Jump to content

Recommended Posts

snowy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> oimissus Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > snowy Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > From looking at that boysvswomen site it

> > appears

> > > it?s run by an America right wing Christian

> > anti

> > > vaxxer.

> >

> > Do you have anything to say about the actual

> data,

> > or are you just trying to deflect attention

> from

> > that? It's very transparent. Oh, and a source

> for

> > that claim would be good too. Thanks.

>

> I?m not deflecting. You quoted it as a good

> source, so I went to look who was behind the

> source. His twitter feed is illuminating.


Please provide a link to the Twitter feed you're referencing. I've looked at the boysvswomen Twitter feed, not sure what in that feed supports your claim?


Again - nothing to say on the data? Because, as you know, it's the data I was referring to. Are you saying the data is wrong? That the data doesn't support the idea that women need their own, single sex, competitions to compete fairly (and safely, in some cases)?

tomskip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I hear you oimissus, although I would agree it is

> inflammatory and probably unwise of you to refer

> to the weight lifter as "he" because then you make

> it too easy for people to shout this is proof you

> are transphobic.

>

> For myself, I find it is inflammatory to refer to

> women as "cis" or "genetic women". Horribly

> offensive. Women and transwomen covers it fine.

>

> The total dismantling of all women's sports is a

> niche subject hmm? who could ever have imagined.


I've been involved in supporting women's and girls' rights long enough to know that 99% of accusations of transphobia simply mean:


"A woman (usually) has said something I don't like! Shut her up!"


"A woman (usually) is drawing attention to something I don't want attention drawn to! Shut her up!"


"A woman (usually) is speaking up for women only, and excluding men! Shut her up!" (this one never aimed at any other group who organize for themselves)


So it's become meaningless. Ditto "hate".


Time for another couple of pictures that say a thousand words. Copyright Tatsuya Ishida.

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> snowy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > oimissus Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > snowy Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > From looking at that boysvswomen site it

> > > appears

> > > > it?s run by an America right wing Christian

> > > anti

> > > > vaxxer.

> > >

> > > Do you have anything to say about the actual

> > data,

> > > or are you just trying to deflect attention

> > from

> > > that? It's very transparent. Oh, and a source

> > for

> > > that claim would be good too. Thanks.

> >

> > I?m not deflecting. You quoted it as a good

> > source, so I went to look who was behind the

> > source. His twitter feed is illuminating.

>

> Please provide a link to the Twitter feed you're

> referencing. I've looked at the boysvswomen

> Twitter feed, not sure what in that feed supports

> your claim?

>

> Again - nothing to say on the data? Because, as

> you know, it's the data I was referring to. Are

> you saying the data is wrong? That the data

> doesn't support the idea that women need their

> own, single sex, competitions to compete fairly

> (and safely, in some cases)?


It?s on their website.

Where on their website? I've looked. Here it is again for anyone else who'd care to look (the data is certainly worth a look - the very fact that snowy here is madly deflecting from it, not ,mentioning it at all, tells you there's something worth seeing there). https://boysvswomen.com/#/


Also, you mentioned 'his Twitter feed'? Who's Twitter feed? Can you name this person, link to a tweet? I've looked on the boysvswomen Twitter feed (here, if anyone's interested

) I can't see anything.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I guess @Snowy means in the "Created & Maintained

> by"


Thanks for the clarification, John. For some reason that is blank on the Desktop site, but I can see it on my phone.


The Twitter account is

Not sure why snowy couldn't have just supplied that first time around so that everyone can check it out for themselves. I've had a look at it and while I can see he's a Christian (he's American, so no big surprise) on a quick scan of his most recent tweets I can't see anything that gives me pause - I don't expect to agree with everyone all of the time about everything, but he appears to tweet mainly about this issue, focussing on sports and prisons. Calling him a 'Christian right-wing anti-vaxxer' is just another attempt to smear and deflect.


However - the actual point is the data he is posting. Unless someone can show the data is false I'm not sure why who is collating it is a problem. Unless you don't want people to focus on the data, that is...

oimissus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everyone still sure Hubbard beat Manumua fair and

> square, because she wasn't good enough?



Yes because Hubbard placed 7th and Manumua placed 14th. Lots of other people got in Manumua's way. Should have lifted harder.


Also, going back to your bit about 99% of conversations boiling down to those few reasons, the whole ""A woman (usually) is speaking up for women only, and excluding men! Shut her up!" (this one never aimed at any other group who organize for themselves)" is why you're a transphobe.


It doesn't have to do with sticking up for women. You're exlcuding transwomen because in your limited worldview you refuse to see them as anyone other than a man parading around as a woman.


Cisgendered women rightfully should be elevated in our communities, but it doesn't mean that transwomen or transmen need to be beaten down as you think is fit to do. You're more exclusive than inclusive.

