Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Like you said, traits and assumptions which are more commonly associated with with one sex or the other, and on the basis of those assumptions that’s how people are classified. Anyone who doesn’t fit within the confines of those narrowly defined ideals is immediately regarded as something which needs fixing, as opposed to questioning whether the definitions are what needs fixing.

~99% of people match these definitions. The 1% who don't (intersex) people do not need 'fixing'. They are how they are, and cannot be 'fixed' anyhow.

You are now entering the realm of changing hard scientific definitions to suit a certain World-view i.e. it is not being done due to any scientific reasons (such as a new discovery that unsurps the definitions as we know them). A crazy, dangerous game.

Annasopra

Smith152 wrote: »

You shouldn't be able to claim you are another gender until you've gone through the surgery. Don't want to go through the surgery then you don't really need to change your gender on any documentation, that is the way it should be.

Why? Why are advocating avusing human rights by forcing surgery?

Smith152

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why? Why are advocating avusing human rights by forcing surgery?

Where did I advocate forcing surgery in that post.

If they do not wish to go through the surgery they can't self ID, simple as that.

Nowhere did I advocate forcing surgery on someone.

As usual you don't actually provide a proper response to a post just more nonsense.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Like you said, traits and assumptions which are more commonly associated with with one sex or the other, and on the basis of those assumptions that’s how people are classified. Anyone who doesn’t fit within the confines of those narrowly defined ideals is immediately regarded as something which needs fixing, as opposed to questioning whether the definitions are what needs fixing.

But surely it is people who are in support of transgender ideology who are propagating these narrow confines? Why do you support this. It's insulting to assume people should behave a certain way because of their sex. I would never assume you liking knitting has any deeper significance than you liking knitting.

Biological sex is a real thing. I'm sure it does impact on our traits and personalities, but not to the degree that people can insist that x trait or y trait are literally xx traits or xy traits.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

I must have imagined medical diagnostics tools like cytogenetics or sequencing.

Diagnostic tools such as cytogenetics are only one aspect which contributes to determining sex, they’re not the only aspect. And that still doesn’t come close to refuting the point that the vast majority of people’s sex at birth is determined by physical appearance as opposed to genetic testing for the presence of any abnormalities.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

To those of you tripping over yourself to call people concerned about the erosion of sex-based not only transphobes but also homophobes, what are your thoughts on this excerpt from a BBC article from the weekend? I believe it’s been edited out but the internet is forever. And the following was not the BBC quoting somebody, it was their own writing.



Get that: a mainstream publication called it both discriminatory AND transphobic for a gay man to not want to date or sleep with a transgender man.

Not only is that homophobic but also creepy. Yes, dating and sexual relations are by their very nature discriminatory. That’s how it works. The only justification anyone has to give for not sleeping with or dating somebody is “I don’t want to”. Nobody is entitled to a further explanation.

And people who support this shit have the temerity to call other people homophobic? The brass necks on them.

At least post a link and we can verify it using archive.org or whatever.

As I've stated in the JK thread, yes, there's a niche group of people who claim that to refuse to date someone based on racial characteristics is racist or based on transgender status is transphobic etc. but those people are typically ignored by most people and don't speak for everyone they happen to share characteristics with.

You keep bringing this "transpeople are homophobic" **** up. Good luck convincing anyone who's actually grown up with homophobia and knows all too well what homophobia actually entails of that hate crap.

AndrewJRenko

Smith152 wrote: »

Probably because I fear for the future of women's sports if this issue isn't nipped in the bud in the next few years and rules aren't allowed to be implemented by sporting bodies around the world that states that only biological women are allowed to compete in women's sports at any level.

It is a significant issue for women's sport and as someone who's seen how much women's sport has moved forward over the past 20 years it would be a shame for all that good work to be eroded.

Is that a good enough reason for you?

Not really, given that we've had no such problems here in Ireland after four or five years of self ID here.

We seem to be managing things fairly well here so, you'd agree?

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Wow, looking all the way to Britain. A country we have a border with!

Yes, a border, a different legislation, a bit closer to the Wyoming problems and the Somalia problems quoted earlier in the thread. There does seem to be no stone unturned to drag up every possible extreme potential problem from everywhere in the world to scare people off basic human decency.

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

But surely it is people who are in support of transgender ideology who are propagating these narrow confines? Why do you support this. It's insulting to assume people should behave a certain way because of their sex. I would never assume you liking knitting has any deeper significance than you liking knitting.

Biological sex is a real thing. I'm sure it does impact on our traits and personalities, but not to the degree that people can insist that x trait or y trait are literally xx traits or xy traits.

I support the idea of the law treating all people equally, whether they’re a man, woman, transgender or pink with purple spots. You might not make assumptions about me on the basis that I like knitting, but it would be unrealistic to assume that anyone else would share your point of view. Not many people do in my experience.

Of course biological sex is a real thing, and if biological sex were solely determined and defined by chromosomes, then you’d absolutely have a solid point I couldn’t argue with. However, biological sex is not solely determined by chromosomes, it’s determined by a couple of different things, defined in a number of different ways. As our knowledge of human biology increases, those convenient delineations are going to keep shifting, as they have done throughout human history.

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Diagnostic tools such as cytogenetics are only one aspect which contributes to determining sex, they’re not the only aspect. And that still doesn’t come close to refuting the point that the vast majority of people’s sex at birth is determined by physical appearance as opposed to genetic testing for the presence of any abnormalities.

But you claimed we lack the tools to determine sex. We don't. We can very accurately and quickly determine biological sex.

CtevenSrowder

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not really, given that we've had no such problems here in Ireland after four or five years of self ID here.

We seem to be managing things fairly well here so, you'd agree?



Yes, a border, a different legislation, a bit closer to the Wyoming problems and the Somalia problems quoted earlier in the thread. There does seem to be no stone unturned to drag up every possible extreme potential problem from everywhere in the world to scare people off basic human decency.

Yes because wanting to prevent women being sexually assaulted and/or raped in prison by a male is so awful. God, where's my decency!

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

But you claimed we lack the tools to determine sex. We don't. We can very accurately and quickly determine biological sex.

No I did not. I was far more specific -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s true, one absolutely can not change their sex. I’ve never argued otherwise. What I have argued, is that we simply lack the tools to be able to determine with any degree of specificity a persons sex. Most of the time it’s simply nothing more than a best guess on the basis that their balls have dropped, otherwise they’re a girl.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not really, given that we've had no such problems here in Ireland after four or five years of self ID here.

We seem to be managing things fairly well here so, you'd agree?

Managing what exactly

How many people did it effect here .

And why were there a big push for or here if only it suited a tiny number people here .

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

At least post a link and we can verify it using archive.org or whatever.

As I've stated in the JK thread, yes, there's a niche group of people who claim that to refuse to date someone based on racial characteristics is racist or based on transgender status is transphobic etc. but those people are typically ignored by most people and don't speak for everyone they happen to share characteristics with.

You keep bringing this "transpeople are homophobic" **** up. Good luck convincing anyone who's actually grown up with homophobia and knows all too well what homophobia actually entails of that hate crap.

Like I said, the article has been edited but has been widely noted and recorded, what with it being the BBC and all. I’m afraid the Beeb can’t feign innocence on this.

Oh and by the way people, including yourself, have insinuated that I’m homophobic. With no evidence. Damn straight I’m going to highlight actual homophobia from transgender people that is happening. This homophobia has been documented by gay people, mostly lesbians. Do they not count?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I support the idea of the law treating all people equally, whether they’re a man, woman, transgender or pink with purple spots. You might not make assumptions about me on the basis that I like knitting, but it would be unrealistic to assume that anyone else would share your point of view. Not many people do in my experience.

Of course biological sex is a real thing, and if biological sex were solely determined and defined by chromosomes, then you’d absolutely have a solid point I couldn’t argue with. However, biological sex is not solely determined by chromosomes, it’s determined by a couple of different things, defined in a number of different ways. As our knowledge of human biology increases, those convenient delineations are going to keep shifting, as they have done throughout human history.

