I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
I'd be wary of your final paragraph. It might be misconstrued.
Snooker? Some have suggested breasts might get in the way but there are small-breasted women and, in the past, large-gutted men. Male superiority with a cue probably reflects that only a few men were dedicated enough to spend hours a night in smoky snooker halls learning their trade.
Likewise shooting and darts – I've suggested before that supplying free dartboards to every girls' school in the land might be the easiest way to produce female Luke Littlers. Young women generally don't want to hang about in pubs chucking arrows.
The point is that men's superior performance does not always reflect physiological advantages, even if it usually does. Environment and upbringing matter too.
Snooker - men have advantages because of height, arm length and hand size.
You assess male advantage by looking at the male body and how that affects what is physically needed in the sport. It is a scientific exercise not an assessment of how often someone practices.
Honestly, the disingenuous stupidity of some of the "arguments" is astonishing. So much utter bullshit to justify "I want, I should get".
Yes, tall men have an advantage over average women, but they have the same advantage over average men. But there are tall women. I've seen them. And I'm still guessing that the tall women did not spend their formative years in smoke-filled snooker halls.
Hendry 1.88, Davis 1.88, O'Sullivan 1.8 so taller than average male seems to help but its not like they are all 2m+ giants. However, I think it would be close to impossible to be competitive in snooker at 1.60 or less.
FWIW as a boring centrist I suspect you are both partially right.
Graeme Dott is the shortest recent World Champion at 1.65! Next shortest 1.73.
I think Dott is going to be disappeared from snooker discourse (unless found innocent of course).
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
I'd be wary of your final paragraph. It might be misconstrued.
Snooker? Some have suggested breasts might get in the way but there are small-breasted women and, in the past, large-gutted men. Male superiority with a cue probably reflects that only a few men were dedicated enough to spend hours a night in smoky snooker halls learning their trade.
Likewise shooting and darts – I've suggested before that supplying free dartboards to every girls' school in the land might be the easiest way to produce female Luke Littlers. Young women generally don't want to hang about in pubs chucking arrows.
The point is that men's superior performance does not always reflect physiological advantages, even if it usually does. Environment and upbringing matter too.
Snooker - men have advantages because of height, arm length and hand size.
You assess male advantage by looking at the male body and how that affects what is physically needed in the sport. It is a scientific exercise not an assessment of how often someone practices.
Honestly, the disingenuous stupidity of some of the "arguments" is astonishing. So much utter bullshit to justify "I want, I should get".
Yes, tall men have an advantage over average women, but they have the same advantage over average men. But there are tall women. I've seen them. And I'm still guessing that the tall women did not spend their formative years in smoke-filled snooker halls.
Hendry 1.88, Davis 1.88, O'Sullivan 1.8 so taller than average male seems to help but its not like they are all 2m+ giants. However, I think it would be close to impossible to be competitive in snooker at 1.60 or less.
FWIW as a boring centrist I suspect you are both partially right.
Graeme Dott is the shortest recent World Champion at 1.65! Next shortest 1.73.
I think Dott is going to be disappeared from snooker discourse (unless found innocent of course).
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
I'd be wary of your final paragraph. It might be misconstrued.
Snooker? Some have suggested breasts might get in the way but there are small-breasted women and, in the past, large-gutted men. Male superiority with a cue probably reflects that only a few men were dedicated enough to spend hours a night in smoky snooker halls learning their trade.
Likewise shooting and darts – I've suggested before that supplying free dartboards to every girls' school in the land might be the easiest way to produce female Luke Littlers. Young women generally don't want to hang about in pubs chucking arrows.
The point is that men's superior performance does not always reflect physiological advantages, even if it usually does. Environment and upbringing matter too.
Snooker - men have advantages because of height, arm length and hand size.
You assess male advantage by looking at the male body and how that affects what is physically needed in the sport. It is a scientific exercise not an assessment of how often someone practices.
Honestly, the disingenuous stupidity of some of the "arguments" is astonishing. So much utter bullshit to justify "I want, I should get".
Yes, tall men have an advantage over average women, but they have the same advantage over average men. But there are tall women. I've seen them. And I'm still guessing that the tall women did not spend their formative years in smoke-filled snooker halls.
Hendry 1.88, Davis 1.88, O'Sullivan 1.8 so taller than average male seems to help but its not like they are all 2m+ giants. However, I think it would be close to impossible to be competitive in snooker at 1.60 or less.
FWIW as a boring centrist I suspect you are both partially right.
The arguments for excluding biologically male athletes from women’s sports are pretty compelling.
But, as with the “perverts in toilets” arguments, they are also a lightning rod for bigoted attitudes towards trans people.
The dehumanising language, which is liberally scattered through a lot of writing on the topic including on here, is depressing, unnecessary and dangerous.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
What about snooker and darts ? Less about physical strength more hand/eye coordination ?
Curling? All about the brush work. Let's face it, most men have never used a brush....
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
I'd be wary of your final paragraph. It might be misconstrued.
Snooker? Some have suggested breasts might get in the way but there are small-breasted women and, in the past, large-gutted men. Male superiority with a cue probably reflects that only a few men were dedicated enough to spend hours a night in smoky snooker halls learning their trade.
Likewise shooting and darts – I've suggested before that supplying free dartboards to every girls' school in the land might be the easiest way to produce female Luke Littlers. Young women generally don't want to hang about in pubs chucking arrows.
The point is that men's superior performance does not always reflect physiological advantages, even if it usually does. Environment and upbringing matter too.
Snooker - men have advantages because of height, arm length and hand size.
You assess male advantage by looking at the male body and how that affects what is physically needed in the sport. It is a scientific exercise not an assessment of how often someone practices.
Honestly, the disingenuous stupidity of some of the "arguments" is astonishing. So much utter bullshit to justify "I want, I should get".
Yes, tall men have an advantage over average women, but they have the same advantage over average men. But there are tall women. I've seen them. And I'm still guessing that the tall women did not spend their formative years in smoke-filled snooker halls.
Hendry 1.88, Davis 1.88, O'Sullivan 1.8 so taller than average male seems to help but its not like they are all 2m+ giants. However, I think it would be close to impossible to be competitive in snooker at 1.60 or less.
FWIW as a boring centrist I suspect you are both partially right.
Graeme Dott is the shortest recent World Champion at 1.65! Next shortest 1.73.
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
No.
They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
This is somewhere we need to be careful. The 'women are too weak to do x,y or z' has been used throughout history to stop women from doing many occupations. Yet when studies are done, it is often shown that they can fulfil the roles very well. Policing and firefighting are just two examples.
An example is fighter pilots: yes, an average woman is 'weaker' than an average man; but a strong woman can easily be stronger than an average man, and strength is only one determinator in the capability to do the job. As an average woman is shorter, that also makes it easier for them to cope with G-forces. They lose and some metrics, and win on others. There does not seem to be a great clamour in the RAF or USAF to remove the few female pilots.
Sadly, it is not just physical attributes: I once heard someone (a man, obvs.) say that women did not make good engineers, as their brains were wired differently. In my experience this is rather heroically wrong.
So whilst women may not be able to compete at the absolute pinnacle of certain sports, we should ensure that does not lead to a mindset where women are often, or always, inferior in all professions. Or that exceptional women cannot beat men even where they are physically at a disadvantage.
Now the dust has settled on the SC judgment a touch, I do think this judgment was very fair.
It made clear that discriminating against trans people is still and will always be illegal - I don’t know who would disagree with that - but also upholds the rights of women.
It seems to me that we should just treat trans people as their own category, that doesn’t as far as I can see seem to cause much of an issue and ensures biology is retained and female only spaces are not impinged on. That could extend to sports and the like.
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
No.
They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.
Why would no major party “want to stop it”. If that really is the political consensus, then we aren’t heading for sunlit uplands
On a similar note, last year I caught part of a radio interview with a tall jockey (I think he was over 6 foot tall). The problem apparently being not one of height, but weight and culture (if you are growing tall as a lad, you're often out as a jockey). Given women tend to be slighter, but can also be strong whilst slight, why are there not more female jockeys?
(As you might tell, I am not knowledgeable about horse racing...)
Regarding the discussion on trans women in sport. Many hypotheses and studies have been put forward, but few are checked against the actual results. This process is known as "calibration" and is routine in bookmakers and political analysts but is not (often?) done in trans sports. Although sites that track trans participation do exist (SheWon.org, HeCheated.org), they measure the amount of displacement, which is not the same thing.
On a similar note, last year I caught part of a radio interview with a tall jockey (I think he was over 6 foot tall). The problem apparently being not one of height, but weight and culture (if you are growing tall as a lad, you're often out as a jockey). Given women tend to be slighter, but can also be strong whilst slight, why are there not more female jockeys?
(As you might tell, I am not knowledgeable about horse racing...)
There are more women jockeys now than in the past but they are still the minority.
A remarkable Court, and concise, ruling in the Garcia case, pointing up all the key questions in refusing to interfere with the District Court enforcing the Supreme Court ruling - by a Reagan appointed Judge.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess.
If a space is "single sex" - and clear examples are toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, then they can only admit members of one sex. If you decide your "women's" changing room can admit trans identified men ("Transwomen") , it becomes "mixed".
But if you're not going to admit non-trans identified men, (men) into this now "mixed" changing room you are discriminating against them. See what a mess it was? No wonder the KC for the Scottish Ministers got into a terrible muddle.
For those with Linkedin - a guide to the duff advice being promulgated in the aftermath of the SC decision:
On topic I'd agree with Ben Shepherd but there are way better candidates for the list. Matthew McFadyen should be a perennial and a rising entrant ought to be the divine Johnny Flynn.
Well I'd imagine that from a trans perspective that would miss the point. I'm not making a judgement on this but trans women feel themselves to be women not some seperate gender. It would be like saying you have to compete in a separate category once you identified as being gay.
The cynic in me expects this will just see a spike in demand !
I'd not known there was a dark chocolate Toblerone and my reaction to reading about its demise was to wonder what it's like. (Not interested in ordinary Toblerone.)
It’s alright, I’ve had it when people brought it in at work from holiday. White, dark and plain.
Wouldn’t go out of my way to buy it but when it’s free I’ll give it a go.
White Toblerone is genuinely disgusting.
Dark Toblerone is fine.
The demise of WH Smith probably spells the end for Toblerone generally.
No
Toblerone is a supreme example of brilliant branding. You find it everywhere. In every minibar and duty free shop in the world. In every 7/11 in Thailand. In supermarkets in Myanmar and Montevideo - and Almaty
It says in its special shape: here is a bit of European chocolate luxury. A bit of glamorous Europe itself! Even if the reality is, for posher Europeans, a bit disappointing
It is to Europe perhaps what Coca Cola is to the USA
Coca Cola .... one of Hitler's favourite drinks. I did not know this until recently.
Someone here suggested that men's categories would disappear to become an 'open' category, so trans and very athletic women would be able to compete, and then there would be a women's category. I'm not really sure how it sits with me, but it does sort of make sense in athletics, if possibly not so much in team sports.
Regarding the discussion on trans women in sport. Many hypotheses and studies have been put forward, but few are checked against the actual results. This process is known as "calibration" and is routine in bookmakers and political analysts but is not (often?) done in trans sports. Although sites that track trans participation do exist (SheWon.org, HeCheated.org), they measure the amount of displacement, which is not the same thing.
(narrator. Viewcode is a statistician. )
Many sports do not encourage women at the lower levels. As an example, motorsport. Women *should* be able to compete fairly equally with men, especially with modern cars. Yet there are zero F1 drivers, and much of that is down to the ladder required to reach the top.
It can be an unvirtuous circle: the further up the motorsport ladder you get, the more it costs. And that requires sponsorship. Many of the sponsors want to see the people they sponsor get into F1, and if there are no women in F1, they won't sponsor women in lower formula, because they won't get into F1. And with fewer women visibly at the top, fewer young girls are likely to realise that motorsport is an option for them.
Culture matters. As an example, I heard an anecdote of a young girl competing in a junior single-seater formula from a couple of decades ago. Before a race, a rival's dad opened the fuel tank of her car, unzipped his fly, and peed into the petrol tank. The son was thrown out of the race, but that's not a woman- or girl-friendly environment.
It was not always that way: the amazing Dorothy Levitt was very successful, even after Brooklands refused to let her race because she was a woman. Her story is quite amazing, and should be better known.
Someone here suggested that men's categories would disappear to become an 'open' category, so trans and very athletic women would be able to compete, and then there would be a women's category. I'm not really sure how it sits with me, but it does sort of make sense in athletics, if possibly not so much in team sports.
Triathlon now has 'open' and 'female' categories. Loads of women will still beat me tomorrow, though, despite my masculine awesomeness...
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
I'd be wary of your final paragraph. It might be misconstrued.
Snooker? Some have suggested breasts might get in the way but there are small-breasted women and, in the past, large-gutted men. Male superiority with a cue probably reflects that only a few men were dedicated enough to spend hours a night in smoky snooker halls learning their trade.
Likewise shooting and darts – I've suggested before that supplying free dartboards to every girls' school in the land might be the easiest way to produce female Luke Littlers. Young women generally don't want to hang about in pubs chucking arrows.
The point is that men's superior performance does not always reflect physiological advantages, even if it usually does. Environment and upbringing matter too.
Snooker - men have advantages because of height, arm length and hand size.
You assess male advantage by looking at the male body and how that affects what is physically needed in the sport. It is a scientific exercise not an assessment of how often someone practices.
Honestly, the disingenuous stupidity of some of the "arguments" is astonishing. So much utter bullshit to justify "I want, I should get".
Yes, tall men have an advantage over average women, but they have the same advantage over average men. But there are tall women. I've seen them. And I'm still guessing that the tall women did not spend their formative years in smoke-filled snooker halls.
Didn’t Reanne Evans, having dominated women’s snooker to an extent that even Jo Davis would have blinked at (including winning a world championship while 7 months pregnant) enter the qualifiers for the men’s draw and get absolutely thumped by quite a low-ranked player?
I seem to remember that was true of Kelly Fisher too - she may have won one match.
Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney · 4h BREAKING: The Supreme Court has blocked the Trump administration from deporting foreign nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. Thomas, Alito dissent.
It would be really interesting to compare this top ten, according to women seeking extramarital affairs, with a top ten according to women who aren't seeking extramarital affairs.
Yes, perhaps there's something about Piers Morgan that says he's up for it.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
No.
They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.
Why would no major party “want to stop it”. If that really is the political consensus, then we aren’t heading for sunlit uplands
None of them have really tried so far so evidence is pretty damning
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
Not with the grant rate at three times the level of France or whatever it is. Still worth making the crossing with it at that. And quite possibly the useless Home Office would grant even more just to prevent the poor lambs being sent away.
In combination with a cap on asylum granting numbers, resulting in a serious crackdown on acceptance rates, getting them well below France and Germany, yes I think it would work.
I’m sure everyone knows thus already but Yining is built on the ancient city of Almaliq
And…
“Almaliq was originally one of Karluk cities in the Turkic Kaganates. It is known from the accounts of the Persian historians and Chinese travelers of the Mongol era (13th to 15th centuries), in particular the 13th-century Daoist Qiu Chuji (Chang Chun). According to the travel notes of Genghis Khan's chief adviser Yelü Chucai, the city of Almaliq was situated between the Tian Shan mountains and the Ili River. There were many crab apple trees around Almalik. The native people called them "almaliq", thus giving the name to the city.
An account by a Persian historian tells that in 1211, Prince Ozar of Almaliq acknowledged the supremacy of Genghis Khan. The king was later killed by the Gurkhan of Karakitai”
Just wanted to clear that up unless some massive PB argument kicks off, and goes on and on, like the Trans debate
More to the point, are you going to try to visit ? ...Ili Kazak Autonomous Prefecture Museum, opened in Yining in 2004, is one of Xinjiang's most important museums, housing artifacts from throughout the prefecture. In fact, at the time it opened it became, in the words of a Western scholar, the "only modern museum" in Xinjiang. (Xinjiang of course also has the provincial museum in Ürümqi; but at that time point, its old building had been demolished while its replacement was still under construction.)..
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
To my ignorant eyes, the delight of a trans woman in triumphing over the women proclaims that it's the victory they're after. If the prime aim was to deal with gender dysphoria they would retain the humility to know they have a physical advantage and refrain from engaging in sports.
The entitlement is what's stunning. Some of one's choices in life put other choices out of bounds. They're proud of being cheats.
FFS who wants to see one person racing against themselves, they are not actually thick on the ground are they and even fewer are in sports. We only see the sad losers who cannot beat men and so have to race women.
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
Not with the grant rate at three times the level of France or whatever it is. Still worth making the crossing with it at that. And quite possibly the useless Home Office would grant even more just to prevent the poor lambs being sent away.
In combination with a cap on asylum granting numbers, resulting in a serious crackdown on acceptance rates, getting them well below France and Germany, yes I think it would work.
Have we begun to think through our policy on asylum seekers who are USA citizens? At this rate of progress there are going to be a lot.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
Not with the grant rate at three times the level of France or whatever it is. Still worth making the crossing with it at that. And quite possibly the useless Home Office would grant even more just to prevent the poor lambs being sent away.
In combination with a cap on asylum granting numbers, resulting in a serious crackdown on acceptance rates, getting them well below France and Germany, yes I think it would work.
Have we begun to think through our policy on asylum seekers who are USA citizens? At this rate of progress there are going to be a lot.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
The EHRC advises on implementation, but does not make the law. They got it wrong.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
No.
They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.
Sunak tightened visa wage requirements for migrants and stopped them bringing dependents.
Reform back the navy in the channel to stop the boats and mass deportations
Unfortunately Farage seems to have been keeping himself clean in recent months and there doesn't really seem to have been contact between him and Trump. Those assuming Trump will affect Reform's polling are engaging in wishful thinking.
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
Unfortunately Farage seems to have been keeping himself clean in recent months and there doesn't really seem to have been contact between him and Trump. Those assuming Trump will affect Reform's polling are engaging in wishful thinking.
Farage is smarter than people give him credit for. He generally seems to know when he needs to dial back the Trump or Putin talking points (the EU being responsible for Ukraine war etc), and there are sufficient other reasons that people are currently supporting Reform that without more frequent instances of the things that put people off, the support should hold up for now I think.
Just looked up Illicit Encounters (Jesus, I hope that doesn't show up in my browsing history) and my first thought is that it's very basic as a website design, its claimed number of members is massively exaggerated and it's very expensive.
I wouldn't trust "password protection" on it's photos for all the tea in China. You use that you're taking one hell of a risk.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
It also said that no action was to be taken against those involved at any later time, and that the Interregnum was to be legally forgotten.
Poor buggers always get the short end of the stick.
general pardon for everyone who had committed crimes during the English Civil War and subsequent Commonwealth period, with the exception of certain crimes such as murder (without a licence granted by King or Parliament), piracy, buggery, rape and witchcraft
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
It also said that no action was to be taken against those involved at any later time, and that the Interregnum was to be legally forgotten.
Poor buggers always get the short end of the stick.
general pardon for everyone who had committed crimes during the English Civil War and subsequent Commonwealth period, with the exception of certain crimes such as murder (without a licence granted by King or Parliament), piracy, buggery, rape and witchcraft
Unfortunately Farage seems to have been keeping himself clean in recent months and there doesn't really seem to have been contact between him and Trump. Those assuming Trump will affect Reform's polling are engaging in wishful thinking.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
The EHRC advises on implementation, but does not make the law. They got it wrong.
They are considered to have gotten it wrong now, but not then. Hence the retcon.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
It was all a bit confused I imagine. IIRC they even recalled the original Long Parliament members to formally dissolve itself (though it had not sat even in Rump form for 7 years, and unpurged form for 12) rather than just ignore it and call a new one, which shows an amusing level of concern for procedure.
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
The EHRC advises on implementation, but does not make the law. They got it wrong.
They are considered to have gotten it wrong now, but not then. Hence the retcon.
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
The EHRC advises on implementation, but does not make the law. They got it wrong.
They are considered to have gotten it wrong now, but not then. Hence the retcon.
That's pretty normal though isn't it?
I know it's considered undesirable for Parliament to write a law that has retrospective effect, but I don't know if the courts find it undesirable when interpreting the law. I assume from the SC decision and other examples that they don't. So the answer to your question is "yes".
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
But the rest of your post stinks. What other minorities would you allow discrimination against to avoid 'subverting history'? The disabled? Jews? People named Derek?
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
No.
They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.
Sunak tightened visa wage requirements for migrants and stopped them bringing dependents.
Reform back the navy in the channel to stop the boats and mass deportations
Sunak didn’t stop illegal migration and merely slowed down the massive increase due to the Boriswave.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with people gathered around a table with microphones and a neon sign asking "But what does this all mean"?
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
But the rest of your post stinks. What other minorities would you allow discrimination against to avoid 'subverting history'? The disabled? Jews? People named Derek?
Sorry Mr. Jacobi. But Mr Griffiths, Mr. Nimmo, Mr Hatton - you've done nothing worthy of preventing you becoming the next big hate figures. Suck it up.
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
It's taken me a few days to digest the Supreme Court ruling and whilst I think it was correct, I am deeply worried by some of the media narrative around it which I'm afraid is reflected in Cyclefree's article.
My worry is that when a lot of people look at a Trans person living as a woman all they see is a potential predator. As a gay man I feel this deeply because that's how many people saw gay teachers, doctors etc when I was growing up in the 80s. I remember people telling me that they didn't want a gay teacher in their kid's school because they might be a paedophile. They would tell me that of course not all gay people were kiddy fiddlers but the risk was too great. I see that language reflected now towards trans women. The vast majority of trans women live their lives and use women's spaces with no harm to anyone and people who exploit it are the tiny minority.
Yes they are but they are a dangerous minority and women should not bear that risk. The number of sex offenders who suddenly felt a change of gender coming on when facing prison for their crimes is telling. We need a way of dealing with that.
Also take the example of the Sandy Peggie case against Fife Health Board. She was disciplined because she objected to a biological man using the changing area where she had to get changed for her work as a nurse. Her position has been vindicated by the SC but the mindset of public bodies which thought the doctor's "rights" based upon his self asserted gender overrode her wishes needs to change. I agree with those who say this is based on a form of misogyny.
There are no easy answers to this and the SC decision gives clarity without always giving a satisfactory answer to this clash of rights. Your analogy with gay men is indeed telling, I remember those times all too well. We need to find more constructive and consensual solutions to how trans people can live and thrive in our community. But asserting the rights of some unhappy men with a disregard to the rights of women cannot be the answer.
In the Sandy Peggie case, is Dr Beth Upton pre-op, transitioning, or post-op, or none of the above?
We don't know and its none of our business.
What we do know is he could not have had a GRC when the alleged offence took place. Prior to the Supreme Court judgement if he had had a GRC it was argued by the Scottish Ministers that he would have been legally a woman. The Supreme Court is unambiguously clear that with, or without a GRC, he remains a man for the purposes of "sex" in the Equality Act.
As a man, in addition to protection based on his sex he has protection under the characteristic of gender reassignment. So for example, if he was to be fired for dressing as he does he'd be protected.
What he does not have, as a man, is the right to use a single sex facility designated for women, because if he does it becomes a mixed sex facility.
The Gender Recognition act makes no requirement as to physical changes or treatments (eg hormones) - and the vast majority of trans women do not go down a surgical route - evidently a surprise to some in the Supreme Court.
Having comprehensively lost in the Supreme Court, some TRAs are returning to mis-information as a way to muddy the waters (which is how they got us into this mess in the first place) - see for example the Guardian interview with someone who led the policy unit that drafted the Equality Act:
CarlottaVance, welcome back. Your thread from Peter Daly doesn't say that trans people weren't prevented from being intervenors, it explains *why* two trans people were prevented from being intervenors.
Thank you. The Supreme Court rarely (never?) hears from individuals, but does hear from groups. The Trans groups that had previously intervened in the lower courts chose not to seek to intervene in the Supreme Court. We can only speculate why they did not wish their arguments to be exposed to further interrogation.
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess...
Prior to the SC decision, the EHRC acknowledged that the law permitted trans women in SSPs, but pointed out that it led to undesirable outcomes.
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
Wasn’t that legal erasure of the commonwealth done by parliament, not the courts? Parliament is sovereign, after all.
I genuinely don't know! Did Parliament draft an act?
It was all a bit confused I imagine. IIRC they even recalled the original Long Parliament members to formally dissolve itself (though it had not sat even in Rump form for 7 years, and unpurged form for 12) rather than just ignore it and call a new one, which shows an amusing level of concern for procedure.
The Convention Parliament passed the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion in 1660; this brief transitional parliament was not called by royal authority but was preparing for the restoration. Its acts were royally authorised later. It was followed by the better known Cavalier parliament, which shifted direction away from the puritan/Cromwellian/toleration movement more than many had expected.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with people gathered around a table with microphones and a neon sign asking "But what does this all mean"?
Many years ago The Day Today had a sketch which included having Question Time being played in front of an audience at Wembley Stadium. People laughed. In the words of the laughter guzzler, they’re not laughing now.
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
That's just the problem, though.
My sympathies lie with both sides in this debate, which is why I don't comment on it much (also because, as a cis white male I don't have much experience of the realities of the rights clashes involved).
I do feel qualified to make a more abstract point, though.
One of the disadvantages of being a minority of any sort that we cannot (and I would argue should not seek to) remove entirely is that you are unable to make the world fit perfectly around you. (The converse of this explains why systemic privilege is so hard to unpick - in a whole range of ways the world does fit very well around me, for example).
So as a trans woman athlete, you may believe wholeheartedly that you are woman (I would agree). But it is obviously nonsense to argue that you fit perfectly into a sporting category that was set up without you in mind, especially one that exists because of the biological differences between males and females.
In my view the absolutism that says 'I believe I should be allowed to compete as a woman despite biologically very clearly outcompeting my competitors' is so clearly wrong that it gives me one small handhold that I feel confident to cling onto ina debate that often leaves me feeling completely at sea.
(Yes I know there are edge cases amongst biological females that are difficult to deal with, but we have to draw a line somewhere).
Unfortunately Farage seems to have been keeping himself clean in recent months and there doesn't really seem to have been contact between him and Trump. Those assuming Trump will affect Reform's polling are engaging in wishful thinking.
That depends on how much more bonkers authoritarian Trump gets. When people are avoiding the US as a holiday destination, when Walt Disney World Orlando is not worth the risk of the rest of your days in an El Salvador gulag - some of that dandruff will fall on Farage's shoulders...
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
AIUI the 200-500,000 estimate predates the census by a few years, and is not based on it. From memory, a similar percentage reported being transgender in Scotland, with a different question.
Just looked up Illicit Encounters (Jesus, I hope that doesn't show up in my browsing history) and my first thought is that it's very basic as a website design, its claimed number of members is massively exaggerated and it's very expensive.
I wouldn't trust "password protection" on it's photos for all the tea in China. You use that you're taking one hell of a risk.
See Ashley Madison leaks
But on the bright side, a boon for divorce lawyers. There's always a silver lining.
Regarding the discussion on trans women in sport. Many hypotheses and studies have been put forward, but few are checked against the actual results. This process is known as "calibration" and is routine in bookmakers and political analysts but is not (often?) done in trans sports. Although sites that track trans participation do exist (SheWon.org, HeCheated.org), they measure the amount of displacement, which is not the same thing.
(narrator. Viewcode is a statistician. )
Many sports do not encourage women at the lower levels. As an example, motorsport. Women *should* be able to compete fairly equally with men, especially with modern cars. Yet there are zero F1 drivers, and much of that is down to the ladder required to reach the top.
It can be an unvirtuous circle: the further up the motorsport ladder you get, the more it costs. And that requires sponsorship. Many of the sponsors want to see the people they sponsor get into F1, and if there are no women in F1, they won't sponsor women in lower formula, because they won't get into F1. And with fewer women visibly at the top, fewer young girls are likely to realise that motorsport is an option for them.
Culture matters. As an example, I heard an anecdote of a young girl competing in a junior single-seater formula from a couple of decades ago. Before a race, a rival's dad opened the fuel tank of her car, unzipped his fly, and peed into the petrol tank. The son was thrown out of the race, but that's not a woman- or girl-friendly environment.
It was not always that way: the amazing Dorothy Levitt was very successful, even after Brooklands refused to let her race because she was a woman. Her story is quite amazing, and should be better known.
I think the "woman in F1" issue is interesting precisely because of sponsorship. The moment there's a credible female single seater driver only a few per cent less good than the worst male driver on the grid then I'm sure they will almost certainly ascend to F1 simply on the basis of sponsorship. Interest, and thus sponsors and thus money, are going to pool quickly when there is someone who looks like being good enough, just because there will be a lot of interest in that first woman making it back into F1. Credible here means being competitive in F2 or perhaps Indycar, even if not being champion but winning a few races that will probably be enough. God knows there's been enough male drivers in F1 who weren't necessarily all that great in a historic sense but were sufficiently ok coupled with a nice pot of sponsorship to have the money or the connections to tip the balance for them to get a drive.
The real problem with motorsport isn't at the top but at the bottom - there's not enough girls starting out in karts in the same way that folk are putting their 4, 5-year old boys in go-karts who are the ones now making it to F1 in their late teens/early 20's. For every man making it to F1 you're not seeing the hundred or whatever men who failed to make it to from F2, from F3, from F4 etc. You need some similar fraction of women taking part from the bottom for that to cascade its way upwards in meaningful numbers.
Separately I see little reason why women can't be successful in snooker and darts. I think the main thing there is simply relative level of professionalism. There's already lots of money in the men's games for legacy reasons, so there's lots of practice and competition, so there's a naturally high level to begin with just to even get onto the main tour because the top men can basically dedicate themselves to it as there's enough money at the top to allow for that. The women's tournaments don't tend to have that level of money yet, so there's fewer tournaments with shorter formats etc., and it's hard to make a career directly from that, so there's less practice, so the level of play is lower. But fundamentally there's nothing stopping women playing both of those to high levels, it's just going to be a case of either the women's tours growing to a level where there's a similar level of professionalism or just stopping trying to have a separate women's tour and finding the Sherrocks etc. who can compete with the men on a regular basis.
I believe polling says one of the top issue with voters being nervous to back Reform is Farage’s closeness to Trump. I just assume that the ceiling isn’t at the point where that becomes relevant yet but ultimately will be a limit on his support.
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
That's just the problem, though.
My sympathies lie with both sides in this debate, which is why I don't comment on it much (also because, as a cis white male I don't have much experience of the realities of the rights clashes involved).
I do feel qualified to make a more abstract point, though.
One of the disadvantages of being a minority of any sort that we cannot (and I would argue should not seek to) remove entirely is that you are unable to make the world fit perfectly around you. (The converse of this explains why systemic privilege is so hard to unpick - in a whole range of ways the world does fit very well around me, for example).
So as a trans woman athlete, you may believe wholeheartedly that you are woman (I would agree). But it is obviously nonsense to argue that you fit perfectly into a sporting category that was set up without you in mind, especially one that exists because of the biological differences between males and females.
In my view the absolutism that says 'I believe I should be allowed to compete as a woman despite biologically very clearly outcompeting my competitors' is so clearly wrong that it gives me one small handhold that I feel confident to cling onto ina debate that often leaves me feeling completely at sea.
(Yes I know there are edge cases amongst biological females that are difficult to deal with, but we have to draw a line somewhere).
I feel similarly, and think it also gets confused with conflation with those with very rare biological situations and the relatively more common type of transitioned people.
I believe polling says one of the top issue with voters being nervous to back Reform is Farage’s closeness to Trump. I just assume that the ceiling isn’t at the point where that becomes relevant yet but ultimately will be a limit on his support.
And with that, fin.
I expect those scruples would apply in a Westminster general election where Reform has a chance of getting into government, but not in parliamentary byelections or local election.
Absolutely amazing to read from Justine at Mumsnet how businesses blacklisted the forum from advertising at the behest of trans activists, including Ocado who now they have been seen to be on the wrong side of history have issued a grovelling apology and blamed a ‘contractor’
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
Aaargh I'm going to have to be careful what I say here, because it verges on professional advice, but.it goes like this:
The statistics were disputed and following a review were downgraded from "official statistics" to "official statistics in development". The final report (latest version 18 Nov 2024)[1] said that
"...At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question..."
So the figure of "around 1 in 200" works at the national level, but not at local level.
It's now April 2025 and stuff has been published since then. My impression is that the 1-in-200-at-the-national-level is correct and is still the current position, but happy to be contradicted by UK Statistical System sources.
This does not constitute professional advice from me and you must DYOR
Absolutely amazing to read from Justine at Mumsnet how businesses blacklisted the forum from advertising at the behest of trans activists, including Ocado who now they have been seen to be on the wrong side of history have issued a grovelling apology and blamed a ‘contractor’
On a similar note, last year I caught part of a radio interview with a tall jockey (I think he was over 6 foot tall). The problem apparently being not one of height, but weight and culture (if you are growing tall as a lad, you're often out as a jockey). Given women tend to be slighter, but can also be strong whilst slight, why are there not more female jockeys?
(As you might tell, I am not knowledgeable about horse racing...)
Rachael Blackmore has shown over jumps that she is every bit as effective a jockey as any of the men. You don’t win nearly every Grade 1 at the festival and the Grand National without being a tremendous jockey. On the flat Lisa Jones, Hayley Turner, Hollie Doyle have trailblazed the way for women. I think it’s all about opportunities though, women have to try that much harder to get the opportunities.
I watched Rachael win a novice chase at Cheltenham on Thursday and mused about whether we would ever see her like again.
Given the US is now ending military aid to Ukraine anyway - and seems to be refusing requests for future arms sales to Ukraine - this gives every incentive for Russia to continue its invasion.
According to ISW, Russia/Putin have not changed their stance since 2022. They may say different things to different parties but the underlying thrust is to continue until Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity is removed. No different from how they have behaved over centuries to other ethnic groups to which they have taken a dislike.
I believe some sports body tried that but nobody entered. When you believe you're a women, why enter into another category?
What percentage of the population is transgender? I'd guess one percent at most. Is it the end of the world if they occasionally experience discrimination or disadvantage? Is it worth subverting a million years of biological and cultural history just to keep them happy?
But the rest of your post stinks. What other minorities would you allow discrimination against to avoid 'subverting history'? The disabled? Jews? People named Derek?
We're not talking about hate crime - we're talking about men participating in women's sport. Maybe they could do something else instead?
Comments
The UNHCR has endorsed Labour’s plan to deport failed asylum seekers to 'return hubs' in third countries.
This is a significant development because it was the UNHCR which ultimately collapsed the Rwanda scheme: https://x.com/matt_dathan/status/1913352681583767872
Does Pb think this would be enough of a deterrent?
I’ve had a few swissnicks but only one kumquat
Has anyone made it to 5?
But, as with the “perverts in toilets” arguments, they are also a lightning rod for bigoted attitudes towards trans people.
The dehumanising language, which is liberally scattered through a lot of writing on the topic including on here, is depressing, unnecessary and dangerous.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7vn178yjqzo
They will keep coming. We just need to accept no major party really wants to stop it, whatever they say, and plan for it and put the infrastructure in place. Both regular migration and illegal immigration.
An example is fighter pilots: yes, an average woman is 'weaker' than an average man; but a strong woman can easily be stronger than an average man, and strength is only one determinator in the capability to do the job. As an average woman is shorter, that also makes it easier for them to cope with G-forces. They lose and some metrics, and win on others. There does not seem to be a great clamour in the RAF or USAF to remove the few female pilots.
Sadly, it is not just physical attributes: I once heard someone (a man, obvs.) say that women did not make good engineers, as their brains were wired differently. In my experience this is rather heroically wrong.
