This morning on Radio 4 I listened to two leading scientists saying that men

[Burney]

Of course it did young man, because like us all, you’ve become your father. 30 years ago he had the same conversation in the pub after noticing women’s hour listed in the Radio Times.

No. This is not the same. This is a demonstrable lie with absolutely zero science behind it that is being peddled to us as a society as fact. People are being brainwashed, hustled and strong-armed into going along with it, but it is a lie. And if anyone dares to question it in public life they do so at the risk of their jobs and welfare.

This is not about being a reactionary old fuddy-duddy or any sh1t like that, it is about knowing the difference between what is true and what is false and thinking that there is an important difference between the two - a difference that is worth defending.

THIS IS NOT OK.

[WES]

No. This is not the same. This is a demonstrable lie with absolutely zero science behind it that is being peddled to us as a society as fact. People are being brainwashed, hustled and strong-armed into going along with it, but it is a lie. And if anyone dares to question it in public life they do so at the risk of their jobs and welfare.

This is not about being a reactionary old fuddy-duddy or any sh1t like that, it is about knowing the difference between what is true and what is false and thinking that there is an important difference between the two - a difference that is worth defending.

THIS IS NOT OK.

Is the trans lobby really denying the advantages or are they expressing concern about generalisations and - without directly saying it - taking the position that it shouldn't matter?

I think it's more the latter. Interesting bit will be when someone finally addresses the elephant in the room and proposes that we eliminate women's sports altogether as that is the natural and logical extension of the trans lobby's position.

[Burney]

Is the trans lobby really denying the advantages or are they expressing concern about generalisations and - without directly saying it - taking the position that it shouldn't matter?

I think it's more the latter. Interesting bit will be when someone finally addresses the elephant in the room and proposes that we eliminate women's sports altogether as that is the natural and logical extension of the trans lobby's position.

They're shifting. They have tried to claim there are no residual advantages with some highly selective stats and some junk science. However, as that science has been thoroughly debunked, they are now moving to the position you describe, which would effectively throw the entire concept of female sport under the bus.

But of course most of these freaks would all get absolutely smashed by proper male athletes, so what we're potentially looking at is just male sport - which is fine by me, now I come to think of it. Women's sport is sh1t.

[AFC East]

No. This is not the same. This is a demonstrable lie with absolutely zero science behind it that is being peddled to us as a society as fact. People are being brainwashed, hustled and strong-armed into going along with it, but it is a lie. And if anyone dares to question it in public life they do so at the risk of their jobs and welfare.

This is not about being a reactionary old fuddy-duddy or any sh1t like that, it is about knowing the difference between what is true and what is false and thinking that there is an important difference between the two - a difference that is worth defending.

THIS IS NOT OK.

I am referring to the idea that society is ****ed. I don't disagree that truth is an important concept and that some things that shouldn't need defending, now need defending. (See vaccines for a more dangerous example).

It's just part of the ebb and flow of society. When I step back, things are better than they were when I was a young man, even if I do find myself raging at the radio more than I'd like to.

[Burney]

I am referring to the idea that society is ****ed. I don't disagree that truth is an important concept and that some things that shouldn't need defending, now need defending. (See vaccines for a more dangerous example).

It's just part of the ebb and flow of society. When I step back, things are better than they were when I was a young man, even if I do find myself raging at the radio more than I'd like to.

Vaccines are a classic example. Mind you, I maintain this whole thing started with Freud and his ridiculous pseudo-science that appeals to hysterics, attention-seekers and narcissists.
Now the whole concept of evidence-based reasoning is under attack and we're too weak to defend it. We are in serious danger of regressing.

[AFC East]

Vaccines are a classic example. Mind you, I maintain this whole thing started with Freud and his ridiculous pseudo-science that appeals to hysterics, attention-seekers and narcissists.
Now the whole concept of evidence-based reasoning is under attack and we're too weak to defend it. We are in serious danger of regressing.

I'm hopeful that the pendulum will swing the other way, albeit more slowly than it seemed to swing away from truth.

[Burney]

I'm hopeful that the pendulum will swing the other way, albeit more slowly than it seemed to swing away from truth.

I genuinely wish there could be a societal return to stoicism. The stiff upper lip culture is much-derided these days, but by God it stopped people bleating about their fùcking feelings - and that alone is a good thing.

[Sir C]

I genuinely wish there could be a societal return to stoicism. The stiff upper lip culture is much-derided these days, but by God it stopped people bleating about their fùcking feelings - and that alone is a good thing.

It worked both ways though, didn’t it? I mean people weren’t endlessly offended, but then again they were generally treated decently by people with manners.

When I look at what is written here about Emery, for example, I yearn for an age of simple good manners and respect.

[SWv2]

It worked both ways though, didn’t it? I mean people weren’t endlessly offended, but then again they were generally treated decently by people with manners.

When I look at what is written here about Emery, for example, I yearn for an age of simple good manners and respect.

Mainly that Ganpati lad.

Seems a nice lad otherwise.

[Burney]

It worked both ways though, didn’t it? I mean people weren’t endlessly offended, but then again they were generally treated decently by people with manners.

When I look at what is written here about Emery, for example, I yearn for an age of simple good manners and respect.

Hang on, now. Emery is a foreigner. As a nation, it is our birthright to be rude about foreigners.