Best Of

Forgive the foray into toilet use which I know gets rather too much attention sometimes but what does 'implementing the law' look like at, say, John Lewis? They have three types, signed Men, Women, Disabled. There is no additional wording relating to transgender and no policing on the door of what people's birth sex (or disability) is as they enter whichever one they decide is right for them. What (if anything) do JL need to change as a consequence of the Supreme Court clarifying what 'sex' in the Equality Act means? Do we know?

The disabled ones are sex neutral. Those who do not identify as their sex can use them.

Problem solved. Not rocket science.

This is the worst "solution" to come out of the Trans debate. We have disabled toilets for a reason and I don't think disabled folk should be the ones who end up worst out of this.

With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?

Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.

Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.

You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.

Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.

As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.

The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.

As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.

As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).

Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?

There are also bad faith people on the other side too, @turbotubbs.

My view is that you should -as much as possible- treat people as they wish to be treated, or not demonise other groups for having different views to us. If a friend of mine wished to identify as 'they' or 'she', I would obviously accede to their wishes and would hope other people would do, irrespective of their personal beliefs, because that is common human courtesy.

All too often people on the gender critical side of the debate drop into outright rudeness. Sure, you may believe that only biological sex exists, but that doesn't give you the right to be a dick (so to speak). I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't think for a moment about ridiculing another person't belief system.

Re the header, what is the problem? If the Supreme Court judgment was as claimed, then this case will not change anything aside from the enrichment of a few lawyers.

Or is the problem that the Supreme Court judgment was not quite clear-cut?

No, the problem is that significant parts of the UK government and almost all of the Scottish government were disappointed when the SC told them what the law was because it was not as they wished it to be. So, they are dragging their feet in its implementation by, for example, pretending that they need "guidance" (they don't, it doesn't change the law) and time to "consider" the implications. This is resulting in more court cases against public authorities which are being defended on bases rejected by the SC, all at public expense. It is more than a bit irritating.

Further that the SC nearly directly said that “if you want a different law, write some different laws”.

One thing that our SC has done well, to the upset of people like the Good Law Project, is to refuse to legislate. To knit new laws and rights out of reinterpreting the law.

This is good, because otherwise you end up with the US situation, where the SC has become the third Congressional chamber - and the most powerful one.

Capture the US SC and you have decades of unelected control of Federal America.

With so much real politics going on, in both UK and US (and myriad countries inside the EU), and we’re discussing trans women, again?

Some people have a demented obsession with punishing already marginalised members of society.

Its not about that, FFS. Its about preventing men, who have had no surgery, no hormone treatment, claiming to be a woman, changing in a single sex space and allegedly asking women in that space why that aren't getting changed in front of him.

You may think it punishing trans people, but its actually about protecting the rights of half the species.

Yes but what about the ones who have had the surgery and the hormone treatment? The world is not binary and never has been. That is why athletics has for decades tested hormone levels, not cervixes. This is partly why the whole area is a mess.

As an aside, A Boy Named Mary has just lost the 4.10 race at Newcastle. It always pays to follow Cyclefree's tips in Safer Gambling Week! Boy Named Sioux runs in the 4.40.

The area is a mess because of the bad faith trans actors. There is an interesting theory about the rise of trans and social contagion.

As I understand it no cases have been brought against men who have had surgery and are actively on hormone treatment. Its always when men maskerade as women that causes issues.

As a rule lots of people who will happily disrobe in front of members of their own sex, do not like to do so in front of the opposite sex. A few months ago at my son's swimming one of the dads met a woman that he clearly knew, and for some unknown reason she came into the men's changing room for a chat. So the other six dads very carefully dried bits off, or chatted, or did anything else but drop our swimming trunks to get our tackle out. (She eventually realised).

Why should women have a man with a penis in tatty boxer shorts in their changing rooms simply because he says he is trans?

To resolve this would require some kind of card to indicate that the person has had their penis removed and has been hormornally altered to a sufficient degree. Since the GRC cannot be used for this purpose, it would require another card (a SRC?) which must be produced upon demand. Legislation to introduce this would solve a lot of problems.

Will this card have to be displayed on a lanyard?

Re the header, what is the problem? If the Supreme Court judgment was as claimed, then this case will not change anything aside from the enrichment of a few lawyers.

Or is the problem that the Supreme Court judgment was not quite clear-cut?

