[Crabcakes]

I find it interesting how people have gone from trust the science, believe in experts to this report which was written by an expert in her field and has been researched to the highest scientific standards should be disconted because reasons.

This is *literally* the scientific process. If the report is genuinely robust and has no shortcomings, it will survive scrutiny. If it doesn’t, it will not and further should not.

At one point the expert consensus was that ME was psychosomatic and should be treated with graded exercise therapy. This took years of hard work to overturn because of experts in extremely powerful and prestigious roles and positions looking to protect their work and reputation undermining any scrutiny, and using positions of power to shut down reviews. And some of the people pursuing these investigations might easily be looked upon as crank-like - a big supporter, for example, was The Canary. But they were all absolutely right - the previous scientific consensus was based on horribly flawed evidence, and has now been absolutely rejected because of the errors and low quality of the data collected.

I trust the science, but I question it always and any real scientist or person who values robust, data-led decisions who is truly open to new ideas knows to welcome this, and not just accept the decisions that align with their gut feeling or own sense of what is ‘right’.

[The Weeping Angel]

There's a difference between scrutiny and out right making stuff up which is what people have been doing.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is *literally* the scientific process. If the report is genuinely robust and has no shortcomings, it will survive scrutiny. If it doesn’t, it will not and further should not.

Sure, and I'm sure there are experts who are working on that right now. In the meantime, I think it's hard not to say that science right now is the Cass Report, in the absence of the Scottish Government commisisoning a report of their own. I see the SNP have accepted Cass as the basis of their policy.

Harvie there is so spectacularly unprepared. Trans rights are a defining issue for the Scottish Greens, but it's like he forgot the report was coming out and there was nobody to brief him on it. There's certainly a culture war around trans rights, but that doesn't mean you can just waffle about that. Billy Bragg's response is what Harvie's should have been.

As an aside, I've noticed with the English Greens that they're pretty poor on stuff they should be good at- rail, most obviously. Seems to be the same with the Scottish Greens. God knows what they're like on taxation or defence.

[Oboogie]

I find it interesting how people have gone from trust the science, believe in experts to this report which was written by an expert in her field and has been researched to the highest scientific standards should be disconted because reasons.

This is *literally* the scientific process. If the report is genuinely robust and has no shortcomings, it will survive scrutiny. If it doesn’t, it will not and further should not.

At one point the expert consensus was that ME was psychosomatic and should be treated with graded exercise therapy. This took years of hard work to overturn because of experts in extremely powerful and prestigious roles and positions looking to protect their work and reputation undermining any scrutiny, and using positions of power to shut down reviews. And some of the people pursuing these investigations might easily be looked upon as crank-like - a big supporter, for example, was The Canary. But they were all absolutely right - the previous scientific consensus was based on horribly flawed evidence, and has now been absolutely rejected because of the errors and low quality of the data collected.

I trust the science, but I question it always and any real scientist or person who values robust, data-led decisions who is truly open to new ideas knows to welcome this, and not just accept the decisions that align with their gut feeling or own sense of what is ‘right’.

Whilst you're quite correct that scientific consensus does frequently change over time, we can only respond to the known facts as they currently stand. If we routinely dismiss scientific findings on the basis that, one day, the science might give us different facts, then all scientific study becomes worthless.
If and when the facts change, then we change our minds.
But only then.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

As Carl Sagan said, it pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

[Crabcakes]

For clarity, I’m not suggesting anything be rejected on the basis of what might be, or saying that I believe the Cass review is fundamentally flawed. However I do believe it could have been more robust and less open to accusations of bias if it had looked at other evidence sources as well. I doubt very much these would have changed the outcome from what I’ve read, but it might have gone some way to making some groups more comfortable with the findings.

[Philip Marlow]

Alas, on the culture wars front, it would appear that Radcliffe is the devil once more.

https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2024/m ... really-sad

Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe has described his rupture with JK Rowling over trans rights as “really sad”, and that despite her role in his life as the creator of Potter “[it] doesn’t mean that you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life”.

Which does rather bring me back to a previous page…

Mind, I'm pleased if that rancid little twerp Radcliffe gets a shoeing (metaphorically).

Far be it from me to doubt the pleasure, but what young Daniel - or Watson, or Grint, who also tend to feature prominently in the ‘YOU HAVE BETRAYED HER’ listings - have done to deserve the appellation ‘rancid’ escapes me a bit. Is it just the temerity of disagreeing with She Who Must Not Be Contradicted on this specific subject? Are there others? I have no idea whether any of the ex child star principles favour Scottish independence, but as Rowling is a passionate Unionist would they similarly be expected to keep their mouths shut if so? To what extent does this principle of unwavering fealty apply?

[Tubby Isaacs]

Not the main point here, but I'm wondering why Starmer is being pressed so hard on trans rights by the left and PR but they didn't press Corbyn on it.

Corbyn had good empathetic qualities as a leader but the party position then was to keep single sex spaces in line with the equality act. As far as I can tell, that would likely mean single sex hospital wards where possible. I'm not saying this isn't sensible, just wondering why that's not an OK position now.

