So presumably Sir Shifty now thinks a woman cant have a penis.
Of course a woman can have a penis.
Some of them keep them in glass jars on their bedside table.
I should probably credit Stephen King with the inspiration for that line.
Not Iain Banks?
Confession time.
Despite being (relatively) well read, I have never read any Iain Banks, whether with the "M" or otherwise.
When at University (30 years ago now, ouch), his books were probably the ones that most commonly graced my friend's bookshelves. Which is probably why I never read them.
So, great PB literati (no, not you @Leon), should I read them? And if so, what should I start with?
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
They were in court yesterday arguing that Tribunal Tweets should not be allowed to report the rest of the ET hearing. There were loads of complaints about it. If anyone is interested, the submissions made as to why justice must be seen to be done are available and worth reading.
What do they have to hide I wonder. Well the phone of the doctor was to be revealed and forensically examined and one of the witnesses to be heard was a senior NHS Fife manager.
I hope we find out who the manager in question is linked to, politically and socially. That may provide answers.
Fife Health Board's position in that Tribunal has verged on the unstateable from the offset. Surely, after today, they cannot pretend otherwise and no more public money needs to be wasted.
Very optimistic of you.
Oh I know. There have been lots of funny things going in that case. It was switched to Dundee from Edinburgh at the very last minute in an apparent attempt to defeat media interest. It has already lasted longer than it was supposed to and is down for another 10 days. It very much looks like an attempt to force the nurse to settle.
The additional 10 days is in part because of disclosure failings by NHS Fife, failings to disclose information and evidence relevant to the accusations being made against the nurse.
I know. I hope her representatives are looking carefully at the striking out provisions of rule 38 of the ET rules. Fife's case now has no prospect of success in my view.
So presumably Sir Shifty now thinks a woman cant have a penis.
Of course a woman can have a penis.
Some of them keep them in glass jars on their bedside table.
I should probably credit Stephen King with the inspiration for that line.
Not Iain Banks?
Confession time.
Despite being (relatively) well read, I have never read any Iain Banks, whether with the "M" or otherwise.
When at University (30 years ago now, ouch), his books were probably the ones that most commonly graced my friend's bookshelves. Which is probably why I never read them.
So, great PB literati (no, not you @Leon), should I read them? And if so, what should I start with?
I can only speak to Iain M Banks. By and large I found his stuff creative and worth reading, though overhyped. As the Culture books are not chronological they can be read in any order, but the ones I enjoyed the most were The Player of Games, Look to Windward, Consider Phlebas, and The Hydrogen Sonata.
The Player of Games looks fun.
Buying it now.
Good place to start - and a decent list from kle4. Excession is also good.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Yes I doubt it, take modern day humans and make them live as people did 500, 1000, 2000 years ago and they would be just as folk were back then. In fact probably worse if you transported them from cosy life now to where they couldn't get a mcDonalds delivered because folk back then didn't expect things like that
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Hitler. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao? Let's not celebrate our awesomeness too much.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Yes I doubt it, take modern day humans and make them live as people did 500, 1000, 2000 years ago and they would be just as folk were back then. In fact probably worse if you transported them from cosy life now to where they couldn't get a mcDonalds delivered because folk back then didn't expect things like that
But that's just it - we don't live as people did then.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Yes I doubt it, take modern day humans and make them live as people did 500, 1000, 2000 years ago and they would be just as folk were back then. In fact probably worse if you transported them from cosy life now to where they couldn't get a mcDonalds delivered because folk back then didn't expect things like that
But that's just it - we don't live as people did then.
Then you misunderstood my point....my point is that it is not humans that have got better, more altruistic, kinder and less cruel. It is that their circumstances have changed enough to allow them not to be like that. If the circumstances revert to what they are then those behaviours will come to the fore once more. We have not changed we are still a savage ape....just currently we are allowed not to be because we don't have to be.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Though the Hanseatic League knew more about how trade works than the current US Government.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Yes I doubt it, take modern day humans and make them live as people did 500, 1000, 2000 years ago and they would be just as folk were back then. In fact probably worse if you transported them from cosy life now to where they couldn't get a mcDonalds delivered because folk back then didn't expect things like that
But that's just it - we don't live as people did then.
Then you misunderstood my point....my point is that it is not humans that have got better, more altruistic, kinder and less cruel. It is that their circumstances have changed enough to allow them not to be like that. If the circumstances revert to what they are then those behaviours will come to the fore once more. We have not changed we are still a savage ape....just currently we are allowed not to be because we don't have to be.
We have great capacity for savagery, but can overcome it and make it less culturally acceptable over time, but also can make it more acceptable.
I feel like humans are inherently pretty decent, most people don't like hurting or upsetting others for example, but our resilience also means we can get used to terrible things pretty quickly and then terrible things can seem 'normal' and not be questioned.
"But we counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not."
He added that the legislation gives transgender people "protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender".
