One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
imo Boris was a Remainer pretending to be a Leaver, while Theresa May was a Leaver pretending to be a Remainer. But then how to classify Cameron and perhaps even most at the top, who were Eurosceptic Remainers with no idealistic attachment to the European project but wanted to stay in for pragmatic reasons.
Doesn't the Cameron model apply to most Remainers?
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Thanks. Fair question. You point out that the law cannot affirmatively cover all cases of performative injustice - you cannot have an infinity of the Mackems Act 2025 - in the sense of providing a comprehensive list.
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
Certain types of discrimination is necessary for society to continue to function.
For example, an accountant needs to have educational qualifications in accounting. An employer who rejects an applicant who does not have accounting qualifications is discriminating against the educationally unqualified. Lack of educational qualifications is an "unprotected characteristic".
But, SFAICS, so is being a Tranmere supporter an unprotected characteristic, or having artificially green hair. These seem not to advance the welfare of society all that much. Your point about qualifications is clear enough of course.
All I am saying is that if the law wants to prevent discrimination is should do so generically.
Isn't the point here that you legislate to deal with actual problems not theoretical ones? Otherwise you're creating scope for rather spurious legal actions, and requiring employers (in particular) to come up with policies to address things that aren't a serious issue in the real world, rather than focussing on things that are.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
But the second part of that sentence implies that the court IS adjudicating on the meaning of the word "woman" as used in the Equality Act 2010 (and indeed that is what the judgment goes on to do). Paraphrasing that as "legal definition" loses a bit of nuance that "legal definition for the purposes of the key bit of equality legislation in the UK" does not, but that's what paraphrasing is essentially.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
This is the problem with agenda-based politics.
Self-righteous person says "I am right, it is x" Another says "I am right, it is y" Both scream abuse at each other self-righteously
What is actually said or written is irrelevant - when you are that self-righteously angry, what you *think* is true must be true. Especially when that is the exact opposite of reality.
I'm still getting a few comments on Utuub from dipshits enraged that I have made a video attacking Trump when I explicitly said on it that I have no interest in who Americans vote for or their domestic politics*
*OK, I obviously DO have an interest. But not expressing it on there. These people really are morons though. I said x when actually I said y and said that x was mistaken. I am being brainwashed by MSM propaganda whilst posting direct quotes from Musk on X as my evidence.
So it's no wonder that morons aren't reading the judgement, or placing their own facts / sanity free interpretation onto it.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
You interpreted that from critiques of Leon's posts, and you responded directly to me. I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against irrespective of their creed or colour but I am entitled to comment when Leon goes off on a rant some of which I disagree with.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Thanks. Fair question. You point out that the law cannot affirmatively cover all cases of performative injustice - you cannot have an infinity of the Mackems Act 2025 - in the sense of providing a comprehensive list.
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
Certain types of discrimination is necessary for society to continue to function.
For example, an accountant needs to have educational qualifications in accounting. An employer who rejects an applicant who does not have accounting qualifications is discriminating against the educationally unqualified. Lack of educational qualifications is an "unprotected characteristic".
But, SFAICS, so is being a Tranmere supporter an unprotected characteristic, or having artificially green hair. These seem not to advance the welfare of society all that much. Your point about qualifications is clear enough of course.
All I am saying is that if the law wants to prevent discrimination is should do so generically.
Isn't the point here that you legislate to deal with actual problems not theoretical ones? Otherwise you're creating scope for rather spurious legal actions, and requiring employers (in particular) to come up with policies to address things that aren't a serious issue in the real world, rather than focussing on things that are.
Good point, but the list of protected characteristics leads to exactly where we are with this SC judgment - massive arguments about who fits where rather than whether X has been discriminated against.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
But the second part of that sentence implies that the court IS adjudicating on the meaning of the word "woman" as used in the Equality Act 2010 (and indeed that is what the judgment goes on to do). Paraphrasing that as "legal definition" loses a bit of nuance that "legal definition for the purposes of the key bit of equality legislation in the UK" does not, but that's what paraphrasing is essentially.
It doesn't "lose a bit of nuance". It makes it sound as though the Supreme Court had overturned the 2004 Gender Recognition Act, which states that a gender recognition certificate determines gender!
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
You interpreted that from critiques of Leon's posts, and you responded directly to me. I don't believe anyone should be discriminated against irrespective of their creed or colour but I am entitled to comment when Leon goes off on a rant some of which I disagree with.
