Ah, the classic tell there of using "transwomen" instead of "trans women". I wonder who you are really behind this anonymous account. Still avoiding the question of how you actually want to make people's lives worse, and cherry picking definitions instead. Tiring.

Of course there is. Your knowledge of science appears to be rudimentary in this regard. Stop retreating into it to avoid the point about you actively trying to make people's lives worse.

And you seem to have forgotten that there is a scientific, indeed biological, explanation of trans people existing. And again you are ignoring the impact on actual people's lives.

Trans women are female. Now please stop with the definitions nonsense and address the reality of people's lives. Why do you want to make trans lives worse? What's in it for you?

Searching old posts so you can behave like an arsehole and then claim you're being attacked?

He blocked me after I wrote this, it's probably because of that that it shows up blocked to you. If you search for Neil Mackay from the Herald you'll probably see it. I linked to his article at the end of the thread.

These words are used interchangeably, yes. Doesn't change my point, which you ignored.

No, I'm considering both trans and cis people in that comment. It was safe and working for all. For decades. The only thing that changed was the creation of a well-funded campaign of fear against trans people in the mid to late 2010s.

Actually no, you don't, which we know because we had a perfectly workable and functional situation for many years where trans people were included safely without such a definition in law.

Let's employ the scientific method to the question of trans people in toilets. Evidence shows significant harm stems from preventing trans people from using the toilets that match their gender. You can, for example, reduce the incidence of urinary tract infection by ensuring access. That's science.

I see Neil Mackay has blocked me as a result of this thread. A shame; he often writes good stuff but it seems he's unable to take criticism. For the benefit of those coming late to this, the original quote post at the top of the thread was of him linking to this:

"Significant change" isn't my goal. I would absolutely concur that breaking up the UK would deliver "significant change", just like Brexit did. Also curious as to why the creation of the welfare state or the NHS, or indeed joining the EEC, all of which happened long after 1928, were not significant?

You know that humans are either male or female? Can you cite the science behind that knowledge?

I don't know who needs to hear this today, but rest assured that if I could solve my problem via your website I wouldn't be waiting in a massive fucking queue on your customer support phoneline, so maybe you could re-record that message to slightly reduce the overall amount of rage in the world?

There is extensive scientific evidence for the existence of trans people and in support of the sort of best practice which the Greens are supporting. I don't understand where you see support for trans people as "unscientific"? I hope it's not based on the simplistic biological understanding of GCs.

Great point! Except that computers aren't remotely like buildings and software isn't remotely like furniture and the analogy is therefore on the same scale of vacuity as "running the economy is like running a household budget" so could you please not?

Another moment in the US's steady trek into authoritarianism.

Glad to see this analysis of the SNP currency plans in @scotnational.bsky.social newsletter from last night:

"Upon independence, Scotland is expected to continue losing around 8% to 10% of its GDP [...] this means that the Scottish private sector must shrink by between 5% to 7% each year."

Translation: British coach drivers routinely overstay unlawfully in Schengen.

I do love how these people insist on pathologising my nation in order to advance their separatist agenda. What a boring column.

How about "We can best tackle extremism by uniting people rather than dividing them"? How about "Setting up the different nations of the UK as being radically different actually feeds harmful English nationalism"? How about "The mission of our time is establishing common cause"?

The internal contradictions are remarkable too. England can apparently only find its identity by leaving the UK, whereas Scotland and Wales have had no problem finding their identities within the UK because *hand-waving*. Plus the old trope that Scotland was never *really* into the empire. Dear me.

Desperate stuff here. The analysis of English nationalism and the problems it is creating is reasonable as far as it goes, but what a shock, the prescription turns out to be breaking up the UK, which just so happens to be the author's defining political mission too. What a coincidence!

OpenAI with another 10 GW deal ...

To remind, 1 GW costs $60 billion to deploy.

OpenAI has made deals for 26 GW over the past two weeks.

So ... that's a $1.6 trillion commit for a company that had H1 revenue of $4.3 billion.

This. Is. A. Bubble.