An important caveat which seems to have been ignored by those setting a triumphalist tone
As I pointed out this morning, I don't think that's defensible. The court was asked to pick between two mutually exclusive positions - a man can/cannot become a woman and acquire the rights of a woman in the Equality Act via a GRC - and picked the latter. This accomplishes at least the following
* The concept of transsexuality in UK jurisdictions no longer exists. A man is a man until he dies, and any actions to the contrary have no legal effect * A person after a GRC has the same rights as that same person before a GRC: it has no legally enforcable effect * The rights of a trans person now devolve to the right not to be fired and the right not to be thumped. The former can be done sotto voce and the latter can only be enforced after the fact.
Your last point is incorrect. Trans people have all the same protections against direct and indirect discrimination that every other person with a protected characteristic has. And they have the right - unlike other groups - to change their birth certificate and legally change their gender...
If "certificated sex" has no legally enforcable meaning - and today's ruling says exactly that - then changing the birth certificate has no legally enforcable meaning. Ditto for legally changing their gender.
I asked a question earlier today which only @HYUFD tried to answer. After this ruling, what rights does a person have after a GRC that they did not have before a GRC? Care to have a go? Bear in mind that a right is not a right if it is not enforcable in a court.
I will answer that question when I have carefully considered the judgment.
I have just been told that my BP is 97 over 55. So if you don't hear from me that may be the reason. The nurse said that was rather low and I replied: " Well I am still alive." She laughed.
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Yes I doubt it, take modern day humans and make them live as people did 500, 1000, 2000 years ago and they would be just as folk were back then. In fact probably worse if you transported them from cosy life now to where they couldn't get a mcDonalds delivered because folk back then didn't expect things like that
Sadly the old "Living in the Past" series was removed from the iPlayer.
---
Living in the Past was a 1978 BBC fly on the wall documentary programme. It followed a group of fifteen volunteers, six couples and three children, recreating a British Iron Age settlement, where they sustained themselves for a year, equipped only with the tools, crops and livestock that would have been available at that time.
The series is considered a precursor to modern reality television.
---
(I'd put "Year of the Sex Olympics" ahead of it - but whatevs)
Do not ever mess with angry women who know their stuff. And we do. We really do.
I see that Harriet Harman has already started misconstruing what the judgment says and means, just like people did with Forstater. Well, I and others will have something to say about that and we're not going to let her and others get away with yet more lies about what the law says.
Meanwhile I'm having blood tests for my heart. And some sort of heart scan will be needed. To find out if there is some sort of heart failure. Well, I'd bloody well like to know that too - and preferably before I die of boredom - or it - waiting to be told. Am on limited fluid intake so I have to pee in a blasted bedpan. Still waiting for the breast surgeons to see me and tell me that I have cancer or some other nastiness which seems to have shown up on the CT scan in my lymph nodes and which is what the doctors have been going on about since Sunday night and it is now Wednesday evening. Meanwhile I'm running out of knickers.
But apart from that it's all absolutely fucking peachy .......
Hope you get the all clear @Cyclefree, and yes completely agree with this sentiment. Congratulations to all the women who fought for this and won against all odds. A unanimous decision from the supreme court is an astonishing vindication for them and at some level this ruling changes my view of staying in the UK long term as the father of a daughter. The thought of boys invading girls facilities and sports in schools was playing on my mind a lot.
It's time for the government to get clear with all departments, sports and businesses to clear out all of the nonsense. Women's spaces should once again be reserved for actual women, not men who play dress up so they can perve on girls and women.
Society becomes more understanding with time, and progressive causes that seem a bit odd at first often end up becoming a normal part of life, but trans-ing kids, and letting men compete in women sports always was, and always will be complete lunacy
It doesn't really become more understanding. Modern society still has its Puritans, they just enforce a different moral code. People are people. We have not changed and we never shall.
Clearly not true unless you are suggesting evolution is nonsense and our species was created on the sixth day.
And can anyone doubt that the human species overall is more altruistic and less cruel than it was 500, 1000, 2000 years ago?
Yes I doubt it, take modern day humans and make them live as people did 500, 1000, 2000 years ago and they would be just as folk were back then. In fact probably worse if you transported them from cosy life now to where they couldn't get a mcDonalds delivered because folk back then didn't expect things like that
But that's just it - we don't live as people did then.
Then you misunderstood my point....my point is that it is not humans that have got better, more altruistic, kinder and less cruel. It is that their circumstances have changed enough to allow them not to be like that. If the circumstances revert to what they are then those behaviours will come to the fore once more. We have not changed we are still a savage ape....just currently we are allowed not to be because we don't have to be.
We have great capacity for savagery, but can overcome it and make it less culturally acceptable over time, but also can make it more acceptable.
I feel like humans are inherently pretty decent, most people don't like hurting or upsetting others for example, but our resilience also means we can get used to terrible things pretty quickly and then terrible things can seem 'normal' and not be questioned.
Which is precisely the point I was trying to make....humans haven't got better we will still be savage when its necessary just our conditions allow the better side to prevail. Take people from 500 years ago and transport them to now I am pretty sure they would be exhibit more of the good side of human nature after they adjusted than they did back then. I do not believe humans have changed, merely are circumstances
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
A reminder that the debate can touch peoples lives. FWIW I am not ‘happy’ to call anyone mentally ill. The idea of trans is outside of my mental capacity. I cannot conceive of what it must be like. I merely question whether it ought to be regarded as a mental condition.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
Plenty of non-deluded people would say that we do have souls that are linked-but-separate to bodies. Pretty much anyone with religious faith, for example.
And, for a small (very small) number of people, body and soul seem to be out of synch. And for a small (very small) number of people, genetics don't sit neatly as XX or XY, or don't maifest in body shape in the way we might expect. And given the track record of what society has labelled as mental illness in the past, we should be careful about when we do use that category.
And it leaves the big question unanswered; if society isn't going to define trans out of existence, somehow all of us need to find a way to live together. Law probably isn't the tool to do that, the approach the Scottish Government took probably isn't either, and I'm pretty sure we're no nearer an answer to that question now than we were yesterday.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Are you accepting that some are, then? And if some are, why not all?
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
I don't think trans people are mentally ill, and having qualms is understandable when rights and protections are hard won and easily taken away, but I also don't see that the court's decision was unreasonable in interpreting the law as written rather than what some wished it would have been instead. Being alive to the possibility there may be a push for rollback of societal acceptance of the last few decades seems reasonable, but I don't think that's a given merely because of a decision like this.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
Plenty of non-deluded people would say that we do have souls that are linked-but-separate to bodies. Pretty much anyone with religious faith, for example.
And, for a small (very small) number of people, body and soul seem to be out of synch. And for a small (very small) number of people, genetics don't sit neatly as XX or XY, or don't maifest in body shape in the way we might expect. And given the track record of what society has labelled as mental illness in the past, we should be careful about when we do use that category.
And it leaves the big question unanswered; if society isn't going to define trans out of existence, somehow all of us need to find a way to live together. Law probably isn't the tool to do that, the approach the Scottish Government took probably isn't either, and I'm pretty sure we're no nearer an answer to that question now than we were yesterday.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I have been busy all day so haven't had time to read the full judgement.
I don't have issues with restricting Trans-athletes if a sports governing body believes it appropriate, nor for certain spaces to be segregated by sex if that is proportional.
What I do want is for Trans-people to be socially accepted in their identity, and supported to live full lives. Most importantly I want them to be treated with compassion and respect.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Are you accepting that some are, then? And if some are, why not all?
While not taking sides in this argument I am curious
You have three people
1) I am the reincarnated napolean 2) I am a carrot born in a human body 3) I am a woman/man born in a body of the opposite sex
define which are mentally ill or not and describe why some are and some are not. Genuinely curious about the differences and not suggesting any of them are mentally ill
Also believing you are too fat when you weigh 5 stone
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I have been busy all day so haven't had time to read the full judgement.
I don't have issues with restricting Trans-athletes if a sports governing body believes it appropriate, nor for certain spaces to be segregated by sex if that is proportional.
What I do want is for Trans-people to be socially accepted in their identity, and supported to live full lives. Most importantly I want them to be treated with compassion and respect.
Can anyone reasonably argue with that? The last line should be the default for everybody.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I have been busy all day so haven't had time to read the full judgement.
I don't have issues with restricting Trans-athletes if a sports governing body believes it appropriate, nor for certain spaces to be segregated by sex if that is proportional.
What I do want is for Trans-people to be socially accepted in their identity, and supported to live full lives. Most importantly I want them to be treated with compassion and respect.
Can anyone reasonably argue with that? The last line should be the default for everybody.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Are you accepting that some are, then? And if some are, why not all?
Some trans people are mentally ill. Mental illness is common throughout the human race, particularly so when people are stigmatised and prevented from being their authentic selves.
I know two trans people fairly well and I don't think either is mentally ill.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I have been busy all day so haven't had time to read the full judgement.
I don't have issues with restricting Trans-athletes if a sports governing body believes it appropriate, nor for certain spaces to be segregated by sex if that is proportional.
What I do want is for Trans-people to be socially accepted in their identity, and supported to live full lives. Most importantly I want them to be treated with compassion and respect.
Can anyone reasonably argue with that? The last line should be the default for everybody.
For some it isn't, but there's also argument over what compassion and respect mean in practical terms, and the role of the law, if any, in some of those practical matters.
The argument arises from the notion that "gender is a social construct," and that this is an interesting and meaningful statement. It's largely an internal argument, feminism eating itself.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Believing x to be y in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary - well, I can't see it any other way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat trans people with compassion, just as we should treat anorexics who think they're fat when they're clearly not with compassion. But those men who think they're *really* women? They aren't. (I'm putting aside the statistically tiny Caster Semenya examples for now.)
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I have been busy all day so haven't had time to read the full judgement.
I don't have issues with restricting Trans-athletes if a sports governing body believes it appropriate, nor for certain spaces to be segregated by sex if that is proportional.
What I do want is for Trans-people to be socially accepted in their identity, and supported to live full lives. Most importantly I want them to be treated with compassion and respect.
I don't personally see a problem with socially accepting them as they see themselves, calling them by their chosen pronouns and names. Indeed I have trans friends and never had any complain that I am transphobic.
However I can also understand why a woman that has been raped or a victim of domestic abuse would be uncomfortable being in a therapy group or refuge that contains someone that they can see is of the male sex even if they have a female gender and think they should be able to choose to not be in that situation.
Sadly trans activists have in many cases tried to force them to have no choice other than not to partake in a therapy group or goto a refuge that accepts trans people on the gender they claim.
I feel for both sides, many of those trans people will be legitimate but even if so I can still see why a women who has been for example raped might still be uncomfortable opening up in therapy in front of someone even if they have a grc
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Believing x to be y in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary - well, I can't see it any other way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat trans people with compassion, just as we should treat anorexics who think they're fat when they're clearly not with compassion. But those men who think they're *really* women? They aren't. (I'm putting aside the statistically tiny Caster Semenya examples for now.)
A fixed belief is not a delusion if it is socially accepted. Religious belief, astrology, even believing the moon landings were fake are not delusions as each of these is supported by a significant minority of people.
We have no windows into other people's souls, nor can we ever do so. As such can we ever say that someone's gender is always aligned with biological sex? Of course not.
So we can only take their word for it, and if they are more comfortable living an aligned gender role than suffering internal dissonance, then why shouldn't they?
I fully support Trans people to live full lives, restricted only by law where those restrictions are proportionate to a legitimate goal under the equality act.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
You are very strange just saying
It's 23:30 on a Wednesday night, I'm working on a review of a book read by about seven people, and I'm commenting on a political betting site about whether people have souls. I think the strangeness is baked in at this point, tbh
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
You are very strange just saying
It's 23:30 on a Wednesday night, I'm working on a review of a book read by about seven people, and I'm commenting on a political betting site about whether people have souls. I think the strangeness is baked in at this point, tbh
I define those things as normal...what you posted is far far stranger
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
What did you think the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords did?
The legal question in the decision today is one which has a lot of political interest, but the bare bones of what was actually being decided don't appear to be outwith the normal functions of a court of last resort - it doesn't seem to be trying to make momentous political decisions, it was addressing a dispute over legal interpretation of existing law, and politicians can make law to affect a different approach if they want.
So what's the issue and, more pressingly, what about there being a Supreme Court of the UK made a difference? It's not like our SC is the same as the american one in terms of authority (well, other than to Trump) and reach - something a lot of people in the UK sometimes forget.
I think there's diminishing returns on stunts and attention grabbing gimmicks, particularly since 2024 was probably a high water mark for the LDs in terms of seats, but for now I think it is still working.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Judges have set precedents and created law from whole cloth: the law on consumer rights started with snails in a bottle of ginger beer, and contract law was affected by snails eating a letter in a postbox. Even today's ruling on trans rights had a precedent many years ago, when a judge ruled that people could not bet on whether the Chevalier D'Eon was a man or a woman, thus bifurcating "betting" and "insurance"[1]. In the US the obvious ones in recent years are Roe vs Wade (which enabled abortion nationwide) and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (which overturned it). Judges do this stuff all the time and have done for many centuries.
[1] It used to be, before the Noughties Blair reforms, that you could not insure a person's life unless you had "insurable interest"
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Are you accepting that some are, then? And if some are, why not all?
Some trans people are mentally ill. Mental illness is common throughout the human race, particularly so when people are stigmatised and prevented from being their authentic selves.
I know two trans people fairly well and I don't think either is mentally ill.
Here's a person. And over here's the authentic self they would be if only blah blah. That is simply gobbledegook, similar to "finding out who you really are", and it's been put out for about 70 years max, in one small part of the world, for money. Nobody serious gives it any time. Of course a geezer who thinks he's a woman is mentally ill. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to compassion. He is, as much as anyone else. But I'm f***ed if I'm going to play along with his batshittery. If you think transsexuals aren't mental, you're not qualified to judge who's mental and who isn't.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Are you accepting that some are, then? And if some are, why not all?
Some trans people are mentally ill. Mental illness is common throughout the human race, particularly so when people are stigmatised and prevented from being their authentic selves.
I know two trans people fairly well and I don't think either is mentally ill.
Here's a person. And over here's the authentic self they would be if only blah blah. That is simply gobbledegook, similar to "finding out who you really are", and it's been put out for about 70 years max, in one small part of the world, for money. Nobody serious gives it any time. Of course a geezer who thinks he's a woman is mentally ill. That doesn't mean he's not entitled to compassion. He is, as much as anyone else. But I'm f***ed if I'm going to play along with his batshittery. If you think transsexuals aren't mental, you're not qualified to judge who's mental and who isn't.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
I think that's partly why they might like to make requirements for vague 'duties', since you don't have to draft precise detail, but that can lead to things getting away from initial intention.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
Only recently.
It used to be our laws were “you will do X” or “you must not do Y”.
Now they are “it would be lovely if the government did Z and everyone sang kum-bi-ya”
Markets now guessing special guest at White House press conference (timed at close of trading hours in an hour) will be announcement of US trade deal of some sort with Japan… if it is, and it sets precedent that the 10% tariff can be negotiated away, that could be material
It's disappointing that Faisal is spreading these wild, unsubstantiatiated rumours.
The press briefing was called by the press secretary Karoline Leavitt. A low-level appartchik like her would not announce something as major as a trade deal with Japan. Something as big as a trade deal would be announced by Trump himself. (The briefing was actually about El Salvador.)