So do you think the NHS - for example - is wrong to be prioritising by race? I'm slightly confused. (Thanks for replying, btw - and if I go silent now it's because I'm just popping out to a lengthy meeting).
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
And the "belief" doesn't even have to be religious. All bases covered. What a stonking bit of law.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
I'm afraid that isn't quite right in terms of the legislation. The state of not being pregnant is not a "protected characteristic" as defined, for instance (although, as I've noted below, not having a religion is a protected characteristic simply because of how it's defined in the Act). The legislation is also explicit, in relation to disability in particular, that you can treat someone who is disabled more favourably than someone who isn't.
Paragraphs 204 to 209 on lesbians seems confused. Trans women who are attracted to other women are biologically heterosexual men. Surely the corollary of this is that biologically female lesbians in relationships with trans women have somehow become heterosexual.
This is nonsense. Does anyone seriously believe that if that relationship were to break up, the biologically female lesbian would look for a male partner?
If the Supreme Court's aim was to resolve all edge cases, they've not done a thorough job.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
Under UK law, you can have schemes to, for example, encourage more applicants from a particular ethnic group, but you can’t appoint someone because of their ethnicity or pay them differently etc. Yes, many people here are entirely relaxed about that limited ability to support minoritised groups.
Other people here think someone being born in a different country or not being white should be treated as a second class citizen. They were being quite vocal last night.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Yes it's specifically about the EA.
But whither the GRA now?
The judgment explicitly deals with reconciling the two. In very brief summary, having a gender recognition certificate gives you protections in relation to your acquired gender as set out in the GRA, but it does not make you a woman as the term is used in the Equality Act (which does, let's not forget, make gender reassignment a protected characteristic).
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
Such policies, within appropriate boundaries, are within Equalities law.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
Such policies, within appropriate boundaries, are within Equalities law.
Indeed.
Cookie is free to vote for a party that would ban them, or to go to an employment tribunal if he feels he has been discriminated against personally by such a policy stepping over the allowed boundaries.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
Get rid of them completely. They're anti-equality.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
Not possible. People discriminate for all sorts of reasons. I might not hire someone because they’re a Sunderland fan. Should that be illegal?
Thanks. Fair question. You point out that the law cannot affirmatively cover all cases of performative injustice - you cannot have an infinity of the Mackems Act 2025 - in the sense of providing a comprehensive list.
My reply is that because this is true the law should not try to do what, as you affirm, is impossible. If parliament wants the law to cover the issue of discrimination in hiring then it should outlaw it in generic terms, and describe what is the proper process to follow in all cases.
To do otherwise is to create two tier rights. Which is exactly what we have done.
Certain types of discrimination is necessary for society to continue to function.
For example, an accountant needs to have educational qualifications in accounting. An employer who rejects an applicant who does not have accounting qualifications is discriminating against the educationally unqualified. Lack of educational qualifications is an "unprotected characteristic".
But, SFAICS, so is being a Tranmere supporter an unprotected characteristic, or having artificially green hair. These seem not to advance the welfare of society all that much. Your point about qualifications is clear enough of course.
All I am saying is that if the law wants to prevent discrimination is should do so generically.
Isn't the point here that you legislate to deal with actual problems not theoretical ones? Otherwise you're creating scope for rather spurious legal actions, and requiring employers (in particular) to come up with policies to address things that aren't a serious issue in the real world, rather than focussing on things that are.
Good point, but the list of protected characteristics leads to exactly where we are with this SC judgment - massive arguments about who fits where rather than whether X has been discriminated against.
The intention of the law isn't to prevent "generic discrimination". It is to prevent "specific discrimination".
The law lists the specific things on which you can't discriminate & implicitly allows discrimination on the things that aren't listed. The law assumes that it is either OK to discriminate on the things that aren't listed, or that discrimination on those things is extremely rare and not a societal problem.
Regarding the green hair example, a hotel might not want a person with green hair to be a front desk receptionist. They are allowed to discriminate against the green-haired.
It is unlikely that Tranmere supporters face any discrimination in job interviews etc, but if this were to turn into a major societal issue, then "support for football clubs" could be added to the list of protected characteristics.
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
Get rid of them completely. They're anti-equality.
How would that work? Do you think people should be allowed to not give someone a job because they’re a woman, or not rent them somewhere because they’re Black?
