Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Well...if Starmer hasn't done it by Friday 6:00pm it'll have to wait until next week :-p

[JAS]

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Well...if Starmer hasn't done it by Friday 6:00pm it'll have to wait until next week :-p

For the Tory Spin machine...incase you're reading...that was a joke/off the cuff remark by a member of the public totally unconnected to the Labour party.

[Duty281]

That was my point Navy, everyone gets their news from sources which are no longer impartial and if you only ever see one side, you'll think your views are centre ground.

I do try (when holding my nose) to read some of the right-wing media. Generally though, I'll take the Byline Times (and other output by their staff) over the mainstream published media, especially the dross served up the Murdoch group, Daily Fail, Telegraph...

Funny you never mention the dross served up by BBC, Channel 4, Mirror, Guardian or SKY TV.

SKY TV??? Am I missing something, has the Murdoch Empire binned Sky TV and I missed it??

Yes, almost six years ago.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-end-of-era-as-rupert-murdochs-21st-century-fox-exits-sky-11509560

[JAS]

That was my point Navy, everyone gets their news from sources which are no longer impartial and if you only ever see one side, you'll think your views are centre ground.

I do try (when holding my nose) to read some of the right-wing media. Generally though, I'll take the Byline Times (and other output by their staff) over the mainstream published media, especially the dross served up the Murdoch group, Daily Fail, Telegraph...

Funny you never mention the dross served up by BBC, Channel 4, Mirror, Guardian or SKY TV.

SKY TV??? Am I missing something, has the Murdoch Empire binned Sky TV and I missed it??

Yes, almost six years ago.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-end-of-era-as-rupert-murdochs-21st-century-fox-exits-sky-11509560

I stand corrected and cant believe I missed that.

[super_realist]

Delighted to see the SNP absolutely destroyed.

[JAS]

Delighted to see the SNP absolutely destroyed.

Yep both the Tories and the SNP have reaped what they have sown in terms of talking Love sacks, lies & corruption, infighting and having to change leaders more than once.

[JAS]

Also FPTP has been brutally exposed again as a flawed electoral system. There is a case for saying a178 majority with 35% of the vote is not right. Even more not right is reform having a million more votes than the Lib Dem’s who have 70 seats as opposed to Reforms 4…wtf!! That is our voting system though.

[super_realist]

Also FPTP has been brutally exposed again  as a flawed electoral system. There is a case for saying a178 majority with 35% of the vote is not right. Even more not right is reform having a million more votes than the Lib Dem’s who have 70 seats as opposed to Reforms 4…wtf!! That is our voting system though.

Interestingly the increase in the Labour vote has been minimal at around 1.5% , which shows that people just wanted a change rather than any real confidence in the most dull, uninspiring leader you could imagine.
For me, I don't see that Britain is going to get any better. Yesterday I got offered a job which would mean a return to UK, I'd already be paying 45-48% tax on that in Scotland with their horrifying tax bands, how much worse will it get?

[navyblueshorts]

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Maybe their first spring budget? TBH, I think it would be irresponsible of them not to raise the taxes needed to fix country's obvious problems.

I'm sure it's necessary due to some shiversomely bad COVID measures, but as discussed before, the UK is a ruinously inefficient country, so perhaps start there rather than just tax people to pour money into a black hole.

I don't disagree w/ this either, as long as that includes shutting down tax avoidance/evasion loopholes, shutting down offshore havens, taxing corporates appropriately etc.

[super_realist]

Of course, but you can't blame companies for avoiding tax when successive governments allow these loopholes to exist. Don't we all try to minimise how much tax we pay?

Also think it would be very sensible to slash corporation tax;to encourage growth instead of simply encouraging companies to leave.

[navyblueshorts]

That was my point Navy, everyone gets their news from sources which are no longer impartial and if you only ever see one side, you'll think your views are centre ground.

I do try (when holding my nose) to read some of the right-wing media. Generally though, I'll take the Byline Times (and other output by their staff) over the mainstream published media, especially the dross served up the Murdoch group, Daily Fail, Telegraph...

Funny you never mention the dross served up by BBC, Channel 4, Mirror, Guardian or SKY TV.