Also, the tariff rate on Japan is 24%, which will kick in after July. It is only 10% currently on a "temporary" basis and the focus of Trump's negotiations are to avoid a return of the higher "liberation day" tariffs. Faisal is incorrectly implying that Trump is open to negotiations on the 10% tariffs & will easily concede them away.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
But does it answer?
At times of crisis, "I" call a meeting of all my personalities, and let's just say it can get quite heated. "I" remember one meeting in particular at which one personality threatened to kill another. The other one was quite wan from then on, which was what the first one wanted. When I say "all" my personalities, sometimes the theme of the meeting is the trouble that's been caused by one of them and whether or not the troublemaker should be expelled.
On a serious note: by far the coolest idea of the subconscious or unconscious - the same thing regarded from two only very slightly different angles - is that it's a separate personality.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
Only recently.
It used to be our laws were “you will do X” or “you must not do Y”.
Now they are “it would be lovely if the government did Z and everyone sang kum-bi-ya”
Yet still the authorities have managed to expand the prison population enormously, despite all the laws nowadays being written by virtue-signalling compassionate pinkos.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
But does it answer?
At times of crisis, "I" call a meeting of all my personalities, and let's just say it can get quite heated. "I" remember one meeting in particular at which one personality threatened to kill another. The other one was quite wan from then on, which was what the first one wanted. When I say "all" my personalities, sometimes the theme of the meeting is the trouble that's been caused by one of them and whether or not the troublemaker should be expelled.
On a serious note: by far the coolest idea of the subconscious or unconscious - the same thing regarded from two only very slightly different angles - is that it's a separate personality.
Sorry for double-posting, but are you familiar with the concept of a tulpa, @viewcode ? If not, you may be interested...
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Noone is denying that trans people are human beings. But a man who thinks he is really a woman is mentally ill. Because unless you believe there us a real, ohysically undetected 'you' inside you - a 'soul' - and that soul can have a sex - and that sex can, but rarely is, differemt from your biological sex - he isn't.
You don't believe in souls? Who do you talk to when you are talking to yourself?
I don't understand the question. Is that a common idea of the soul, as I don't ever recall coming across that as an argument in favour of its existence.
I was trying to present the idea that there is a you inside you that has an internal voice, a personality, an ability to make decisions, and that you are more that the parts of your body. If somebody built an exact copy of your body in every detail, would it be you? If not, what differentiates it from you?
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
But does it answer?
At times of crisis, "I" call a meeting of all my personalities, and let's just say it can get quite heated. "I" remember one meeting in particular at which one personality threatened to kill another. The other one was quite wan from then on, which was what the first one wanted. When I say "all" my personalities, sometimes the theme of the meeting is the trouble that's been caused by one of them and whether or not the troublemaker should be expelled.
On a serious note: by far the coolest idea of the subconscious or unconscious - the same thing regarded from two only very slightly different angles - is that it's a separate personality.
Sorry for double-posting, but are you familiar with the concept of a tulpa, @viewcode ? If not, you may be interested...
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
Only recently.
It used to be our laws were “you will do X” or “you must not do Y”.
Now they are “it would be lovely if the government did Z and everyone sang kum-bi-ya”
Yet still the authorities have managed to expand the prison population enormously, despite all the laws nowadays being written by virtue-signalling compassionate pinkos.
"Trump’s epic quest to save the world is going disastrously wrong The US president is squandering his many victories with his catastrophic errors on trade and Ukraine Allister Heath" (£)
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
Only recently.
It used to be our laws were “you will do X” or “you must not do Y”.
Now they are “it would be lovely if the government did Z and everyone sang kum-bi-ya”
It's performative legislating rather than legislating for good governance.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
"Trump’s epic quest to save the world is going disastrously wrong The US president is squandering his many victories with his catastrophic errors on trade and Ukraine Allister Heath" (£)
"Trump’s epic quest to save the world is going disastrously wrong The US president is squandering his many victories with his catastrophic errors on trade and Ukraine Allister Heath" (£)
Well he and his cronies do appear to have been able in a very short amount of time to amass a spectacular amount of personal wealth in nakedly corrupt ways: crypto memes, insider trading etc.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
"Trump’s epic quest to save the world is going disastrously wrong The US president is squandering his many victories with his catastrophic errors on trade and Ukraine Allister Heath" (£)
Well he and his cronies do appear to have been able in a very short amount of time to amass a spectacular amount of personal wealth in nakedly corrupt ways: crypto memes, insider trading etc.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
On trans people being 'mentally ill', as discussed below:
Just a few short decades ago, being homosexual was seen by wider society as being a mental illness. In the US, i was officially classed as such in the DSM until as late as 1987. Th WHO removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1990.
This belief that it was an 'illness' led to homosexual people being treated, often against their will, in some fairly barbaric ways. In some places, homosexuality is *still* being treated as an illness that has to be 'cured'.
Most of us - and hopefully all of us on here - no longer see homosexuality as a mental illness. Having known some trans people, and having had some as friends, I do no see being trans as a mental illness either.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because parliament passed two laws. Activists then tried to use a perceived inconsistency to force their agenda on people (vs the alternative of winning an election). The judges said “hold on, you can’t do that”
Politicians also have an irritating habit of passing laws that contradict each other.