No, the problem is that significant parts of the UK government and almost all of the Scottish government were disappointed when the SC told them what the law was because it was not as they wished it to be. So, they are dragging their feet in its implementation by, for example, pretending that they need "guidance" (they don't, it doesn't change the law) and time to "consider" the implications. This is resulting in more court cases against public authorities which are being defended on bases rejected by the SC, all at public expense. It is more than a bit irritating.

On topic - the budget is already sinking and there is a week and a half to go. They have managed to get to an extraordinary position where whatever they unveil, the response from political wonks will be "is that it?" and the response from market wonks will be "don't like that".

And so the recriminations. I'm on record saying McSweeney will the first up against the wall, gone by the 2nd week of December as the budget fallout gets brutal.

After that? Starmer is toast. The kind of toast where you're desperately scraping it with your knife to try and save it, but knowing in your heart that you will still be able to taste the burn.

There won't be a general election before 2029, so we have to put up with this shit. So let's hope someone with some nous and some vision comes forward or we truly will be sunk.

There is a model that the government could adopt - the miracle of Manchester. This has been a 30 year turnaround so its not all on Burnham, but as the metro mayor he knows what works and how to get significant changes done effectively. Shift Gwynne aside and get him into parliament. Whilst there is still time...

It is time to shit or get off the toilet.

Do what you think needs to be done to balance the budget, or you don't deserve to be in office.

He doesn't know how. Then again, neither do the Tories. We need to drive growth to generate tax revenues. But collectively seem to think that making people have less money in their pocket - cuts and tax rises - will make that happen.

I blame the Treasury. Liz Truss was right as much as she was bonkers - she turned her guns on the Treasury. She just didn't go far enough.

Truss cut tax without cutting spending which with the size of the deficit the markets wouldn't have

I have rewatched the end of Truss over the weekend when mulling over the state of Starmer.

Fascinating to watch the winding up of the fracking debate. The minister proudly boasts about how the Conservatives had massively developed renewable energy. Because its right for Britain and puts us in a good place for the future.

Whatever happened to the Conservative Party? Even at its zenith of loopyness it was still better grounded in reality than Badenoch's mob.

One thing occurs. When Thatcher and Howe took over in 1979 there was a budget deficit and high inflation. They choose to try to squeeze inflation out of the system which eventually led to a strong upturn in the economy, although not without an awful lot of pain en route. The deficit was definitely a BAD thing and should be avoided.

Now we have been living with deficits for decades and arguably it has become normalised. In some ways its the same a the availability of cheap credit to all of us. Want that new car? Credit makes it happen. Want that new phone? Stick it on your credit card. Etc etc.

Have our politicians just come to accept that deficits don't really matter? Is that why no-one is ever serious about getting rid of them?

Deficits don't matter to current politicians because it is a problem for future politicians.

Deficits don’t matter if the economy is growing - they do when that growth stops

Or if interest rates go from 0.5% to 5%, adding an order of magnitude to the planned debt servicing cost.

On topic - the budget is already sinking and there is a week and a half to go. They have managed to get to an extraordinary position where whatever they unveil, the response from political wonks will be "is that it?" and the response from market wonks will be "don't like that".

And so the recriminations. I'm on record saying McSweeney will the first up against the wall, gone by the 2nd week of December as the budget fallout gets brutal.

After that? Starmer is toast. The kind of toast where you're desperately scraping it with your knife to try and save it, but knowing in your heart that you will still be able to taste the burn.

There won't be a general election before 2029, so we have to put up with this shit. So let's hope someone with some nous and some vision comes forward or we truly will be sunk.

There is a model that the government could adopt - the miracle of Manchester. This has been a 30 year turnaround so its not all on Burnham, but as the metro mayor he knows what works and how to get significant changes done effectively. Shift Gwynne aside and get him into parliament. Whilst there is still time...

On the subject of toast, I am someone who likes it charcoal black. I once set fire to a Novotel toaster in an effort to get it to go beyond the 'dried bread' anaemia stage (it was the third pass that did for it, as I recall).

And yes, I know burnt toast is potentially carcinogenic - I limit myself to toast once a fortnight or so.

I did see a hotel toaster set on fire, but as I recall it was because someone sent a croissant through it, so not you that time.

I recall a fellow student making cheese on toast in a toaster. I imagine this is how Sir Isaac Newton discovered gravity.

I guess he could have put the toaster on its side 😉

Don't be silly, attaching the cheese to the bread with rubber bands is the obvious solution.

If it’s a mild cheddar would anyone notice the difference ?