't see any UK politicians going for that never mind just Bad Enoch and Frog Lord, so we would have to negotiate keeping the pound which given the relative size of the UK economy is not an impossible suggestion. Thatcher's budget rebate has no doubt gone forever but there would be so much to negotiate such as fisheries, agriculture, the galileo military GPS, what happens to any other trade deals we've signed with other countries in the meantime, the list is endless. It's not like "We've changed our minds can we come back please? Sure no problem!"
And all this work gets wasted as soon as we get another Tory PM which will probably be sooner than the end of the dickering.
I think we will go back eventually, we'll have no choice as we become less and less relevant in a world in which other countries will catch us up and overtake us but it isn't going to be soon probably a couple of decades no matter how many petitions or marches there are.

This is pretty much how I think it stands/plays out as well. It was (in my opinion, obviously) a colossal act of self-harm, but there is no way to get back to how it was. We are going to have to settle for a lessened status, probably as suggested after waiting a couple of decades for our relevance to slide sufficiently that we’ll accept said lessened status.
 
This is pretty much how I think it stands/plays out as well. It was (in my opinion, obviously) a colossal act of self-harm, but there is no way to get back to how it was. We are going to have to settle for a lessened status, probably as suggested after waiting a couple of decades for our relevance to slide sufficiently that we’ll accept said lessened status.
The only "status" that interests the supra-state, or any other trading partners for that matter, is the market size of the UK.
 
Sorry, just don't get what you're on about. The post you said was "bollocks" to was a purely factual point about the long-running and ultimately successful anti-european campaign to get the UK out of the Common market.EC/EEC/EU.

The plebiscite to ratify the UK's 1973 accession was in 1975.
But it wasn't it was howling in the wind for 20 odd years then a build from Maastrict onwards. And servaral rounds of further integration. By the time of the 2016 only 13% of the population were of an age to have had anything to do with the initial plebiscite. That plebiscite wasn't (by that stage) honest bedrock of anything let alone the leave movement. By the time of the referendum it was quite gualing what was being justified by it.
What's even more nuts is the tories didn't even have the referendum for decent reasons.

I do expect another referendum in my lifetime. the lack of honest engagement was part of the problem IMO . Confident we won't rejoin but think there will be a referendum none the less
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom