Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Using pronouns is not a question of personal choice, it a question of biology, if an individual is a man the male pronouns should be used in all cases. The same applies for a woman but using the periphrastic she has become the norm after the political pressure caused by concerns of a male-centric society.
    Firstly: You don't mean biology, you mean genetics. There are many, many other aspects of human biology which are not controlled purely by genetics, the vast majority of which are either naturally more in line with the gender of trans people than their genetics or can be medically altered.

    Secondly: On what basis do you make this claim? The clear convention in media style guides, for instance, is to use pronouns in line with self-identified gender.

    Thirdly: Whatever your opinion, how you use language is always a personal choice: no textbook, dictionary or style guide can change that. Calling people by terms which they specifically ask you not to, especially where it is entirely avoidable, is making a personal choice to prioritise your opinions over showing respect for the person you're referring to, implying that you making a political point is worth them becoming upset, uncomfortable or traumatised. As a Catholic, plenty of people I know don't believe in divorce and re-marriage. But they don't go around calling re-married people by the surname of their ex-spouse: they either acknowledge that their opinions don't trump someone else's choices by using their new surname, or avoid the situation either by referring to them by first name if appropriate or simply using a term such as Sir or Ma'am. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, however much I feel they are totally unfounded. I'm asking that if you can't call me by my preferred pronoun, you consider taking the same approach some similarly-minded members of this House kindly have by either not using pronouns for me at all, such as by referring to me by name (or just S for short if it's more convenient), or using a gender-neutral alternative such as "they".
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Firstly: You don't mean biology, you mean genetics. There are many, many other aspects of human biology which are not controlled purely by genetics, the vast majority of which are either naturally more in line with the gender of trans people than their genetics or can be medically altered.

    Secondly: On what basis do you make this claim? The clear convention in media style guides, for instance, is to use pronouns in line with self-identified gender.

    Thirdly: Whatever your opinion, how you use language is always a personal choice: no textbook, dictionary or style guide can change that. Calling people by terms which they specifically ask you not to, especially where it is entirely avoidable, is making a personal choice to prioritise your opinions over showing respect for the person you're referring to, implying that you making a political point is worth them becoming upset, uncomfortable or traumatised. As a Catholic, plenty of people I know don't believe in divorce and re-marriage. But they don't go around calling re-married people by the surname of their ex-spouse: they either acknowledge that their opinions don't trump someone else's choices by using their new surname, or avoid the situation either by referring to them by first name if appropriate or simply using a term such as Sir or Ma'am. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, however much I feel they are totally unfounded. I'm asking that if you can't call me by my preferred pronoun, you consider taking the same approach some similarly-minded members of this House kindly have by either not using pronouns for me at all, such as by referring to me by name (or just S for short if it's more convenient), or using a gender-neutral alternative such as "they".
    No, I mean biology because genetics is a branch of biology, it is biology that determines if an individuals is male, or female, there is no alternative to those two sexes because it depends on the chromosome. I base my convention on the proven science that determines the unchangeable sex of an individuals, the style guides are based on the social construction of gender: I believe gender is identical to sex.

    Yes, my use of language is a personal choice, but there is no personal choice when deciding which term in language you want to be called. I shall try to use S but I will not use they because they is a plural pronoun which is used in a singular way by individuals who do not appreciate the English language, I am more likely to use the neutral, singular pronoun of it when referring to you, but I shall try to avoid that.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Sometimes, it's about tolerance. Something some members don't seem to be very understanding of. The vitriolic nonsense here is saddening indeed.

    It causes you no harm, nor discontent, nor discomfort to refer to someone with a pronoun they would prefer you to call them. It does not pain you, it does not make a difference at all to you.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Yes, my use of language is a personal choice, however, there is no personal choice when deciding which term in language you want to be called. I shall try to use S but I will not use they because they is a plural pronoun which is used in a singular way by individuals who do not appreciate the English language, I am more likely to use the neutral, singular pronoun of it when referring to you, but I shall try to avoid that.
    You are wrong. They is the third person plural pronoun, yes. It is also the epicene (singular, non-specific third person) pronoun. When you refer to someone, regardless of their gender and you are unaware of their gender… for example, upon reading a name which you do not recognise (often occurs with names that aren't anglicised), You would refer to them in conversation as 'them'/'they', simply because you don't know their gender. You wouldn't be referring to them in a plural context. Don't be purposefully obtuse. Certainly don't ever use it to refer to someone, it's demoralising and absolutely disgusting.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    Sometimes, it's about tolerance. Something some members don't seem to be very understanding of. The vitriolic nonsense here is saddening indeed.

    It causes you no harm, nor discontent, nor discomfort to refer to someone with a pronoun they would prefer you to call them. It does not pain you, it does not make a difference at all to you.



    You are wrong. They is the third person plural pronoun, yes. It is also the epicene (singular, non-specific third person) pronoun. When you refer to someone, regardless of their gender and you are unaware of their gender… for example, upon reading a name which you do not recognise (often occurs with names that aren't anglicised), You would refer to them in conversation as 'them'/'they', simply because you don't know their gender. You wouldn't be referring to them in a plural context. Don't be purposefully obtuse. Certainly don't ever use it to refer to someone, it's demoralising and absolutely disgusting.
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, I mean biology because genetics is a branch of biology, it is biology that determines if an individuals is male, or female, there is no alternative to those two sexes because it depends on the chromosome. I base my convention on the proven science that determines the unchangeable sex of an individuals, the style guides are based on the social construction of gender: I believe gender is identical to sex.

    Yes, my use of language is a personal choice, but there is no personal choice when deciding which term in language you want to be called. I shall try to use S but I will not use they because they is a plural pronoun which is used in a singular way by individuals who do not appreciate the English language, I am more likely to use the neutral, singular pronoun of it when referring to you, but I shall try to avoid that.
    It's a branch of biology, but not all of it. Brain structure is also biological, and there's evidence to suggest that it tends to align closely with the gender of trans gender, as are hormones, genitals and secondary sex charachteristics, all of which can be altered.

    Thanks for the effort - I do genuinely appreciate that Although I very much agree with iEthan regarding the use of 'they'/'it', and he explains it far better than I ever could!
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    It's a branch of biology, but not all of it. Brain structure is also biological, and there's evidence to suggest that it tends to align closely with the gender of trans gender, as are hormones, genitals and secondary sex charachteristics, all of which can be altered.

    Thanks for the effort - I do genuinely appreciate that Although I very much agree with iEthan regarding the use of 'they'/'it', and he explains it far better than I ever could!
    Top tip: Don't anger a linguist with transphobic rubbish on a Monday evening. You really won't get very far.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Firstly: You don't mean biology, you mean genetics. There are many, many other aspects of human biology which are not controlled purely by genetics, the vast majority of which are either naturally more in line with the gender of trans people than their genetics or can be medically altered.

    Secondly: On what basis do you make this claim? The clear convention in media style guides, for instance, is to use pronouns in line with self-identified gender.

    Thirdly: Whatever your opinion, how you use language is always a personal choice: no textbook, dictionary or style guide can change that. Calling people by terms which they specifically ask you not to, especially where it is entirely avoidable, is making a personal choice to prioritise your opinions over showing respect for the person you're referring to, implying that you making a political point is worth them becoming upset, uncomfortable or traumatised. As a Catholic, plenty of people I know don't believe in divorce and re-marriage. But they don't go around calling re-married people by the surname of their ex-spouse: they either acknowledge that their opinions don't trump someone else's choices by using their new surname, or avoid the situation either by referring to them by first name if appropriate or simply using a term such as Sir or Ma'am. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, however much I feel they are totally unfounded. I'm asking that if you can't call me by my preferred pronoun, you consider taking the same approach some similarly-minded members of this House kindly have by either not using pronouns for me at all, such as by referring to me by name (or just S for short if it's more convenient), or using a gender-neutral alternative such as "they".
    BANG BANG BANG, Saoirse is mother****ing BACK!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Had to laugh but actually i agree with most of the individual points since you've made the distinction between public and private.

    An abstain or Aye.

    Format!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    BANG BANG BANG, Saoirse is mother****ing BACK!
    PRSOM Back and here to stay
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Had to laugh but actually i agree with most of the individual points since you've made the distinction between public and private.

    An abstain or Aye.

    Format!
    Is that really enough? Even if we take it for what he, I assume, meant rather than some of the total absurdities of a literal interpretation, this Bill massively damages the lives of many for no real gain.

    Section 2 means that whenever I go out, I would be at risk of discrimination, harrasment or assault when I present my ID to prove my age. These risks would be amplified if anyone else happened to glimpse my ID. There would be a number of countries it would become unsafe or simply impossible for me to travel to. And a Nationality Lottery would be created where British transgender people would suffer these consequences, but those with passports from more accepting nations such as Ireland could avoid them. It would quite possibly also become easier for them to commit identity fraud, because they would legally be of different genders in different countries and it is likely any attempt at matching records would initially identify you as two different people.

    Sections 3 and 4 has been attempted in American states with disastrous consequences. It effectively attempts to stop transgender people spending any length of time in public, which is precisely the intention of many who propose the idea. It would mean that whenever using such facilities I would likely at first get some very, very confused looks and comments suggesting I was in the wrong place - but would also face a very heightened risk of sexual assault as an obvious women in a male-only space. Cisgender women would also find themselves sharing such private and segregated spaces with people who are very obviously men, just because they have the same chromosones. What's more, a man intent on assaulting women could simply claim he is transgender, born a woman and therefore not only entitled but legally obliged to use their facilities - in reality, this would be avoided by requireing transgender people to carry ID to use facilities, creating more discrimination and excaberating the issues of Section 2. Cisgender women could and indeed have in the States been scrutinised in quite a humiliating fashion for 'looking trans'. The entire thing is a mess.

    Section 5 is obvious and has already been debated at length - I can see the difference of opinion there and frankly it's one of the less disastrous parts of this bill, which is really saying something, but nonetheless would open many to discrimination.

    Section 6 is simply ridiculous. The Government didn't call it LGBT+ to begin with - it's what we called ourselves. You can't regulate a damn language! It's not even just saying that the Government will refer to it as such - it's simply saying what an long-standing international rights movement will be called with no mechanism as to how that'll be enforced or exactly what punishment I'd faced for saying the letter "T" after "B".

    Section 7 is if anything even more of a mess. What is a minority group for a start? Will the state stop helping fund Church repairs since only a minority of the nation now belong to the Church of England? I guess children are a minority too, so bye-bye schools. It's a nonsense clause based on a nonsense that we somehow have money pouring out of our ears courtesy of the taxpayers. I regret to inform you that me and my friends have yet to receive an offer from David Cameron for free shoe shopping, rainbow flags or glitter-throwing rituals.

    Section 8 has just outlawed a decent chunk of psychology and sociology so well done on that, I guess. Better go and burn the textbooks - who needs experts and science when you've got bigotry?

    This bill is not a considered response to the issues raised by the increase prevalence of transgender people in our society. Rather, it is a messy, flailing attempt to wave a magic wand by trying to ignore us in the hope we'll disappear. Newsflash: Some people are trans, about 1% or so, get over it. And the scary thing is that with suicide rates in the transgender community already sky-high, these provisions actually could, quite literally, make people disappear. I make no exaggeration when I say that these proposals have a cost measured in human lives: lives ruined, lives wasted, lives outright lost. But you will never, ever get rid of us all, no matter how much some people want to turn the clocks back to when we simply couldn't be visible. We're out of the closet, more of us every day, and we are not going back. If you want to make sensible changes in areas where our existence has historically been ignored and reform is now needed, I will be with you all the way. Until then, this kind of nonsense simply has to be opposed: and I hope even just as a pragmatist you will join me in doing that.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Is that really enough? Even if we take it for what he, I assume, meant rather than some of the total absurdities of a literal interpretation, this Bill massively damages the lives of many for no real gain.

    Section 2 means that whenever I go out, I would be at risk of discrimination, harrasment or assault when I present my ID to prove my age. These risks would be amplified if anyone else happened to glimpse my ID. There would be a number of countries it would become unsafe or simply impossible for me to travel to. And a Nationality Lottery would be created where British transgender people would suffer these consequences, but those with passports from more accepting nations such as Ireland could avoid them. It would quite possibly also become easier for them to commit identity fraud, because they would legally be of different genders in different countries and it is likely any attempt at matching records would initially identify you as two different people.

    Sections 3 and 4 has been attempted in American states with disastrous consequences. It effectively attempts to stop transgender people spending any length of time in public, which is precisely the intention of many who propose the idea. It would mean that whenever using such facilities I would likely at first get some very, very confused looks and comments suggesting I was in the wrong place - but would also face a very heightened risk of sexual assault as an obvious women in a male-only space. Cisgender women would also find themselves sharing such private and segregated spaces with people who are very obviously men, just because they have the same chromosones. What's more, a man intent on assaulting women could simply claim he is transgender, born a woman and therefore not only entitled but legally obliged to use their facilities - in reality, this would be avoided by requireing transgender people to carry ID to use facilities, creating more discrimination and excaberating the issues of Section 2. Cisgender women could and indeed have in the States been scrutinised in quite a humiliating fashion for 'looking trans'. The entire thing is a mess.

    Section 5 is obvious and has already been debated at length - I can see the difference of opinion there and frankly it's one of the less disastrous parts of this bill, which is really saying something, but nonetheless would open many to discrimination.

    Section 6 is simply ridiculous. The Government didn't call it LGBT+ to begin with - it's what we called ourselves. You can't regulate a damn language! It's not even just saying that the Government will refer to it as such - it's simply saying what an long-standing international rights movement will be called with no mechanism as to how that'll be enforced or exactly what punishment I'd faced for saying the letter "T" after "B".

    Section 7 is if anything even more of a mess. What is a minority group for a start? Will the state stop helping fund Church repairs since only a minority of the nation now belong to the Church of England? I guess children are a minority too, so bye-bye schools. It's a nonsense clause based on a nonsense that we somehow have money pouring out of our ears courtesy of the taxpayers. I regret to inform you that me and my friends have yet to receive an offer from David Cameron for free shoe shopping, rainbow flags or glitter-throwing rituals.

    Section 8 has just outlawed a decent chunk of psychology and sociology so well done on that, I guess. Better go and burn the textbooks - who needs experts and science when you've got bigotry?

    This bill is not a considered response to the issues raised by the increase prevalence of transgender people in our society. Rather, it is a messy, flailing attempt to wave a magic wand by trying to ignore us in the hope we'll disappear. Newsflash: Some people are trans, about 1% or so, get over it. And the scary thing is that with suicide rates in the transgender community already sky-high, these provisions actually could, quite literally, make people disappear. I make no exaggeration when I say that these proposals have a cost measured in human lives: lives ruined, lives wasted, lives outright lost. But you will never, ever get rid of us all, no matter how much some people want to turn the clocks back to when we simply couldn't be visible. We're out of the closet, more of us every day, and we are not going back. If you want to make sensible changes in areas where our existence has historically been ignored and reform is now needed, I will be with you all the way. Until then, this kind of nonsense simply has to be opposed: and I hope even just as a pragmatist you will join me in doing that.
    2) Harassment and assault are crimes, you have the legal means to deal with these. With respect, it's not the state's business to protect you if you exercise the liberty to go to such states knowingly.

    3 and 4) That's ridiculous. I manage to go out and never use a stinking public toilet, let alone those who don't go to the gym or swimming. Again, that's a criminal issue. Uncomfortable or not, there's little reason for the state to waste monthly building a third toilet (indeed it may be 4th when disabled toilets enter the equation and frankly i don't understand why you can't use them when half empty). Further, if the demand for transgender toilets is sufficient then private firms would provide those facilities for you..

    6) Fair point. Nige should limit that to the public sector.

    7) I think the intendt behind it is clear within the context of the bill however Nige will need to better define what these minority groups are.

    That's overly emotional. While it's clear this bill has a hostile intent to transgender people and indeed my first reaction was to laugh at the bill, Nige has done the right things in terms of not telling the private sector what to do or outlawing transgenderism.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    qfa
    Amendments for section 6 and 7 needed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    2) Harassment and assault are crimes, you have the legal means to deal with these. With respect, it's not the state's business to protect you if you exercise the liberty to go to such states knowingly.

    3 and 4) That's ridiculous. I manage to go out and never use a stinking public toilet, let alone those who don't go to the gym or swimming. Again, that's a criminal issue. Uncomfortable or not, there's little reason for the state to waste monthly building a third toilet (indeed it may be 4th when disabled toilets enter the equation and frankly i don't understand why you can't use them when half empty). Further, if the demand for transgender toilets is sufficient then private firms would provide those facilities for you..

    6) Fair point. Nige should limit that to the public sector.

    7) I think the intendt behind it is clear within the context of the bill however Nige will need to better define what these minority groups are.

    That's overly emotional. While it's clear this bill has a hostile intent to transgender people and indeed my first reaction was to laugh at the bill, Nige has done the right things in terms of not telling the private sector what to do or outlawing transgenderism.



    Amendments for section 6 and 7 needed.
    Yes, of course they're crimes, but that doesn't stop them happening and doesn't mean the state relinquishes its responsibility to protect its citizens. Nor is it always practicaly to take a legal approach to low-level harrassment: that doesn't mean it isn't a problem, especially for women. And regarding travel abroad, what is the point of making changes that actively put people in dangers? You wouldn't go around writing Gay or Jew on people's passports, and then blame them in they chose to go to states that are homophobic or anti-semitic. There's equally no reason to go writing Male on passports of people very obviously presenting as women or vice-versa. It doesn't help anyone at all, it just imposes your beliefs on gender at the consequence of people very much sufferring as a result. A British passport should be a key to the world, an item of power and pride: this would for us turn it into something that actively endangers us.

    I think we are interpreting 3) and 4) differently. I was thinking of public toilet as any toilet available to the public, whether it is provided by the state or a commercial operation. This is also what Wikipedia (not the best source, I know, but they're somewhat lacking) defines a public toilet as, and I was taking changing rooms as similar. If indeed it is intended to apply only to those supplied by the state then it is less problematic, although I am of course still opposed. Let councils decide how to spend their money: very few have actually chosen to do this and those that have, such as Brighton, have good reason to due to the exceptionally high proportion of transgender residents and visitors in parts of the city.

    And no, whilst it is emotional, don't even try to tell me it's "overly" so. When there's an attempted suicide rate of anything up to 48%, multiples bigger than for any other group, and a proven correlation between states passing discriminatory laws and said suicide rates, it is not over emotion to say this hostile legislation would have such an impact - it is the truth.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Is that really enough? Even if we take it for what he, I assume, meant rather than some of the total absurdities of a literal interpretation, this Bill massively damages the lives of many for no real gain.

    Section 2 means that whenever I go out, I would be at risk of discrimination, harrasment or assault when I present my ID to prove my age. These risks would be amplified if anyone else happened to glimpse my ID. There would be a number of countries it would become unsafe or simply impossible for me to travel to. And a Nationality Lottery would be created where British transgender people would suffer these consequences, but those with passports from more accepting nations such as Ireland could avoid them. It would quite possibly also become easier for them to commit identity fraud, because they would legally be of different genders in different countries and it is likely any attempt at matching records would initially identify you as two different people.

    Sections 3 and 4 has been attempted in American states with disastrous consequences. It effectively attempts to stop transgender people spending any length of time in public, which is precisely the intention of many who propose the idea. It would mean that whenever using such facilities I would likely at first get some very, very confused looks and comments suggesting I was in the wrong place - but would also face a very heightened risk of sexual assault as an obvious women in a male-only space. Cisgender women would also find themselves sharing such private and segregated spaces with people who are very obviously men, just because they have the same chromosones. What's more, a man intent on assaulting women could simply claim he is transgender, born a woman and therefore not only entitled but legally obliged to use their facilities - in reality, this would be avoided by requireing transgender people to carry ID to use facilities, creating more discrimination and excaberating the issues of Section 2. Cisgender women could and indeed have in the States been scrutinised in quite a humiliating fashion for 'looking trans'. The entire thing is a mess.

    Section 5 is obvious and has already been debated at length - I can see the difference of opinion there and frankly it's one of the less disastrous parts of this bill, which is really saying something, but nonetheless would open many to discrimination.

    Section 6 is simply ridiculous. The Government didn't call it LGBT+ to begin with - it's what we called ourselves. You can't regulate a damn language! It's not even just saying that the Government will refer to it as such - it's simply saying what an long-standing international rights movement will be called with no mechanism as to how that'll be enforced or exactly what punishment I'd faced for saying the letter "T" after "B".

    Section 7 is if anything even more of a mess. What is a minority group for a start? Will the state stop helping fund Church repairs since only a minority of the nation now belong to the Church of England? I guess children are a minority too, so bye-bye schools. It's a nonsense clause based on a nonsense that we somehow have money pouring out of our ears courtesy of the taxpayers. I regret to inform you that me and my friends have yet to receive an offer from David Cameron for free shoe shopping, rainbow flags or glitter-throwing rituals.

    Section 8 has just outlawed a decent chunk of psychology and sociology so well done on that, I guess. Better go and burn the textbooks - who needs experts and science when you've got bigotry?

    This bill is not a considered response to the issues raised by the increase prevalence of transgender people in our society. Rather, it is a messy, flailing attempt to wave a magic wand by trying to ignore us in the hope we'll disappear. Newsflash: Some people are trans, about 1% or so, get over it. And the scary thing is that with suicide rates in the transgender community already sky-high, these provisions actually could, quite literally, make people disappear. I make no exaggeration when I say that these proposals have a cost measured in human lives: lives ruined, lives wasted, lives outright lost. But you will never, ever get rid of us all, no matter how much some people want to turn the clocks back to when we simply couldn't be visible. We're out of the closet, more of us every day, and we are not going back. If you want to make sensible changes in areas where our existence has historically been ignored and reform is now needed, I will be with you all the way. Until then, this kind of nonsense simply has to be opposed: and I hope even just as a pragmatist you will join me in doing that.
    About the toilets, leave it the way it is. There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate. If Saoirse were to walk into the TSR UKIP office, provided she starts voting UKIP, she can use any toilet she chooses. Nobody uses the female toilet in the TSR UKIP office anyway, as far as I know.

    You know, there is a big move to create new toilets for transgenders - problem with that is - first of all, I think that would be discriminatory in a certain way. It would be unbelievably expensive for businesses and for the country. We'll leave it the way it is.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    :rofl:
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Unown Uzer)
    This has nothing to do with UKIP. Read my response to Saoirse above.
    Sorry, at the time it was presented as a UKIP bill due to a miscommunication between Fez and Nigel
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This bill has gone to a second reading.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 12, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.