Best Of

The points I make apply equally to gays and lesbians, particularly the latter, because the SC judgment clarified - to the extent this ever needed clarifying - that sexual orientation is based on sex not certificates. It said clearly in paragraph 206 that the concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex would be rendered meaningless otherwise.

Anyway here are my answers to the Frequently Argued (and often stupid) Points raised when this topic is discussed.

1. It is cis men who are a threat to women. Not TW.
They are one and the same: both members of the male sex.

2. No TW has ever assaulted a woman in a toilet.
Untrue. Lots of examples - here and in other countries. See Katie Dolatowski, for instance.

3. TW are not a threat to women.
Judging by the latest evidence from the MoJ a far greater proportion of TW prisoners are sexual offenders than male prisoners or female ones.

4. The SC judgment bans trans people from loos, changing rooms, sport etc.
No it doesn't. No-one is banned. They are simply asked to use the facilities for their sex or unisex ones. In sport they are required to compete in their sex category to ensure that female sport is fair.

5. Trans people have been using women's loos for ages.
This is the equivalent of saying that people have been committing murder or shoplifting for ages. It doesn't make it lawful.

6. No-one's complained.
Yeah right - a woman is going to complain to a man who is physically stronger than he and who has breached her boundaries. No - she won't. She will get the hell out of there because she knows how to risk assess even if the authorities have abandoned this concept.

7. Trans people are being denied rights.
No they aren't. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else. The right to be in a space, service or association for the opposite sex is not a human right of any kind. Demands are not rights.

8. Not everywhere has a unisex space.
Indeed not. Perhaps the last decade might have been better used to campaign for such spaces.

9. Men might not like having TW in with them.
They should learn to be inclusive and kind.

10. Men might attack TW.
Yes - male violence against violence against TW is a problem. It is not one which women are obliged to solve.

11. Everyone has a gender neutral toilet at home. What's your problem?
Good-oh: make your address public, opening hours, parking restrictions, cleaning regime etc., so anyone in the vicinity can use it.

12. Having men in women's sport is no different to having an exceptional sportsman or woman.
Someone does not understand the difference between categories separated on the basis of a relevant characteristic (age / sex / weight, for instance) and an exceptional member within that category.

Question (with apologies if this has already been discussed)

Why is Starmer refusing to instigate the removal of Andrew Windsor from the Succession? Does anyone really think it would be a bad idea? In purely political terms this seems like a clear win for Starmer and he would almost certainly even have the support of the King. But he apparently is resisting doing it. I find that surprising.

It would require an Act of Parliament that would then have to pass through every single Commonwealth Realm. It could be hijacked by republican movements or amended to, say, remove Harry from the succession as well - and then get stuck in horse-trading for years.

I can understand why the government don't want to open that particular can of worms for what is a purely theoretical problem.

Happy Halloween everyone.

Had a great time Trick or Treating with our little Eleven and Enid.

Lovely community spirit, everyone out and about was well dressed and mannered.

Now observing our traditional annual way of saying goodbye to Halloween and welcoming Christmas by watching Nightmare Before Christmas.

Pause

You have a child called "Eleven"?

There are stranger things to call a child than Eleven surely?

Is that the benchmark - not quite the strangest name we could call our child?

Should we turn that benchmark upside down?

I like the entirely non-binary nature of simply naming your kids by birth order.

We personally went binary. And obviously, taking our queue from indices, started at zero.

So, they're zero, one, one-zero, one-one, one-zero-zero and one-zero-one.

For the record, it isn't confusing at all.

variable bit length. That is confusing

We debated having a fixed length, but felt that would either be wasteful or -worse- we'd run out of address space and need to start over. There was also the question about whether we should use signed, or unsigned.

And my wife wanted to add a parity bit, so that we'd be able to catch people out who got our kids names wrong.

Why would it need to be signed? Are you going to have less than zero kids?

It's overflow you have to watch out for.

If you're calling your kids numbers, you just need to watch out they aren't irrational.

Question (with apologies if this has already been discussed)

Why is Starmer refusing to instigate the removal of Andrew Windsor from the Succession? Does anyone really think it would be a bad idea? In purely political terms this seems like a clear win for Starmer and he would almost certainly even have the support of the King. But he apparently is resisting doing it. I find that surprising.

Apparently the King is resisting it because it would require all the Commonwealth realms to follow suit.

There's a fear some of the realms would use the legislation to become republics.

The King is also worried about parliament in the future choosing who should succeed to the monarchy.

Starmer doesn't want to get into a row with the King, and both are working on the assumption that the eighth in line will never be King.