I won't use the same terminology as you, EDGuy, as others claim they find "cis" offensive. (And I'm not in total agreement with you on the sporting side). But your closing point is on the money. We can be an ally to both women and transgender people. In fact, we SHOULD!
Who placed between Manumua at 14th and Hubbard at 7th? Who were the "lots of other people?" Was it 6 women who still got pushed down by competing with a transwoman who has all the indesputabale advantages (in weight lifting at least) of being born male and living with male hormones and muscles and stature and everything else for 40 years?

I take it, then, EDGuy, that you attack organizations such as Southall Black sisters for not including white people? If not, why not? They're exclusive.


I take it you attack Mermaids for not including non-trans youth? Why not? They're exclusive.


I take it you attack youth groups for not including toddlers or adults? Pregnancy yoga for not including those who aren't pregnant? Save the Children only care about children - we can't have that. World Wildlife Fund only advocates for animals - wrong!


For groups to succeed they need to be focussed. And you're happy for every single other group out there to do that - except women. Women *must* include males to be worthwhile.


NO. You won't silence us, you won't stop us meeting and organizing for ourselves. And you hate that. Too bad.


Did you look at those pictures I posted? They're YOU. Take a good, long hard look at yourself. Anyone who supports a white middle aged man taking the place of a young women of colour is not the nice, kind, progressive person they think they are. They're just a common-or-garden bully.


Well, you won't bully me. I will never shut up, I will never stand aside, I will never stop advocating for women and girls.


Get used to it.

Nah you're making too broad of statements.


I wouldn't go after Southall Black Sisters nor Mermaids. Why? Because they're marginalised groups. And yes, more marginalised than women on the whole (ESPECIALLY mermaids since you seem to believe that trans people don't exist. Yet you bring them up to defend your point? Despicable).


You think your group are a bunch of victims. You paint yourself that way, quite literally, in those pictures you posted.


Some meak, weak little person piping up and putting themselves out there just to be beaten down by people mindless screaming about terfs? PLEASE. You put up this innocent little facade of "I'm just sticking up for women" yet time and time again you fail to refer to transwomen as what they are, women. You are literally just as bad as the "other" that you depict in your little pictures.


You see everything in such a binary way that it's probably impossible for you to see this as anything other than man v woman because that's the only thing you've ever seen.


I've taken a good look at myself plenty of times and at the end of the day I look just fine. The fact that you still go on about "white middle aged man" when you, time and time again, deny a person's existence.


But yeah, tell me about how I'm a bully.


I advocate for women and girls myself, too, but unlike you I don't draw the arbitrary line at "had to be born with a vagina".


Tell yourself how strong and courageous you are all you want, at the end of the day you're still wrong.


Get used to it.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I won't use the same terminology as you, EDGuy, as

> others claim they find "cis" offensive. (And I'm

> not in total agreement with you on the sporting

> side). But your closing point is on the money. We

> can be an ally to both women and transgender

> people. In fact, we SHOULD!


Just to be clear....I know I was openly winding up earlier....but I don't find 'cis' offensive. I find it a little annoying, but not enough to have a real problem. I see why misgendering is upsetting for some transspeople....but perhaps being aware that a transition is not something a lot of people have direct exposure too, we shouldn't be so quite to dismissive people who do things like 'deadname'.......


I know a few trans people. And the ones I know are reasonable, and get that it's a tough thing for others to take...so try not to be too reactionary. Seems a bit different to the trans activist mindset, which has no flexibility.


As a analogous example......I have a son with ADHD and ASD, but the amount of jokes or misunderstanding about autism is constant from a wide range of people. I don't think those people are 'hateful'......it's annoying, but do I really think they are trying to be offensive or hateful?....no way.....

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just to be clear....I know I was openly winding up

> earlier....but I don't find 'cis' offensive. I

> find it a little annoying, but not enough to have

> a real problem.


It's cool. Yeah you made it clear you were intentionally provoking, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe on my side, I maybe struggled to articulate my intentions. Of course in the majority of conversations, I refer to women as women, I don't go around using words like "cisgender" on a daily basis! It is usually an unnecessary detail, tbh.


But honestly, I think misgendering is distressing to ALL transgender people. Sometimes it comes from a place of misunderstanding, or simply spur-of-the-moment panic - and that is upsetting, but understandable and forgivable. But sometimes it comes from malice and intolerance... sometimes it is intentional. I think we are both smart enough to know the difference. The latter category, in my opinion, is as bad as calling women the 'b' word, or a gay person the 'f' word.


With the analogy with your son, I would say the same thing really. You're smart enough to know the difference between misunderstanding/ignorance, and setting out to deliberately confront and offend. I know which one we're dealing with here.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...