…And that are at right angles to reality, as well.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I think we need to be much more tolerant of difference and the modern tendency to give a diagnosis to any difference and to medicalise it is generally unhelpful. Trans people that I have come across have a clear and distinct sense of self. I think that we all do. The difference is that their sense of self is not consistent with their biological reality and this often makes them unhappy. They try to bring their physical reality into accord with that sense of self either by surgery or medication. That needs compassion, consideration and support but it doesn't make them mentally ill.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
Yes, up to a point, and in a multicultural organisation like mine it can be helpful.
Though does it really matter if a correspondent is male or female? How would it alter email communication with them?
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
Perhaps even stranger than Kemi Badenoch's misunderstanding of the judgment (sorry, no, come to think of it that's not surprising at all) is the comment from the government that this has clarified the situation. If there are two inconsistent laws, the only way of really clarifying things is for one or both of them to be amended. I suspect what the government really thinks is that this is an excuse not to do anything.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
Three decades ago, I had a British colleague who always put his surname in CAPITALS. This was because some cultures/countries treated names differently and put the family name first. Having the surname in caps disambiguated surname from forename.
Then again, the same fellow also used a Dvorak keyboard layout, and did the translations and coding to allow the OS to support Esperanto. Which, if not a mental illness, was blooming annoying whenever I needed to use his computer...
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
Yes, up to a point, and in a multicultural organisation like mine it can be helpful.
Though does it really matter if a correspondent is male or female? How would it alter email communication with them?
It might alter communication about them. It might help team spirit.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
Perhaps even stranger than Kemi Badenoch's misunderstanding of the judgment (sorry, no, come to think of it that's not surprising at all) is the comment from the government that this has clarified the situation. If there are two inconsistent laws, the only way of really clarifying things is for one or both of them to be amended. I suspect what the government really thinks is that this is an excuse not to do anything.
Well, that depends whether the government is content with the status quo as clarified. And I suspect that they are.
This should bring an end to the nonsense of male sex offenders claiming to be women having access to female prisons, stories which generate difficult and unhelpful headlines from the government's point of view. It should bolster the position of sports organisations that have tried to resist transgender athletes with unfair advantages claiming the right to participate in female sport. It should ensure that women are not told that they have to tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms. All of these are stories that those in authority can do without.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
Perhaps even stranger than Kemi Badenoch's misunderstanding of the judgment (sorry, no, come to think of it that's not surprising at all) is the comment from the government that this has clarified the situation. If there are two inconsistent laws, the only way of really clarifying things is for one or both of them to be amended. I suspect what the government really thinks is that this is an excuse not to do anything.
Well, that depends whether the government is content with the status quo as clarified. And I suspect that they are.
This should bring an end to the nonsense of male sex offenders claiming to be women having access to female prisons, stories which generate difficult and unhelpful headlines from the government's point of view. It should bolster the position of sports organisations that have tried to resist transgender athletes with unfair advantages claiming the right to participate in female sport. It should ensure that women are not told that they have to tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms. All of these are stories that those in authority can do without.
I've been trying to avoid being dragged into this morass again, but:
" tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms."
Which AIUI would make it impossible to transition, or to be trans.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
Perhaps even stranger than Kemi Badenoch's misunderstanding of the judgment (sorry, no, come to think of it that's not surprising at all) is the comment from the government that this has clarified the situation. If there are two inconsistent laws, the only way of really clarifying things is for one or both of them to be amended. I suspect what the government really thinks is that this is an excuse not to do anything.
Well, that depends whether the government is content with the status quo as clarified. And I suspect that they are.
This should bring an end to the nonsense of male sex offenders claiming to be women having access to female prisons, stories which generate difficult and unhelpful headlines from the government's point of view. It should bolster the position of sports organisations that have tried to resist transgender athletes with unfair advantages claiming the right to participate in female sport. It should ensure that women are not told that they have to tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms. All of these are stories that those in authority can do without.
I think the focus will shift to where discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics is "a proportionate response" to "achieve a legitimate aim".
This is arguable fairly readily in most sports, in women's refuges, and in prisons, but is not a blanket justification to discriminate on the basis of biological sex.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
Perhaps even stranger than Kemi Badenoch's misunderstanding of the judgment (sorry, no, come to think of it that's not surprising at all) is the comment from the government that this has clarified the situation. If there are two inconsistent laws, the only way of really clarifying things is for one or both of them to be amended. I suspect what the government really thinks is that this is an excuse not to do anything.
Analysis here, which makes sense to me. If governments both Scottish and UK can plausibly state the court case has clarified the situation, they don't need to entangle in the vote losing hornet's nest that is trans rights. Moral clarity is a loser in this.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
Because shitty and incompetent government lawyers created inconsistent laws which lazy and incompetent politicians (many of whom are lawyers) passed and now judges (who are all former lawyers) get to sort out the mess.
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
Perhaps even stranger than Kemi Badenoch's misunderstanding of the judgment (sorry, no, come to think of it that's not surprising at all) is the comment from the government that this has clarified the situation. If there are two inconsistent laws, the only way of really clarifying things is for one or both of them to be amended. I suspect what the government really thinks is that this is an excuse not to do anything.