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
SFAICS the judgement completely obliterates the need for GRCs "A certificated sex reading is not required to give this protection"
Or as I put it earlier "It does raise the question of what is the purpose and function of a gender recognition certificate (GRC)? If the rights of a person before a GRC are the same as a person after a GRC, then what is its function?"
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
Another straw in the wind of the vibeshift
Only for people who never understood the vibe.
An entirely reasonable and understandable judgment and doesn’t take away from woke at all.
Oh, it is. Woke is a narcissistic philosophy that you can self-identify as whatever you want, your truth is what you perceive it, and you can expect to be treated with deference accordingly. This punctures all of those bubbles.
Your boys are going to have to fall back to your Hindenburg Line.
No, your version of Woke is a straw man.
Being Woke is simply being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly around race, sex and other personal characteristics.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Yes it's specifically about the EA.
But whither the GRA now?
The judgment explicitly deals with reconciling the two. In very brief summary, having a gender recognition certificate gives you protections in relation to your acquired gender as set out in the GRA, but it does not make you a woman as the term is used in the Equality Act (which does, let's not forget, make gender reassignment a protected characteristic).
Implying there are rights and protections a transgender person with a GRC has that those without do not. What would be an example of that iyo?
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
Such policies, within appropriate boundaries, are within Equalities law.
And it can go 'contra' too, can't it. Eg you can try and get more men into nursing or teaching.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
Never heard of the judgement of Solomon?
Was the judgment of Solomon in the case ultimately that the baby be given to the actual mother? His "cut the damned thing in half" ruling was merely a pretence to flush out the imposter.
Although plenty of judgments are defeats for both sides, it must be said. Quite a lot of victories in court are pyrrhic.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
You are not allowed, under UK law, to inflate the score for a candidate from a minority group. The schemes described yesterday didn’t do that.
You can have a scheme where you encourage people from a minority group to apply to a job that they might not otherwise have applied for.
SFAICS the judgement completely obliterates the need for GRCs "A certificated sex reading is not required to give this protection"
Or as I put it earlier "It does raise the question of what is the purpose and function of a gender recognition certificate (GRC)? If the rights of a person before a GRC are the same as a person after a GRC, then what is its function?"
In my intermittent (and now long ago) tumbles with Cycle on this matter I used to make the point that the logic of the GC position demands repeal of the GRA.
"A senior Birmingham councillor has sparked a row with Labour’s biggest union backer after saying binmen don’t deserve more pay.
Leaked messages seen by The Telegraph show that Rob Pocock, a member of the council’s cabinet, complained that refuse workers were demanding pay the “job simply does not merit”."
Off topic: I had a look at Sutton Coldfield constituency, and Rob Pocock has faced Andrew Mitchell at 6 different General elections since 2001. Mitchell has won every one, the only anomaly is 2019 when a different Labour candidate stood instead.
Anyone else know of any other seats where the same 2 candidates for major parties have contested the seat so often in recent times?
Stroud went back and forward for a while but I can't think of one where the same candidate has been runner up in 6 elections out of the last 7
Bricks have failed. Wood is expensive. Build houses out of STRAW.
I built a car port last year (no planning permission, lol). Mrs DA wanted a wooden one because she saw one on some bollocks TV program and liked it. The oak beams I used to make the roof trusses were 500 QUID each.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
But that isn't what is being done. The scoring is neutral on protected characteristics.
What is being done is encouraging applications from under represented groups. We do this at the Medical School all the time, but when I am interviewing I have no knowledge of whether someone is from one of those groups.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
My interpretation of the judgment is that the Equalities Act provisions applies to women as understood at the time of drafting and you need to legislate if you want to extend protections to other groups who may need it.
Anyone who claims "victory" on this judgement is small minded and maybe somewhat vindictive.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
Such policies, within appropriate boundaries, are within Equalities law.
And it can go 'contra' too, can't it. Eg you can try and get more men into nursing or teaching.
Or indeed medicine, and I have pointed out to our appointment panels that white state school educated males are significantly under represented in our medical school intake.
Indeed we have altered certain processes to encourage applications of people like me.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Yes it's specifically about the EA.
But whither the GRA now?
The judgment explicitly deals with reconciling the two. In very brief summary, having a gender recognition certificate gives you protections in relation to your acquired gender as set out in the GRA, but it does not make you a woman as the term is used in the Equality Act (which does, let's not forget, make gender reassignment a protected characteristic).
Implying there are rights and protections a transgender person with a GRC has that those without do not. What would be an example of that iyo?
Um, if IIRC it explicitly says not.
"...Para 265, (xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC greater rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC..."
and
"...Para 265, (xvii) The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, they would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination. A certificated sex reading is not required to give them those protections..."
Given that the Court rejected the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers interpretation, it appears that a certificated sex (possession of a GRC) does not create rights.
As I keep saying (and only HYUFD has answered) "If the rights of a person before a GRC are the same as a person after a GRC, then what is its function?"
Anyone else disturbed by the concept of "protected characteristics"? Seems like the opposite of equality.
I understand the point (but Gray disagrees with you, btw), but the practicality is: which ones would you like to remove?
The issue with protected characteristics is not that there should not be protections, but the argument that the protections we have in law should be generic and universal.
The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
Get rid of them completely. They're anti-equality.
How would that work? Do you think people should be allowed to not give someone a job because they’re a woman, or not rent them somewhere because they’re Black?
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
"The French Interior Ministry says it’s in negotiations with the UK about an agreement to take back some migrants who have crossed the Channel in small boats. But it would involve the UK taking migrants from France under a family reunification scheme on a one-for-one basis."
Very much depends on the details, but it might be worth a go.
It's a bit woke isn't it? I am sure Jenrick would be more far more pragmatic and have them all towed into the mid Atlantic.
Moving them closer to the USA would surely be a breach of their human rights?
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
I don't think that's legal (as opposed to, say, making special efforts to get underrepresented groups to apply). But how these things are policed, I don't know, esp in the private sector and in SMEs. I mean, if I ran a business and I wanted to avoid certain protected characteristics in my hiring I guess I could find a way. The visible PCs anyway. More difficult for those that aren't.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
"strongly" is a bit tendentious in context. It might be strong or weak, depending ...
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
You are not allowed, under UK law, to inflate the score for a candidate from a minority group. The schemes described yesterday didn’t do that.
You can have a scheme where you encourage people from a minority group to apply to a job that they might not otherwise have applied for.
It does seem that a lot of the resentment about equality and diversity is fuelled by ignorance of the actual law as well as the promotion of inaccuracies by social media and other disinformation sources.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
Difference compared with what baseline?
Depends what you’re looking at. @Foxy mentioned medical students. We could compare who gets accepted for medical school compared to who applied for medical school. We could assess a range of factors, like exam performance, gender, school status etc. If, after controlling for confounders, we found non-white applicants had a lower acceptance rate, that would suggest a problem.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
Difference compared with what baseline?
For example Esmail and Everington made applications with identical CVs apart from the name, and found that the ethnic names were less likely to get interviewed.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
"strongly" is a bit tendentious in context. It might be strong or weak, depending ...
Sure. It would depend on the effect size and significance level (if taking a frequentist approach).
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
Difference compared with what baseline?
For example Esmail and Everington made applications with identical CVs apart from the name, and found that the ethnic names were less likely to get interviewed.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
You are not allowed, under UK law, to inflate the score for a candidate from a minority group. The schemes described yesterday didn’t do that.
You can have a scheme where you encourage people from a minority group to apply to a job that they might not otherwise have applied for.
It does seem that a lot of the resentment about equality and diversity is fuelled by ignorance of the actual law as well as the promotion of inaccuracies by social media and other disinformation sources.
Yes, some people deliberately misrepresent the situation. I wonder why they do that?
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
In Kazakhstan those are both examples of farm to table....
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You can do research looking at a wide range of factors and if you find a difference by ethnicity, when controlling for possible confounders, that strongly suggests an underrepresentation.
Difference compared with what baseline?
For example Esmail and Everington made applications with identical CVs apart from the name, and found that the ethnic names were less likely to get interviewed.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
I watched The Eagle Huntress a few years back: a documentary about a 13 year old girl taking on the male world of Kazakh hunters. With her golden eagle.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
I watched The Eagle Huntress a few years back: a documentary about a 13 year old girl taking on the male world of Kazakh hunters. With her golden eagle.
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
This one certainly would have, although it has to be admitted that by 2010 the Labour government was somewhat shambolic and a rest was needed. The maths were against it, though. Even if a couple of the minor parties could have been brought on board.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
I watched The Eagle Huntress a few years back: a documentary about a 13 year old girl taking on the male world of Kazakh hunters. With her golden eagle.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How can it be anything else? Recruitment is generally a zero sum game. Typically you have x posts to fill, and y candidates to interview where y is usually large than x. You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
You are not allowed, under UK law, to inflate the score for a candidate from a minority group. The schemes described yesterday didn’t do that.
You can have a scheme where you encourage people from a minority group to apply to a job that they might not otherwise have applied for.
It does seem that a lot of the resentment about equality and diversity is fuelled by ignorance of the actual law as well as the promotion of inaccuracies by social media and other disinformation sources.
Another issue is I suspect people are comparing the impact of equality law vs an idealised status quo, rather than one where discrimination already exists. Yes, there are issues and negatives that flow from equality law but there would be bigger issues and negatives without them.
Those stridently against any form of equality laws and protections need to be clear on whether they are content with more widespread discrimination (as would happen) or explain what other actions they suggest to remedy that. I have yet to hear either.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Yes it's specifically about the EA.
But whither the GRA now?
The judgment explicitly deals with reconciling the two. In very brief summary, having a gender recognition certificate gives you protections in relation to your acquired gender as set out in the GRA, but it does not make you a woman as the term is used in the Equality Act (which does, let's not forget, make gender reassignment a protected characteristic).
Implying there are rights and protections a transgender person with a GRC has that those without do not. What would be an example of that iyo?
Um, if IIRC it explicitly says not.
"...Para 265, (xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC greater rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC..."
and
"...Para 265, (xvii) The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, they would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination. A certificated sex reading is not required to give them those protections..."
Given that the Court rejected the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers interpretation, it appears that a certificated sex (possession of a GRC) does not create rights.
As I keep saying (and only HYUFD has answered) "If the rights of a person before a GRC are the same as a person after a GRC, then what is its function?"
Yes, I'm seeing it like you. The price of clarifying the EA is the GRA losing utility. It needs to be looked at again in the light of this ruling.
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
Even in scenarios where the third party aligns with someone congenial in government, they tend to get punished next time round- look at what happened to the German Greens. Some of your supporters will always think you jumped the wrong way, and the rest will be reminded of their inherent pointlessness. If the Conservatives are pushed into third place next time, then it's game over.
But "kingmaker" sounds so much nobler than "muggins".
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
I watched The Eagle Huntress a few years back: a documentary about a 13 year old girl taking on the male world of Kazakh hunters. With her golden eagle.
It’s really good, though hard to believe quite how they managed to marry a perfectly filmed drama to a documentary. Sometimes you just have to suspend your cynicism.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And also that the average person doesn't go around with a statistical model of the ethnic makeup of the entire country in their head, so what counts as underrepresentation is entirely subjective.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
Is it a problem that the UK misrepresents global demographics and should we see immigration as a necessary corrective?
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
Even in scenarios where the third party aligns with someone congenial in government, they tend to get punished next time round- look at what happened to the German Greens. Some of your supporters will always think you jumped the wrong way, and the rest will be reminded of their inherent pointlessness. If the Conservatives are pushed into third place next time, then it's game over.
But "kingmaker" sounds so much nobler than "muggins".
The German Greens vote was only 3% down on 2021 in February and they still won 85 seats,
The classically liberal FDP by contrast whose usual coalition partners were the CDU were down 7% on 2021 and were wiped out on seats after going into government with the centre left SPD and Greens with most of their voters going Union.
Third place for the Conservatives on seats as well as votes would be difficult to recover from but less so if they were in government with Reform. Equally if we got a Labour and LD government which introduced PR that would ironically be better for a third placed Tories than FPTP
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
Comments
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment:
"It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010"
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Self-righteous person says "I am right, it is x"
Another says "I am right, it is y"
Both scream abuse at each other self-righteously
What is actually said or written is irrelevant - when you are that self-righteously angry, what you *think* is true must be true. Especially when that is the exact opposite of reality.
I'm still getting a few comments on Utuub from dipshits enraged that I have made a video attacking Trump when I explicitly said on it that I have no interest in who Americans vote for or their domestic politics*
*OK, I obviously DO have an interest. But not expressing it on there. These people really are morons though. I said x when actually I said y and said that x was mistaken. I am being brainwashed by MSM propaganda whilst posting direct quotes from Musk on X as my evidence.
So it's no wonder that morons aren't reading the judgement, or placing their own facts / sanity free interpretation onto it.
But whither the GRA now?
This is nonsense. Does anyone seriously believe that if that relationship were to break up, the biologically female lesbian would look for a male partner?
If the Supreme Court's aim was to resolve all edge cases, they've not done a thorough job.
Other people here think someone being born in a different country or not being white should be treated as a second class citizen. They were being quite vocal last night.
🚨 Important changes to personal imports 🧀 🥩
You can no longer bring meat or dairy products from EU or EEA countries into Great Britain for personal use.
This includes beef, pork, lamb, mutton, venison and goat meat, and all dairy products like cheese, butter or yoghurt.
If you're travelling over Easter weekend, check what you can and can't bring back before you go.
https://x.com/GOVUK/status/1912460505966321843
Cookie is free to vote for a party that would ban them, or to go to an employment tribunal if he feels he has been discriminated against personally by such a policy stepping over the allowed boundaries.
Not sure if Scotty is trying to prove a broader point.
The law lists the specific things on which you can't discriminate & implicitly allows discrimination on the things that aren't listed. The law assumes that it is either OK to discriminate on the things that aren't listed, or that discrimination on those things is extremely rare and not a societal problem.
Regarding the green hair example, a hotel might not want a person with green hair to be a front desk receptionist. They are allowed to discriminate against the green-haired.
It is unlikely that Tranmere supporters face any discrimination in job interviews etc, but if this were to turn into a major societal issue, then "support for football clubs" could be added to the list of protected characteristics.
Being Woke is simply being aware of structural inequalities in society, particularly around race, sex and other personal characteristics.
Baroness Carr said the court had carefully considered Yaxley-Lennon's complaints about his treatment in prison when coming to its decision.
"He says that he cannot now watch GB News."
Although plenty of judgments are defeats for both sides, it must be said. Quite a lot of victories in court are pyrrhic.
You essentially give each of the candidates a score, then take the top x candidates from the pool of y.
If you artificially inflate the score for a candidate because they are a member of a minority group, and that score adjustment moves them from "rejected" to "hired", someone else who doesn't get that bonus added onto their score goes from "hired" to "rejected" - or in plain English, is discriminated against.
https://bsky.app/profile/cwebbonline.com/post/3lmwj4ov4hk2r
"NEW: California’s suing Trump over his reckless tariffs.
He’s abusing emergency powers meant for real crises — not slapping tariffs on allies over fake “threats.”
It’s about time. His tariff bullying is hurting California businesses, spiking prices, and dragging the economy down with him."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/ceqryqrg7djo
What could possibly go wrong after the high quality pitches we saw in the temporary US venues for the T20 WC.
You can have a scheme where you encourage people from a minority group to apply to a job that they might not otherwise have applied for.
Anyone else know of any other seats where the same 2 candidates for major parties have contested the seat so often in recent times?
Stroud went back and forward for a while but I can't think of one where the same candidate has been runner up in 6 elections out of the last 7
What is being done is encouraging applications from under represented groups. We do this at the Medical School all the time, but when I am interviewing I have no knowledge of whether someone is from one of those groups.
Anyone who claims "victory" on this judgement is small minded and maybe somewhat vindictive.
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Indeed we have altered certain processes to encourage applications of people like me.
"...Para 265, (xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and
inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers
would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic
of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC greater rights
than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act
would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to
whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons
whether they had obtained a GRC..."
and
"...Para 265, (xvii) The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we
conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with
or without a GRC. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, they
would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment,
and indirect discrimination. A certificated sex reading is not required to give them
those protections..."
Given that the Court rejected the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers interpretation, it appears that a certificated sex (possession of a GRC) does not create rights.
As I keep saying (and only HYUFD has answered) "If the rights of a person before a GRC are the same as a person after a GRC, then what is its function?"
I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/02/13/aneez-esmail-and-sam-everington-the-perils-of-researching-racial-discrimination/
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfi5JS6HTH0
The maths were against it, though. Even if a couple of the minor parties could have been brought on board.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And a happier ending!
Well worth a watch.
Those stridently against any form of equality laws and protections need to be clear on whether they are content with more widespread discrimination (as would happen) or explain what other actions they suggest to remedy that. I have yet to hear either.
But "kingmaker" sounds so much nobler than "muggins".
ref (2) piano virtuoso
The classically liberal FDP by contrast whose usual coalition partners were the CDU were down 7% on 2021 and were wiped out on seats after going into government with the centre left SPD and Greens with most of their voters going Union.
Third place for the Conservatives on seats as well as votes would be difficult to recover from but less so if they were in government with Reform. Equally if we got a Labour and LD government which introduced PR that would ironically be better for a third placed Tories than FPTP