The convenient delineation of biological sexes into biological males and females is NOT going to shift as knowledge of biology increases. There will be a greater understanding of the precise molecular mechanisms underpinning the development of sex specific differences, and more knowledge of how disruption of these pathways can result in intersex conditions. This will do nothing to alter the actual biological reality that male humans have motile gametes and female humans have non motile gametes.

I'm not entirely certain why you seem to think it a better option to try to convince people to disregard biological facts than to hope that people could learn to disregard outdated stereotypes regarding typical male/female behaviour.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh and by the way people, including yourself, have insinuated that I’m homophobic. With no evidence. Damn straight I’m going to highlight actual homophobia from transgender people that is happening. This homophobia has been documented by gay people, mostly lesbians. Do they not count?

Using individual examples of bad behaviour by members of a community to tarnish an entire community is bigot tactics. I'll decry the actions of those individuals but I won't tar an entire community of people with their actions.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Is there a significant strength difference between lesbians and straight women that I’m not aware of?

Do lesbians have different patterns of criminality from straight women that I’m not aware of?

Remember, YOU are the one who brought up lesbians here so could you answer the above questions? Because that’s where my concerns lie primarily. Why would I therefore have wanted lesbians excluded? I’m concerned with SEX-based rights. Why would lesbians not be included?

Linking these concerns to homophobia is a sneaky, fallacious tactic. You think people are stupid, don’t you?

Are you now going to claim that there were never those who stayed in the closet because 'concerns' about lesbians in locker rooms? Seriously?
That people were not expressing concern that lesbians would 'prey' on women and girls?
Seriously??

Lordy lord.

How quickly the homophobic hate has been swept under the carpet now that we can get married.

As for if I think people are stupid - no. I think some of you are desperate for me to insult you so you can scream I'm a bully and you are a victim.

I think that some people do not understand what it is to live as a member of a minority and have the majority judge, comment, pontificate, speculate, and decide about your life. And how that majority feel they have every right to do so, and fail to recognise how utterly arrogant they are being.

Perhaps a browse through the plethora of threads on the topic of Marriage Equality might refresh some minds about what was said about homosexuals on this site - including that children needed to be 'protected from gay men because...."

What SEX based rights are you protecting by the way? Are there specific SEX based rights enshrined in Irish law that are in danger of being repealed due to the Gender Recognition Act? It's been 5 years and I haven't noticed any difference in my SEX based rights tbh. Perhaps I am too stupid to see them.

Smith152

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not really, given that we've had no such problems here in Ireland after four or five years of self ID here.

We seem to be managing things fairly well here so, you'd agree?

I wasn't simply referring to sport in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

~99% of people match these definitions. The 1% who don't (intersex) people do not need 'fixing'. They are how they are, and cannot be 'fixed' anyhow.

You are now entering the realm of changing hard scientific definitions to suit a certain World-view i.e. it is not being done due to any scientific reasons (such as a new discovery that unsurps the definitions as we know them). A crazy, dangerous game.

I’m certainly not entering the realm of changing hard scientific definitions when you’re the person making such a bold claim as ~99% of people match existing definitions. I wasn’t even referring simply to people who are referred to as intersex. I’m referring to your garden variety human. Very few actually fit within narrowly defined boundaries of how sex had previously been defined, and that’s why the definitions have been expanded, and continue to expand as new information is received. It’s only a minority of medical professionals who are of the belief that intersex individuals do not need to be fixed in order to conform to Western social standards. It was argued that this was done for scientific reasons in order to prevent cancer in later life, as well as all the other potential complications.

There were no new discoveries made in determining that what these medical professionals were at was simply unethical, a world view which wasn’t very popular among the medical and scientific community in the West, until people started speaking up for themselves and demanding that what was regarded as common wisdom, rather than having any grounds in scientific data, was simply unethical. That’s why the practice of performing surgical procedures in order that humans conform to an idealised standard are now becoming more and more regarded as unethical. Had it not been for people speaking up and demanding to be treated equally, the practice of performing unnecessary procedures on otherwise healthy people would still be regarded as standard operating procedure.

What’s crazy and dangerous is to promote wilful ignorance and ignore data that doesn’t suit your world view.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you now going to claim that there were never those who stayed in the closet because 'concerns' about lesbians in locker rooms? Seriously?
That people were not expressing concern that lesbians would 'prey' on women and girls?
Seriously??

Lordy lord.

How quickly the homophobic hate has been swept under the carpet now that we can get married.

As for if I think people are stupid - no. I think some of you are desperate for me to insult you so you can scream I'm a bully and you are a victim.

Bannasidhe, you already have insulted me. Don’t think that your sneaky hitching of my worries to homophobia a generation ago went unnoticed. If you think it did, you do indeed think people are stupid. And I’d have more respect for somebody who overtly says what they really think than those undermining tactics that you think people are too stupid to notice.

What SEX based rights are you protecting by the way? Are there specific SEX based rights enshrined in Irish law that are in danger of being repealed due to the Gender Recognition Act? It's been 5 years and I haven't noticed any difference in my SEX based rights tbh. Perhaps I am too stupid to see them.

Oh, I know. I know that Ireland handed away some of my rights five years ago. And apparently, nOtHiNg HaS hApPeNeD. Apart from a male sex offender being housed in a women’s prison and needing extra prison guards to mind that one prisoner. So reassuring for the other inmates! But LOL, silly women.

And can you say that nothing has happened? That one example above shows that’s not even true. NO male-bodied person should be held in a woman’s prison. These are among the most vulnerable women in our society. Most are in for non-violent offences.

And we all know that sexual assaults are underreported. Can you say that nothing has happened? Are we waiting for something bad that gets publicity to happen here? Personally I’d rather aim for prevention. But, awwwww, that’s not nice of me. What a meanie I am.

The UK is apparently a hotbed of, to use your bovine term, TERFdom. All I see is women who are fighting against the erosion of their sex-based rights. And thankfully they are being listened to. I can only look on in admiration. Good for them.

Stark

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How quickly the homophobic hate has been swept under the carpet now that we can get married.

Indeed, the big emergent phenomenon of the JK Rowling thread was how many new allies the LGB (sans the T) community have gained now that the game has been there has lost and there's a new group of "gender traitors" to **** on. Best thing is most of the anti-LGB arguments can be rehashed and reapplied almost verbatim!

One eyed Jack

OscarMIlde wrote: »

The convenient delineation of biological sexes into biological males and females is NOT going to shift as knowledge of biology increases. There will be a greater understanding of the precise molecular mechanisms underpinning the development of sex specific differences, and more knowledge of hos disruption of these pathways can result in intersex conditions. This will do nothing to alter the actual biological reality that male humans have motile gametes and female humans have non motile gametes.

I'm not entirely certain why you seem to think it a better option to try to convince people to disregard biological facts than to hope that people could learn to disregard outdated stereotypes regarding typical male/female behaviour.

Well you can focus on chromosomes as much as you need to. I do not share your simplistic view of biological systems and their interactions and influence on human biology, for example when you ignore the role of hormones in human development, the influence of environment and so on.

I don’t encourage anyone to ignore biology, in fact I argue quite the opposite, that which was once argued was scientific fact should always be questioned. It’s not that long ago when it was regarded as scientific fact that there was a correlation between race and intelligence (the fun field of eugenics ), and I’ve already answered as to why I don’t bother with hoping that people disregard stereotypes - I simply can’t be arsed. No amount of discussion overcomes the reality of individual people’s lived experiences (or lack thereof) which inform their prejudices. People literally have to experience these things for themselves.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

Indeed, the big emergent phenomenon of the JK Rowling thread was how many new allies the LGB (sans the T) community have gained now that the game has been there has lost and there's a new group of "gender traitors" to **** on. Best thing is most of the anti-LGB arguments can be rehashed and reapplied almost verbatim!

What game has been lost, Stark? Despite being piled on by charmers telling Rowling to suck their ladydick and whatnot (remember: the right side of history), not one of her tweets on the topic were ratioed, her agency and publisher stood by her and a good scatter of mainstream publications defended her too. Seems like she enjoyed a lot of support to me. And she has stood firm. What game did she lose, Stark?

OscarMIlde

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well you can focus on chromosomes as much as you need to. I do not share your simplistic view of biological systems and their interactions and influence on human biology, for example when you ignore the role of hormones in human development, the influence of environment and so on.

I don’t encourage anyone to ignore biology, in fact I argue quite the opposite, that which was once argued was scientific fact should always be questioned. It’s not that long ago when it was regarded as scientific fact that there was a correlation between race and intelligence (the fun field of eugenics ), and I’ve already answered as to why I don’t bother with hoping that people disregard stereotypes - I simply can’t be arsed. No amount of discussion overcomes the reality of individual people’s lived experiences (or lack thereof) which inform their prejudices. People literally have to experience these things for themselves.

When did I ignore the role of hormones in human development? When I discuss molecular underpinnings that of course involves hormones. But the fact that humans are a sexually dimorphic species is not going to change.

You constantly twist and turn your arguments to keep this nonsense going, and there seems to be no consistency to your underlying theories. At this point I'm convinced your some kind of WUM.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m certainly not entering the realm of changing hard scientific definitions when you’re the person making such a bold claim as ~99% of people match existing definitions. I wasn’t even referring simply to people who are referred to as intersex. I’m referring to your garden variety human. Very few actually fit within narrowly defined boundaries of how sex had previously been defined, and that’s why the definitions have been expanded, and continue to expand as new information is received. It’s only a minority of medical professionals who are of the belief that intersex individuals do not need to be fixed in order to conform to Western social standards. It was argued that this was done for scientific reasons in order to prevent cancer in later life, as well as all the other potential complications.

There were no new discoveries made in determining that what these medical professionals were at was simply unethical, a world view which wasn’t very popular among the medical and scientific community in the West, until people started speaking up for themselves and demanding that what was regarded as common wisdom, rather than having any grounds in scientific data, was simply unethical. That’s why the practice of performing surgical procedures in order that humans conform to an idealised standard are now becoming more and more regarded as unethical. Had it not been for people speaking up and demanding to be treated equally, the practice of performing unnecessary procedures on otherwise healthy people would still be regarded as standard operating procedure.

What’s crazy and dangerous is to promote wilful ignorance and ignore data that doesn’t suit your world view.

And as I've explained to you before, if someone discoveries something so fantastical that we need a new definition of biological male and/or female then they will go on to win the Nobel Prize and we'll have to accept these new findings. And as I said before, I won't hold my breath.

Whether you like or not, the definitions do not need changing and should not be changed to suit a political agenda such as you are suggesting.

I'd also like to see evidence for your claim that the majority of medical professions believe that intersex people need to be fixed to suit Western standards. My understanding is that engaging in any intervention is still a debatable subject.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Bannasidhe, you already have insulted me. Don’t think that your sneaky hitching of my worries to homophobia a generation ago went unnoticed. If you think it did, you do indeed think people are stupid. And I’d have more respect for somebody who overtly says what they really think than those undermining tactics that you think people are too stupid to notice.

If I have insulted you use the report button. Personal attacks are not allowed so go for it. I urge you to take action as I take a very dim view of attack the poster posts.

Interestingly, you have begun a theme of telling me that I think people are stupid. That I am sneaky, and that you do not respect me because I am not admitting what you believe I should admit because you claim I did it.

But do I think you are bullying me and insulting me and I am a ViCTIm?

Nope.

I think you are flailing around trying very hard to paint yourself as a victim and some might even believe you but not me. I recognise the tactic.

You don't believe transgender woman are 'real' women - for goodness own it. Stop trying to act like it's you and your very identity and sense of self that are being put under the spotlight and being questioned.
I would respect you a lot more if you did that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I have insulted you use the report button. Personal attacks are not allowed so go for it. I urge you to take action as I take a very dim view of attack the poster posts.

Interestingly, you have begun a theme of telling me that I think people are stupid. That I am sneaky, and that you do not respect me because I am not admitting what you believe I should admit because you claim I did it.