Well, that depends whether the government is content with the status quo as clarified. And I suspect that they are.
This should bring an end to the nonsense of male sex offenders claiming to be women having access to female prisons, stories which generate difficult and unhelpful headlines from the government's point of view. It should bolster the position of sports organisations that have tried to resist transgender athletes with unfair advantages claiming the right to participate in female sport. It should ensure that women are not told that they have to tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms. All of these are stories that those in authority can do without.
I've been trying to avoid being dragged into this morass again, but:
" tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms."
Which AIUI would make it impossible to transition, or to be trans.
Yes, this is an example where it might be more difficult to argue "a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate aim" depending on the design of the space. If its all cubicles with proper provision for privacy and no shared area apart for access, or a single cubicle, what is the proportionate response and legitimate aim?
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
Yes, up to a point, and in a multicultural organisation like mine it can be helpful.
Though does it really matter if a correspondent is male or female? How would it alter email communication with them?
It might alter communication about them. It might help team spirit.
I am not sure that it would or should alter how I communicate about them.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
Yes, up to a point, and in a multicultural organisation like mine it can be helpful.
Though does it really matter if a correspondent is male or female? How would it alter email communication with them?
It might alter communication about them. It might help team spirit.
I am not sure that it would or should alter how I communicate about them.
Next time you communicate at work, pay attention to any pronouns you use. If there are none, then yes, knowing what they should be will make no difference.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
In my experience, it's a rare public sector organisation which doesn't tell employees to use pronouns on email signatures. It's an ever rarer organisation trying to sell professional services to the public sector which doesn't tell employees to do so.
Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
When working for multinational and global companies, pronouns can be a godsend; I imagine the same might be true even of small, multicultural companies. Obviously it's different if you work in a tyre-fitters and know personally the other six employees.
Three decades ago, I had a British colleague who always put his surname in CAPITALS. This was because some cultures/countries treated names differently and put the family name first. Having the surname in caps disambiguated surname from forename.
Then again, the same fellow also used a Dvorak keyboard layout, and did the translations and coding to allow the OS to support Esperanto. Which, if not a mental illness, was blooming annoying whenever I needed to use his computer...
I have a number of colleagues from South India who have only one name (so neither forename or surname, just the one*). It sometimes feels a little like an old fashioned public school to refer to them as X rather than Dr X, when speaking to them, but rather over formal to refer to them by their title. The problem is mine though, and I address them as they prefer.
Name etiquette can be rather odd and hierarchical, so junior staff and nurses will often address me as "Dr Foxy" even when I refer to them by their first name in a social setting. This happens even when I have asked them to call me by my first name.
* usually they have to invent a first name in order to fill in forms, often using their father's name for this.
Comments
I miss the days when I waited for his next book.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
I feel like humans are inherently pretty decent, most people don't like hurting or upsetting others for example, but our resilience also means we can get used to terrible things pretty quickly and then terrible things can seem 'normal' and not be questioned.
I have just been told that my BP is 97 over 55. So if you don't hear from me that may be the reason. The nurse said that was rather low and I replied: " Well I am still alive." She laughed.
Good night.
If blinder means whipping up loathing of epicene, fashy Spectator types.
---
Living in the Past was a 1978 BBC fly on the wall documentary programme. It followed a group of fifteen volunteers, six couples and three children, recreating a British Iron Age settlement, where they sustained themselves for a year, equipped only with the tools, crops and livestock that would have been available at that time.
The series is considered a precursor to modern reality television.
---
(I'd put "Year of the Sex Olympics" ahead of it - but whatevs)
But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
And, for a small (very small) number of people, body and soul seem to be out of synch. And for a small (very small) number of people, genetics don't sit neatly as XX or XY, or don't maifest in body shape in the way we might expect. And given the track record of what society has labelled as mental illness in the past, we should be careful about when we do use that category.
And it leaves the big question unanswered; if society isn't going to define trans out of existence, somehow all of us need to find a way to live together. Law probably isn't the tool to do that, the approach the Scottish Government took probably isn't either, and I'm pretty sure we're no nearer an answer to that question now than we were yesterday.
(FOAD: I'm also in Club Uncomfortable)
I don't have issues with restricting Trans-athletes if a sports governing body believes it appropriate, nor for certain spaces to be segregated by sex if that is proportional.
What I do want is for Trans-people to be socially accepted in their identity, and supported to live full lives. Most importantly I want them to be treated with compassion and respect.
You have three people
1) I am the reincarnated napolean
2) I am a carrot born in a human body
3) I am a woman/man born in a body of the opposite sex
define which are mentally ill or not and describe why some are and some are not. Genuinely curious about the differences and not suggesting any of them are mentally ill
Also believing you are too fat when you weigh 5 stone
I know two trans people fairly well and I don't think either is mentally ill.
https://x.com/jnhanvey/status/1912458864265461897?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat trans people with compassion, just as we should treat anorexics who think they're fat when they're clearly not with compassion. But those men who think they're *really* women? They aren't. (I'm putting aside the statistically tiny Caster Semenya examples for now.)
