The @ONS have decided that it's no longer possible to ask people simply what their sex is, even though this has been asked in every census since forever. Women have used the resulting data to prove that we face ongoing and widespread discrimination, at large and small scales 1/10

The people making decisions about the census, however, have been persuaded that some (unknown number of) people won't respond to the census at all if they have to answer this very basic factual question. 2/10

They have therefore changed the guidance so that an unknown number of people are advised to answer it according to their 'official documents' - which may contradict each other. Since it's easily possible to change the sex marker on a passport or driving licence 3/10

just by asking for it to be changed, this guidance effectively means that (an unknown number of) people unhappy about their biological sex are advised to answer the sex question however they choose. 4/10

The most immediately damaging impact of this decision will be on trans people. It means the opportunity to gather robust data from the new gender identity question in the same census is lost. We will not be able to tell how many trans people are male or female. 5/10

@ondakondratiev @PlzBeSensible @mattyglesias Okay, as promised, some links. @Burgerfacemcta1

This is from Canada:

@PlzBeSensible @mattyglesias @Burgerfacemcta1 This was in Psychiatric Times:

@PlzBeSensible @mattyglesias @Burgerfacemcta1 This is from a uni counseling center, and is a good overview of gendered victim-blaming for male victims:

@PlzBeSensible @mattyglesias @Burgerfacemcta1 This is tangentially about male victims of sex crimes and discusses gendered bonding and what men can admit.

@PlzBeSensible @mattyglesias @Burgerfacemcta1 Finally, RAINN has a summary, similar in theme to the UTK counseling center above:

For everyone saying the current democrat party will improve systemic racism and racial unity I need to point this out.

Historically democrats have always been racist and even misogynist and this isn’t even ancient history it’s modern history too. Let me give you the list that I can pull from memory.

1. Democrats voted unanimously against ending slavery.

2. Democrats created the KKK.

3. Democrats were against the civil rights act of 1964.

4. Democrats voted against women’s suffrage.

5. Democrats instituted and enforced Jim Crow laws.

6. Democrats historically discouraged integration policies and encouraged segregationists.

7. 46 authored and sponsored the 1994 crime bill which was signed by then democratic president Clinton. This bill has been attributed to systemic racism in America.

8a. Margaret Sanger, the founder of PP and also democrat, instituted PP to cull the African American community. While it may have a mildly nobler purpose today, under the guise of women’s health it was intended as a racially eugenic operation.

Highlighting real history is not a culture war.
Being critical of your own country's past is not left, its not woke, its humane.
Pretending that what happened in the past didn't happen, is far worse.
It suggests an unwillingness to learn from the past to improve in the future.

The Sunday Telegraph is trying to frame what we are/we're as a nation.
Yes we were racist.
Yes we kept slaves and profited from it.
Yes we slaughtered millions in the name of empire.
"So what? "
In reality, only a small handful of people are responsible for these crimes.
Govt.

I don't see this country in the same way as those with a guilty conscious.
But those who bear the guilt project it onto the rest of us.

A member of my family has gone down the far right rabbit hole along with a few other members of my family (not immediate family) and part of this conspiracy is a hatred of Jews.

The one thing that stood out for me, when I tried to reason with them about why they are wrong, is the way they framed all Jewish people.
In any country, can you really smear its people on the basis of what it's govt does?
Does the govt in this country represent me and my views?

New from me.

Alberta is exploring the idea of establishing a provincial police force. What are the motivations behind this move, how much is it going to cost, and do Albertans even want it?

#yeg #ableg

Alberta currently pays $262.4 million for its RCMP service, with the feds paying $112.4 million annually in a 70-30 split. This is the prime concern for Alberta’s small towns and cities.

“We could be saddled with some immense costs going forward without federal contributions.”

Dr. Laura Huey, a criminologist at the University of Western Ontario, estimates the cost is likely to be in the billions.

"I’m not convinced necessarily that people understand and appreciate how enormous those costs are, and that those costs are ongoing and forever.”

In the end, it all comes down to cost versus control, Dr. Huey argues. But with increased control comes the risk of politicization, an issue that concerns NDP Justice critic Irfan Sabir.

“I think the province shouldn’t be controlling directly how these police forces operate."

So why is Alberta pursuing this? Autonomy from Ottawa seems to be the largest driving factor.

Derek Fildebrandt, former MLA for Strathmore-Brooks and publisher of the Western Standard, suggests the UCP are in search of a “legacy project” to hang its hat on. #ableg

Diversity is America's greatest strength 🇺🇸

Diversity is Ireland's greatest strength 🇮🇪

Diversity is Germany's greatest strength 🇩🇪

Diversity is Australia's greatest strength 🇦🇺

Diversity is Belgium's greatest strength 🇧🇪

Like @ezraklein I was born and raised in OC and educated at a UC. He is right to point to some of CA's problems. But they aren't a sign "progressivism cannot work here". It's a sign corporate/right-wing power hasn't been sufficiently broken.

In the late 1970s an alliance of suburbanites, corporations, and right-wingers rigged state government to make it nearly impossible to use CA's power to meet the full scope of human needs, from housing to schools to jobs.

Over the last 40+ years progressives have had growing success chipping away at that edifice. But it's a struggle. Props 15 and 22 demonstrate the obstacles that remain.

(Rather, the failure of Prop 15.)

If someone’s an asshole to you, it’s your right to decide not to work w/them. Right?

If someone’s an asshole to your friend/mom/kid/neighbor, etc., it’s still your right to decide not to work w/ them. Right?

So...

If someone’s an asshole to people you don’t know personally, but you disapprove of the assholery... it’s still your right to decide not to work w/them.

It’s not a blacklist if people choose not to work with you b/c your views make them or others feel unsafe.

At a certain point, conservatives are going to have to recognize that “views” are not academic when they have real-world effects and consequences for other people.

Like, “X got fired for being conservative!” implies those conservative views exist in a vacuum and are purely thought experiments, whereas in actuality those views are likely affecting other people quite fundamentally.

If you insist that people who cut ties w/ bigots are doing it just because of pressure from “cancel culture,” you’re basically saying they can’t tell the difference between which values matter to them and which don’t. That’s pretty patronizing.

The Environment Agency has documented 243 violations of the “farming rules for water” since they came into effect in April 2018 - but there have been no prosecutions or fines issued to polluters.

My latest exclusive for The

The region with the most breaches recorded was Devon and Cornwall, with 75, followed by Wessex with 52 .

The breaches the Environment Agency has recorded are a fraction of the actual number, according to conservation organisations.

said: “This legislation is being violated on a regular basis across the country by farms and virtually nothing is being done to monitor it or enforce it.”

“Even when the Environment Agency identifies breaches, they don’t have the resources to follow up. All of the effort put into crafting the rules and consulting on this issue has proven to be a complete waste of time.”

The legislation, which was first announced in November 2017, gives the Environment Agency the power to prosecute or fine individuals and companies found to be polluting waterways with contaminated runoff water, or acting in a way that creates a high risk of pollution.