But do I think you are bullying me and insulting me and I am a ViCTIm?

Nope.

I think you are flailing around trying very hard to paint yourself as a victim and some might even believe you but not me. I recognise the tactic.

You don't believe transgender woman are 'real' women - for goodness own it. Stop trying to act like it's you and your very identity and sense of self that are being put under the spotlight and being questioned.
I would respect you a lot more if you did that.

You’ve neatly skirted directly attacking me whilst making insinuations. But I see you. Shows the paucity of your position, to be honest.

I do OWN it, by the way. Transgender women are transgender women. If they were women, the prefix wouldn’t be needed. Transgender women are also inescapably biological males. They cannot change that about themselves. They retain male strength that hormones barely diminish and there is no reason to believe that they shouldn’t be grouped with biological males when it comes to criminality. Unless you can tell at what point in the transition process that changes?

A male whose puberty is blocked might not have male strength but blocking puberty is deeply unethical so that’s not a good thing.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I have insulted you use the report button. Personal attacks are not allowed so go for it. I urge you to take action as I take a very dim view of attack the poster posts.

Interestingly, you have begun a theme of telling me that I think people are stupid. That I am sneaky, and that you do not respect me because I am not admitting what you believe I should admit because you claim I did it.

But do I think you are bullying me and insulting me and I am a ViCTIm?

Nope.

I think you are flailing around trying very hard to paint yourself as a victim and some might even believe you but not me. I recognise the tactic.

You don't believe transgender woman are 'real' women - for goodness own it. Stop trying to act like it's you and your very identity and sense of self that are being put under the spotlight and being questioned.
I would respect you a lot more if you did that.

They aren't 'real' women. A woman is an adult human female. This has already been pointed out to you.

Sittingpretty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If I have insulted you use the report button. Personal attacks are not allowed so go for it. I urge you to take action as I take a very dim view of attack the poster posts.

Interestingly, you have begun a theme of telling me that I think people are stupid. That I am sneaky, and that you do not respect me because I am not admitting what you believe I should admit because you claim I did it.

But do I think you are bullying me and insulting me and I am a ViCTIm?

Nope.

I think you are flailing around trying very hard to paint yourself as a victim and some might even believe you but not me. I recognise the tactic.

You don't believe transgender woman are 'real' women - for goodness own it. Stop trying to act like it's you and your very identity and sense of self that are being put under the spotlight and being questioned.
I would respect you a lot more if you did that.

If you wish to please tell me how a trans woman is a “real” woman (your words).

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I support the idea of the law treating all people equally, whether they’re a man, woman, transgender or pink with purple spots. You might not make assumptions about me on the basis that I like knitting, but it would be unrealistic to assume that anyone else would share your point of view. Not many people do in my experience.

Of course biological sex is a real thing, and if biological sex were solely determined and defined by chromosomes, then you’d absolutely have a solid point I couldn’t argue with. However, biological sex is not solely determined by chromosomes, it’s determined by a couple of different things, defined in a number of different ways. As our knowledge of human biology increases, those convenient delineations are going to keep shifting, as they have done throughout human history.

It's nice to hear from someone who has a basic understanding of the role of science and scientific concepts and scientific definitions for once.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You’ve neatly skirted directly attacking me whilst making insinuations. But I see you. Shows the paucity of your position, to be honest.

I do OWN it, by the way. Transgender women are transgender women. If they were women, the prefix wouldn’t be needed. Transgender women are also inescapably biological males. They cannot change that about themselves. They retain male strength that hormones barely diminish and there is no reason to believe that they shouldn’t be grouped with biological males when it comes to criminality. Unless you can tell at what point in the transition process that changes?

A male whose puberty is blocked might not have male strength but blocking puberty is deeply unethical so that’s not a good thing.

Good for you. Pity you had to get a dig in but at least you are owning your position.
Do you believe that transgender women should be considered women under the law? Avail of these SEX based rights that have yet to be defined but are apparently under threat.

Let's try it without a snide dig simply because it's a coming across as a bit petulant imho.