I think I have a soul, and I hope that it will live on after my death. I don't know if it is sexed, gendered or has any material existence other than the footprint my existence has made upon the universe. I cannot address such things, so I content myself with the thought that there is a me inside me, and that when I talk to myself there is a me that listens.
However I can also understand why a woman that has been raped or a victim of domestic abuse would be uncomfortable being in a therapy group or refuge that contains someone that they can see is of the male sex even if they have a female gender and think they should be able to choose to not be in that situation.
Sadly trans activists have in many cases tried to force them to have no choice other than not to partake in a therapy group or goto a refuge that accepts trans people on the gender they claim.
I feel for both sides, many of those trans people will be legitimate but even if so I can still see why a women who has been for example raped might still be uncomfortable opening up in therapy in front of someone even if they have a grc
We have no windows into other people's souls, nor can we ever do so. As such can we ever say that someone's gender is always aligned with biological sex? Of course not.
So we can only take their word for it, and if they are more comfortable living an aligned gender role than suffering internal dissonance, then why shouldn't they?
I fully support Trans people to live full lives, restricted only by law where those restrictions are proportionate to a legitimate goal under the equality act.
The legal question in the decision today is one which has a lot of political interest, but the bare bones of what was actually being decided don't appear to be outwith the normal functions of a court of last resort - it doesn't seem to be trying to make momentous political decisions, it was addressing a dispute over legal interpretation of existing law, and politicians can make law to affect a different approach if they want.
So what's the issue and, more pressingly, what about there being a Supreme Court of the UK made a difference? It's not like our SC is the same as the american one in terms of authority (well, other than to Trump) and reach - something a lot of people in the UK sometimes forget.
https://x.com/edwardjdavey/status/1912538516656968159
[1] It used to be, before the Noughties Blair reforms, that you could not insure a person's life unless you had "insurable interest"
The legal profession's wet dream - create a mess, obfuscate and fail to solve it for ages, eventually do so and charge the public hefty fees and salaries to clear up your own crap.
Swindling parasites the lot of them.
It used to be our laws were “you will do X” or “you must not do Y”.
Now they are “it would be lovely if the government did Z and everyone sang kum-bi-ya”
The press briefing was called by the press secretary Karoline Leavitt. A low-level appartchik like her would not announce something as major as a trade deal with Japan. Something as big as a trade deal would be announced by Trump himself. (The briefing was actually about El Salvador.)
Also, the tariff rate on Japan is 24%, which will kick in after July. It is only 10% currently on a "temporary" basis and the focus of Trump's negotiations are to avoid a return of the higher "liberation day" tariffs. Faisal is incorrectly implying that Trump is open to negotiations on the 10% tariffs & will easily concede them away.
At times of crisis, "I" call a meeting of all my personalities, and let's just say it can get quite heated. "I" remember one meeting in particular at which one personality threatened to kill another. The other one was quite wan from then on, which was what the first one wanted. When I say "all" my personalities, sometimes the theme of the meeting is the trouble that's been caused by one of them and whether or not the troublemaker should be expelled.
On a serious note: by far the coolest idea of the subconscious or unconscious - the same thing regarded from two only very slightly different angles - is that it's a separate personality.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04334/
The US president is squandering his many victories with his catastrophic errors on trade and Ukraine
Allister Heath" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/16/trump-may-still-save-the-west-but-for-now-destroying-it/
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
Let people be people.
Just a few short decades ago, being homosexual was seen by wider society as being a mental illness. In the US, i was officially classed as such in the DSM until as late as 1987. Th WHO removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders in 1990.
This belief that it was an 'illness' led to homosexual people being treated, often against their will, in some fairly barbaric ways. In some places, homosexuality is *still* being treated as an illness that has to be 'cured'.
Most of us - and hopefully all of us on here - no longer see homosexuality as a mental illness. Having known some trans people, and having had some as friends, I do no see being trans as a mental illness either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM
Though does it really matter if a correspondent is male or female? How would it alter email communication with them?
Then again, the same fellow also used a Dvorak keyboard layout, and did the translations and coding to allow the OS to support Esperanto. Which, if not a mental illness, was blooming annoying whenever I needed to use his computer...
This should bring an end to the nonsense of male sex offenders claiming to be women having access to female prisons, stories which generate difficult and unhelpful headlines from the government's point of view. It should bolster the position of sports organisations that have tried to resist transgender athletes with unfair advantages claiming the right to participate in female sport. It should ensure that women are not told that they have to tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms. All of these are stories that those in authority can do without.
" tolerate biologically male people in their toilets and changing rooms."
Which AIUI would make it impossible to transition, or to be trans.
This is arguable fairly readily in most sports, in women's refuges, and in prisons, but is not a blanket justification to discriminate on the basis of biological sex.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/16/judicial-ruling-on-legal-definition-of-woman-leaves-uk-politicians-sighing-with-relief
NEW THREAD
It's an ever rarer organisation trying to sell professional services to the public sector which doesn't tell employees to do so.
Name etiquette can be rather odd and hierarchical, so junior staff and nurses will often address me as "Dr Foxy" even when I refer to them by their first name in a social setting. This happens even when I have asked them to call me by my first name.
* usually they have to invent a first name in order to fill in forms, often using their father's name for this.