Oh, what a surprise! No, I didn't, primarily to wind you up. I also said "especially...", implying I take all/most of it w/ a pinch of salt and expect bias of some sort. Seriously though, I'll take the BBC/Sky over any of the right-wing print media. You lump the BBC/Sky in with ht eMirror etc simply because they have the temerity to broadcast items you don't like - unlucky, but doesn't make them biased in the way you're implying. Yes, the Guardian/Observer has a left-wing bent, but they tend to expose the neoliberal shysters more than the right wing media, so I'll take them over the latter as well. I don't regularly read the Guardian/Observer, though.

[navyblueshorts]

Of course, but you can't blame companies for avoiding tax when successive governments allow these loopholes to exist. Don't we all try to minimise how much tax we pay?

Also think it would be very sensible to slash corporation tax;to encourage growth instead of simply encouraging companies to leave.

I don't blame the corporations (much), but I never said I did. That said, I think I do blame them, because it's clear they influence the weak politicians by lobbying, donations etc etc. Yes, actually, I do blame them.

Not sure on corporation tax. The argument for what you're suggesting would be a growth one, I presume? I'm not sure I believe very much anymore that this sort of thing would lead to a trickle down effect re. better wages etc etc for those at the bottom of the ladder.

[super_realist]

Ireland has gone from a desolate economic Craggy Island wasteland to one of the highest GDP's in Europe leading to QUALITY immigration and thus higher receipts in income tax and NI.

It doesn't matter what you do really for the "bottom of the ladder" if your country is intent on importing cheap labour (as it does) and leaving millions of people unwilling to work.
In addition the benefits system seriously needs reform, like councils, NHS, education, pensions etc also do to ensure that it pays to work, not sit on benefit.

[navyblueshorts]

Ireland has gone from a desolate economic Craggy Island wasteland to one of the highest GDP's in Europe leading to QUALITY immigration and thus higher receipts in income tax and NI.

It doesn't matter what you do really for the "bottom of the ladder" if your country is intent on importing cheap labour (as it does)  and leaving millions of people unwilling to work.
In addition the benefits system seriously needs reform, like councils, NHS, education, pensions etc also do to ensure that it pays to work, not sit on benefit.

Of course, Ireland were a huge beneficiary of EU input as well, and have used their membership well, something we've just deliberately cut ourselves off from. I kind of suspect that the Good Friday Agreement, and at least a fighting chance of not being blown up and/or shot, might have helped facilitate inward investment into Ireland.

I'm also yet to be convinced that low corporation tax rates, per se, are beneficial for the majority.

[super_realist]

Well not really given that the vast majority of all terrorism during
"The Troubles " occured in Northern Ireland and even if the GFA had anything to do with it, odd it took 15-20 years to materialise.

The UK has raised its Corporation from 19 -  25%  and growth has been dreadful.
Irish corporation tax is 12.5%, half of UK, a massive gulf in GDP compared to the lowly UK and they have a better health system so isn't that a benefit to the poorest?

[navyblueshorts]

Well not really given that the vast majority of all terrorism during
"The Troubles " occured in Northern Ireland and even if the GFA had anything to do with it, odd it took 15-20 years to materialise. ¹

The UK has raised its Corporation from 19 -  25%  and growth has been dreadful.²
Irish corporation tax is 12.5%, half of UK, a massive gulf in GDP compared to the lowly UK  and they have a better health system so isn't that a benefit to the poorest?

¹ You think that investment in the Republic was strong because they weren't NI? The IRA weren't a presence in the Republic? Really?

² This should keep you happy (from the BBC today): "Despite Ms Reeves’ comments, the economy improved in the run-up to the election, growing by 0.7% between January and March, which was slightly more than initially estimated. The upward revision meant the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 group of nations in the first three months of this year." Hmm...

I agree Irish per capita GDP is impressive, but you're conflating that (and their health system) solely due to low corporation tax? Ok...

[super_realist]

Well not really given that the vast majority of all terrorism during
"The Troubles " occured in Northern Ireland and even if the GFA had anything to do with it, odd it took 15-20 years to materialise. ¹

The UK has raised its Corporation from 19 -  25%  and growth has been dreadful.²
Irish corporation tax is 12.5%, half of UK, a massive gulf in GDP compared to the lowly UK  and they have a better health system so isn't that a benefit to the poorest?