[Crabcakes]

I read something quite interesting on this the other day - were it not for the films, and the excellent performances in the films by the young actors but also the top-tier actors who played the teachers, Potter wouldn’t be anywhere near the phenomenon it is. If any loyalty is owed to anyone, it should be Rowling to Warner Bros and the team they put together and not vice versa.

[Yug]

... just wondering why that's not an OK position now.

I think the answer to that is "Keith isn't the Anointed One".

[Tubby Isaacs]

Might be that, but I suppose there are times where people (off their own bat) become much more radicalised over a fairly short period of time. See also with a big chunk of Remain voters from 2017-9. (What some people attribute to Alistair Campbell and Keir Starmer).

[Philip Marlow]

I read something quite interesting on this the other day - were it not for the films, and the excellent performances in the films by the young actors but also the top-tier actors who played the teachers, Potter wouldn’t be anywhere near the phenomenon it is. If any loyalty is owed to anyone, it should be Rowling to Warner Bros and the team they put together and not vice versa.

In fairness, the books were a pretty big deal by the time movie deals were being discussed, hence Rowling having the power to insist that they didn’t just turn the whole thing into an identikit American franchise. She had an unusual amount of clout and used it well.

[RedSparrows]

Potter wouldn't be as big, perhaps, but it still had ludicrous momentum before the films appeared/became embedded

[Crabcakes]

True, the books were a big thing. But the films sustained and grew it to orders of magnitude larger.

The bottom line is, neither Radcliffe or anyone else owe Rowling anything. Being in an adaptation of her book might have started their careers, but their work has brought her astonishing riches.

[davidjay]

Not the main point here, but I'm wondering why Starmer is being pressed so hard on trans rights by the left and PR but they didn't press Corbyn on it.

Corbyn had good empathetic qualities as a leader but the party position then was to keep single sex spaces in line with the equality act. As far as I can tell, that would likely mean single sex hospital wards where possible. I'm not saying this isn't sensible, just wondering why that's not an OK position now.

Because they haven't got anything else on him.

[The Weeping Angel]

I read something quite interesting on this the other day - were it not for the films, and the excellent performances in the films by the young actors but also the top-tier actors who played the teachers, Potter wouldn’t be anywhere near the phenomenon it is. If any loyalty is owed to anyone, it should be Rowling to Warner Bros and the team they put together and not vice versa.

The books were bestsellers though.

[Philip Marlow]

Might be that, but I suppose there are times where people (off their own bat) become much more radicalised over a fairly short period of time. See also with a big chunk of Remain voters from 2017-9. (What some people attribute to Alistair Campbell and Keir Starmer).

Honestly, I’m surprised things aren’t worse.

It was a library loan, so I’d have to take the book out again for exacts dates and figures, but I was reading Fabulosa!, Paul Baker’s history of Polari, last year and in one of the later chapters he notes that over a specific few years - late seventies to sometime in the eighties I think - the percentage of respondents willing to tell the National Attitudes Survey that homosexuality was ‘always unjustifiable’ increased significantly. May have been by as much as 20% actually.

Now, it’s possible that the great British public became spontaneously more homophobic during those years, but I suspect that a combination of AIDS and a media and political class fixing on a minority group to hammer away at day after day after day after day played a significant part in moving that dial. And that, of course, provokes a response of ‘No. Not fucking having this.’ from people who are either part of that group, or minded to defend members of it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

That's a good explanation of where we are now.

But was there a "vanguard" in 2019, hassling Corbyn for his position? I didn't notice one. Yet I did notice the 2020 leadership candidates being put under pressure on trans rights. Hard to see that much had changed between in a couple of months. I wonder if Corbyn's other positions got him an easy time on this issue. I'm not criticizing anybody for that, it's what we tend to tell them to do, don't upset the applecart now, wait till after the election etc. But it's quite a striking difference.

[Tubby Isaacs]

And I think it's true of PR too. McDonnell supported PR, Corbyn never had. I assume that for Corbyn, Tony Benn was a big influence- the 1974 elections and a majority of no more than 3, with 18% Liberal voting, was all you needed to implement "Labour's radical manifesto", as he called it.

The left nearly all supports PR now, I think. So where was the pressure on Corbyn? Who (oddly) campaigned like he was running under PR, stacking up votes in college towns and inner London.

[Oboogie]

True, the books were a big thing. But the films sustained and grew it to orders of magnitude larger.

The bottom line is, neither Radcliffe or anyone else owe Rowling anything. Being in an adaptation of her book might have started their careers, but their work has brought her astonishing riches.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Sure the movie franchise vastly increased the book sales and Rowling's wealth but the films only exist because of the bestselling books.
No books = no films.
It's impossible to say how Radcliffe, Watson et al's careers might have developed without Harry Potter, but it's safe to say they would be less famous and less wealthy if Rowling had never put pen to paper.