¹ You think that investment in the Republic was strong because they weren't NI? The IRA weren't a presence in the Republic? Really?

² This should keep you happy (from the BBC today): "Despite Ms Reeves’ comments, the economy improved in the run-up to the election, growing by 0.7% between January and March, which was slightly more than initially estimated. The upward revision meant the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 group of nations in the first three months of this year." Hmm...

I agree Irish per capita GDP is impressive, but you're conflating that (and their health system) solely due to low corporation tax? Ok...

The "shootings" and "blowing ups" as you mentioned for Ireland not doing so well we're largely in Northern Ireland, do you make the same claim that mainland Italy struggles financially due to the Mafia being in Sicily?

Oh wow, one month quarter of minimal, miniscule growth doesn't make a summer. Next you'll be crediting The Tories with "turning the economy around". Amazing you've never mentioned this growth before, but all of a sudden it suits your agenda.

I didn't state it was due to Corporation tax, but Ireland's economy has mushroomed ever since they did decrease corporation tax. Therefore, isn't it worth looking at? Can you name me any country that has flourished to the same degree in terms of investment by raising it?
You know I'm not one to big up the bomb slinging , knee cap smashing, potato munchers but at least they're getting investment and even if GDP per capita isn't reflected in tje same way, can high GDP compared to low GDP be a bad thing? You wouldn't want lower GDP would you?

[JAS]

Well not really given that the vast majority of all terrorism during
"The Troubles " occured in Northern Ireland and even if the GFA had anything to do with it, odd it took 15-20 years to materialise. ¹

The UK has raised its Corporation from 19 -  25%  and growth has been dreadful.²
Irish corporation tax is 12.5%, half of UK, a massive gulf in GDP compared to the lowly UK  and they have a better health system so isn't that a benefit to the poorest?

¹ You think that investment in the Republic was strong because they weren't NI? The IRA weren't a presence in the Republic? Really?

² This should keep you happy (from the BBC today): "Despite Ms Reeves’ comments, the economy improved in the run-up to the election, growing by 0.7% between January and March, which was slightly more than initially estimated. The upward revision meant the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 group of nations in the first three months of this year." Hmm...

I agree Irish per capita GDP is impressive, but you're conflating that (and their health system) solely due to low corporation tax? Ok...

The "shootings" and "blowing ups" as you mentioned for Ireland not doing so well we're largely in Northern Ireland, do you make the same claim that mainland  Italy struggles financially due to the Mafia being in Sicily?

Oh wow, one month quarter of minimal, miniscule growth doesn't make a summer. Next you'll be crediting The Tories with "turning the economy around". Amazing you've never mentioned this growth before, but all of a sudden it suits your agenda.

I didn't state it was due to Corporation tax, but Ireland's economy has mushroomed ever since they did decrease corporation tax. Therefore, isn't it worth looking at?  Can you name me any country that has flourished to the same degree in terms of investment by raising it?
You know I'm not one to big up the bomb slinging , knee cap smashing, potato munchers but at least they're getting investment and even if GDP per capita isn't reflected in tje same way, can high GDP compared to low GDP be a bad thing? You wouldn't want lower GDP would you?

The thing is when the Ireland’s and Luxembourgs slash tax rates to “attract” investment then if it is successful then it will be at the expense of other nations (e.g. here!!) Why else do you think Microsoft, oracle, iBM etc have their European operation domiciled in Ireland? Its funny how nation states within a bigger block are allowed to bridge out on their own when giving tax breaks to corporate multinationals but they all have to behave the same when it comes to labour laws and working directives. Nation states need to get some power and cooperation back and collectively tell the big multinationals, you know what? You want into the European market the corporation tax rate is 30% across the board OR ok you can have a 20% rate but to do that the minimum wage you have to pay is £20 an hour and you must contribute £xx to employee pension contributions.

In other words the balance HAS to swing back to workers not senior execs and shareholders, yes they can continue to benefit too but stop taking the piss out of ordinary workers. In a global economy you simply cannot advance that on a nation state by nation state basis, it would have to be done internationally.

[navyblueshorts]

Well not really given that the vast majority of all terrorism during
"The Troubles " occured in Northern Ireland and even if the GFA had anything to do with it, odd it took 15-20 years to materialise. ¹

The UK has raised its Corporation from 19 -  25%  and growth has been dreadful.²
Irish corporation tax is 12.5%, half of UK, a massive gulf in GDP compared to the lowly UK  and they have a better health system so isn't that a benefit to the poorest?

¹ You think that investment in the Republic was strong because they weren't NI? The IRA weren't a presence in the Republic? Really?

² This should keep you happy (from the BBC today): "Despite Ms Reeves’ comments, the economy improved in the run-up to the election, growing by 0.7% between January and March, which was slightly more than initially estimated. The upward revision meant the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 group of nations in the first three months of this year." Hmm...

I agree Irish per capita GDP is impressive, but you're conflating that (and their health system) solely due to low corporation tax? Ok...

The "shootings" and "blowing ups" as you mentioned for Ireland not doing so well we're largely in Northern Ireland, do you make the same claim that mainland  Italy struggles financially due to the Mafia being in Sicily?

Oh wow, one month quarter of minimal, miniscule growth doesn't make a summer. Next you'll be crediting The Tories with "turning the economy around". Amazing you've never mentioned this growth before, but all of a sudden it suits your agenda.

I didn't state it was due to Corporation tax, but Ireland's economy has mushroomed ever since they did decrease corporation tax. Therefore, isn't it worth looking at?  Can you name me any country that has flourished to the same degree in terms of investment by raising it?
You know I'm not one to big up the bomb slinging , knee cap smashing, potato munchers but at least they're getting investment and even if GDP per capita isn't reflected in tje same way, can high GDP compared to low GDP be a bad thing? You wouldn't want lower GDP would you?

I don't disagree it's worth looking at the effects of corporation tax and whatever else, but on that specific issue I tend to side w/ JAS and articles like that one I recently linked, above.

[McLaren]

I was back in the UK a month ago, and infrastructure wise it is the third world. The roads are an abomination and the place is filthy.

That is so unfair Super, it is unrealistic to think the Tories could have cured the ills of the previous Labour government in only 14 years.

[super_realist]

I was back in the UK a month ago, and infrastructure wise it is the third world. The roads are an abomination and the place is filthy.

That is so unfair Super, it is unrealistic to think the Tories could have cured the ills of the previous Labour government in only 14 years.

Mac, roads in Scotland are nothing to do with the Tories, it's devolved to Scotland just as health and education is, and they're terrible too.
Sometimes people just have to accept that not everything is the fault of the Tories, regardless of how much you might want to blame them.

[super_realist]

Keegan Bradley seems an underwhelming choice for US Ryder Cup Captain.

[navyblueshorts]

Keegan Bradley seems an underwhelming choice for US Ryder Cup Captain.

A bit left field, but maybe he'll bring something that's too often been missing to the US captaincy? I'm not sure recent vintage US captains (Azinger excepted, maybe) have done anything to make their players more than the sum of the parts. Europe have the latter pretty much every time - except for the Faldo iteration, that seemed to be an illustration of how not to do it.

[super_realist]

Whatever he's like, I'm sure he'll be better than a thicko like who they wanted to have it.

[McLaren]

Whatever he's like, I'm sure he'll be better than a thicko like who they wanted to have it.

Super calling someone a thicko and making a major grammatical error is quite unfortunate. Your sentence is duff because "like" should be followed by an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun. You meant to say something like "like the one they wanted to have it" or "like the person they wanted to have it."

Doubt Tiger would have made that error.

[JuliusHMarx]

I'd never make someone a Ryder Cup captain if they can't even get their first and last names in the right order.

[navyblueshorts]

Whatever he's like, I'm sure he'll be better than a thicko like who they wanted to have it.

Super calling someone a thicko and making a major grammatical error is quite unfortunate. Your sentence is duff because "like" should be followed by an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun. You meant to say something like "like the one they wanted to have it" or "like the person they wanted to have it."

Doubt Tiger would have made that error.

[super_realist]

Whatever he's like, I'm sure he'll be better than a thicko like who they wanted to have it.

Super calling someone a thicko and making a major grammatical error is quite unfortunate. Your sentence is duff because "like" should be followed by an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun. You meant to say something like "like the one they wanted to have it" or "like the person they wanted to have it."

Doubt Tiger would have made that error.

Mac, you are the king of spelling and grammatical errors, so taking a lesson from you is rather amusing.
PS. Stick your pronouns up your hoop. I can almost guarantee that you declare yours on your email signature or Linkedin profile like some good "progressive".

[McLaren]

Super

What pronouns do you use?

[Pal Joey]

Super

What pronouns do you use?

The One.

[super_realist]

Super

What pronouns do you use?

I have NEVER felt the need to declare any, why would anyone?

Just as I wouldn't declare them in a job interview, phoning my bank, booking a restaurant, setting up car insurance.

Have you ever felt such a need other than because you're a SJW and it's trendy for certain people to do so?
I'd rip up the CV of anyone who did that in a job application.

[navyblueshorts]

Enough of this. We know how this goes already. Mac didn't even reference personal pronouns, but S_R managed to get one of his bugbears out there anyway. Don't bite...

[McLaren]

Biting brightens up my day, unfortunately.

Super

It's not for your benefit that you would declare your pronouns. It helps those who may not use the pronouns you would think they would.

[Soul Requiem]

Biting brightens up my day, unfortunately.

Super

It's not for your benefit that you would declare your pronouns. It helps those who may not use the pronouns you would think they would.

Why should I or anyone else really care?

[super_realist]

Biting brightens up my day, unfortunately.

Super

It's not for your benefit that you would declare your pronouns. It helps those who may not use the pronouns you would think they would.

Mac, that it utter nonsense. I'm under no compulsion to use whatever preposterous pronouns people want me to use.
When I'm in their presence pronouns aren't used to any real extent anyway. Either your name or "you/your/you're" etc is used.
You can stick all your confected nonsense pronouns like "xe" right up your backside.

[McLaren]

Super

You talk a big game but if someone in your friend group or workplace asked for certain pronouns to be used would you actually refuse to use them?

And we are not talking "xe" or whatever nonsense you've heard on social media.

[super_realist]

Super

You talk a big game but if someone in your friend group or workplace asked for certain pronouns to be used would you actually refuse to use them?

And we are not talking "xe" or whatever nonsense you've heard on social media.

Mac, if I'm having a discussion with someone when are pronouns ever used? They aren't. Pronouns are used in a third person mostly, usually when said person is absent.
If some freak like Dylan Mulvaney is asking to be referred to as "she/her" I won't do it. Why would I?, Why would you?
He isn't female or a woman. He can identify as whatever he likes but I'm under no compulsion whatsoever to use his idiotic self identification.

[JuliusHMarx]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

[super_realist]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

Doesn't matter if you don't either,  doesn't make you a d1ck.
I can certainly see it as being more suitable for someone who genuinely has had their male parts removed (not that it makes them a woman), but I'm not going to refer to Dylan Mulvaney or Eddie Izzard as she/her
I'm not going to refer to Sam Smith for example as "they/them". either as he's a man. All this "non binary" stuff is just stupid and mostly attention seeking.

[JAS]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

Doesn't matter if you don't either,  doesn't make you a d1ck.
I can certainly see it as being more suitable for someone who genuinely has had their male parts removed (not that it makes them a woman), but I'm not going to refer to Dylan Mulvaney or Eddie Izzard as she/her
I'm not going to refer to Sam Smith for example as "they/them". either as he's a man. All this "non binary" stuff is just stupid and mostly attention seeking.

I think the western world maybe needs to focus on just binary choices for now. As the supposed leader of the free west is struggling to even cope with simple binary choices, introducing any more complexity would just send him over the edge.

[super_realist]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

Doesn't matter if you don't either,  doesn't make you a d1ck.
I can certainly see it as being more suitable for someone who genuinely has had their male parts removed (not that it makes them a woman), but I'm not going to refer to Dylan Mulvaney or Eddie Izzard as she/her
I'm not going to refer to Sam Smith for example as "they/them". either as he's a man. All this "non binary" stuff is just stupid and mostly attention seeking.

I think the western world maybe needs to focus on just binary choices for now. As the supposed leader of the free west is struggling to even cope with simple binary choices, introducing any more complexity would just send him over the edge.

It's actually insane just how much mental gymnastics is going on to excuse how bad Biden is and how unfit for office he is. He even confused Zelensky with Putin yesterday, and called Harris Vice President Trump.

Can you imagine if this was the other way around and it was Trump that was like this? He'd be out in a flash. The defence of Biden by Democrats is indefensible.

The Democrats have absolutely screwed themselves by having an even more useless, inept and unpopular person than Biden with  DEI pick Harris as VP,  they've pretty much guaranteed that Trump is going to win.

[Duty281]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

You've just deadnamed someone, Julius.

[JuliusHMarx]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

You've just deadnamed someone, Julius.

Can you google deadnamed for me and let me know what it means?

[navyblueshorts]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

Doesn't matter if you don't either,  doesn't make you a d1ck.
I can certainly see it as being more suitable for someone who genuinely has had their male parts removed (not that it makes them a woman), but I'm not going to refer to Dylan Mulvaney or Eddie Izzard as she/her
I'm not going to refer to Sam Smith for example as "they/them". either as he's a man. All this "non binary" stuff is just stupid and mostly attention seeking.

I'd quite like to be a fly on the wall if/when a colleague of yours asks to be referred to as a different gender and/or to use different personal pronouns. I'm sure (yeah, right) that you'd refuse to their face 1-to-1 and/or in a meeting in front of other colleagues. It would be interesting to see how you'd deal with a discrimination/harassment charge being levelled at you in your place of work under the Equality Act...

Why would you deliberately refuse to address someone in the way they've asked to be addressed, especially when by doing so harms no-one? You'd probably be the same if a colleague called 'David' asked everyone to refer to him by his given name and not as 'Dave' i.e. you'd continue to call them 'Dave'. What about someone who dislikes their first name, and asks everyone to address them by their middle name? Presumably, you'd refuse and continue to address them by their first name in order to look hard or to wind them up?

[JuliusHMarx]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

Doesn't matter if you don't either,  doesn't make you a d1ck.

Pretty much does if you do so deliberately.

[Duty281]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

You've just deadnamed someone, Julius.

Can you google deadnamed for me and let me know what it means?

Deadnaming is the act of referring to a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning, such as their birth name.

[super_realist]

Someone at work has recently changed from Ian to Izzy/he to she. So I call her Izzy when I talk to her and refer to her as her when she is absent. Why? Because I like her, she's a nice person, she has my respect and I'm not a total d1ck.

Doesn't matter if you don't either,  doesn't make you a d1ck.
I can certainly see it as being more suitable for someone who genuinely has had their male parts removed (not that it makes them a woman), but I'm not going to refer to Dylan Mulvaney or Eddie Izzard as she/her
I'm not going to refer to Sam Smith for example as "they/them". either as he's a man. All this "non binary" stuff is just stupid and mostly attention seeking.

I'd quite like to be a fly on the wall if/when a colleague of yours asks to be referred to as a different gender and/or to use different personal pronouns. I'm sure (yeah, right) that you'd refuse to their face 1-to-1 and/or in a meeting in front of other colleagues. It would be interesting to see how you'd deal with a discrimination/harassment charge being levelled at you in your place of work under the Equality Act...

Why would you deliberately refuse to address someone in the way they've asked to be addressed, especially when by doing so harms no-one? You'd probably be the same if a colleague called 'David' asked everyone to refer to him by his given name and not as 'Dave' i.e. you'd continue to call them 'Dave'. What about someone who dislikes their first name, and asks everyone to address them by their middle name? Presumably, you'd refuse and continue to address them by their first name in order to look hard or to wind them up?

Like I have said, when do you ever use a personal pronoun in the context of speaking to someone? You can simply use their name or "your". If some bloke wants to be called Doris, I'll use it, but I don't think they're a woman.

Given that the % of genuinely transgender people is monumentally miniscule the chances of it ever happening are vanishingly small.
"Misgendering" isn't a crime, and you cannot legally enforce that someone use a confected pronoun.

[JAS]

Super, does this help bring a different perspective?? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YNcwxrPbtvo?feature=shared

[super_realist]

A fairly silly and simplistic conflation but fairly amusing.

[super_realist]

If Biden hadn't already all bit guaranteed a Trump presidency, the moronic shooter now has.

[Sponsored content]