So whilst women may not be able to compete at the absolute pinnacle of certain sports, we should ensure that does not lead to a mindset where women are often, or always, inferior in all professions. Or that exceptional women cannot beat men even where they are physically at a disadvantage.
Now the dust has settled on the SC judgment a touch, I do think this judgment was very fair.
It made clear that discriminating against trans people is still and will always be illegal - I don’t know who would disagree with that - but also upholds the rights of women.
It seems to me that we should just treat trans people as their own category, that doesn’t as far as I can see seem to cause much of an issue and ensures biology is retained and female only spaces are not impinged on. That could extend to sports and the like.
Has anyone actually looked at what Farage wants to do on the boats? Would it even work?
(As you might tell, I am not knowledgeable about horse racing...)
(narrator. Viewcode is a statistician.
"A remarkable, and concise, Court ruling ..."
On your earlier reply to Cyclefree - the Supreme Court has not changed the law - its simply clarified what it has always meant - it was Stonewall's advice that organisations should "go beyond the law" (aka "break the law") that has led to this mess.
If a space is "single sex" - and clear examples are toilets, changing rooms, hospital wards, then they can only admit members of one sex. If you decide your "women's" changing room can admit trans identified men ("Transwomen") , it becomes "mixed".
But if you're not going to admit non-trans identified men, (men) into this now "mixed" changing room you are discriminating against them. See what a mess it was? No wonder the KC for the Scottish Ministers got into a terrible muddle.
For those with Linkedin - a guide to the duff advice being promulgated in the aftermath of the SC decision:
https://x.com/AudreySuffolk/status/1913522440837157243
Why can’t there just be a trans sport category?
They also invented Fanta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qED2_XDD4aI
It can be an unvirtuous circle: the further up the motorsport ladder you get, the more it costs. And that requires sponsorship. Many of the sponsors want to see the people they sponsor get into F1, and if there are no women in F1, they won't sponsor women in lower formula, because they won't get into F1. And with fewer women visibly at the top, fewer young girls are likely to realise that motorsport is an option for them.
Culture matters. As an example, I heard an anecdote of a young girl competing in a junior single-seater formula from a couple of decades ago. Before a race, a rival's dad opened the fuel tank of her car, unzipped his fly, and peed into the petrol tank. The son was thrown out of the race, but that's not a woman- or girl-friendly environment.
It was not always that way: the amazing Dorothy Levitt was very successful, even after Brooklands refused to let her race because she was a woman. Her story is quite amazing, and should be better known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Levitt
I seem to remember that was true of Kelly Fisher too - she may have won one match.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/18/trump-deportations-alien-enemies-act-00299474
In combination with a cap on asylum granting numbers, resulting in a serious crackdown on acceptance rates, getting them well below France and Germany, yes I think it would work.
...Ili Kazak Autonomous Prefecture Museum, opened in Yining in 2004, is one of Xinjiang's most important museums, housing artifacts from throughout the prefecture. In fact, at the time it opened it became, in the words of a Western scholar, the "only modern museum" in Xinjiang. (Xinjiang of course also has the provincial museum in Ürümqi; but at that time point, its old building had been demolished while its replacement was still under construction.)..
The entitlement is what's stunning. Some of one's choices in life put other choices out of bounds. They're proud of being cheats.
Sky News headline. Is comment superfluous?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZbCyBMfy2c
According to English law, the reign of Charles II began the moment Charles I died (1649), despite the over-a-decade rule of the Cromwells (1649-1659ish). The law uses a retcon to cast aside the Cromwellian rule. Similarly, the SC has used a retcon to remove those outcomes. I appreciate the law now says we were always at war with Eastasia, but that was not always the case.
No entries were received for the new open-category races at the Swimming World Cup event in Berlin, World Aquatics says.
The world governing body introduced an open category after voting last year to stop transgender women from competing in women's elite races.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/66993112
Reform back the navy in the channel to stop the boats and mass deportations
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity_and_Oblivion_Act
It also said that no action was to be taken against those involved at any later time, and that the Interregnum was to be legally forgotten.
general pardon for everyone who had committed crimes during the English Civil War and subsequent Commonwealth period, with the exception of certain crimes such as murder (without a licence granted by King or Parliament), piracy, buggery, rape and witchcraft
https://www.aegpresents.co.uk/event/electoral-dysfunction-live/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3a478240f0b64603fc181b/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf
But the rest of your post stinks. What other minorities would you allow discrimination against to avoid 'subverting history'? The disabled? Jews? People named Derek?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/sep/12/official-estimate-trans-population-england-wales-ons
It does take a lot to impress a woman nowadays..🥴😏
https://youtu.be/iv__hxCcdH8?si=2ipVJfYgMeqeLCC_
My sympathies lie with both sides in this debate, which is why I don't comment on it much (also because, as a cis white male I don't have much experience of the realities of the rights clashes involved).
I do feel qualified to make a more abstract point, though.
One of the disadvantages of being a minority of any sort that we cannot (and I would argue should not seek to) remove entirely is that you are unable to make the world fit perfectly around you. (The converse of this explains why systemic privilege is so hard to unpick - in a whole range of ways the world does fit very well around me, for example).
So as a trans woman athlete, you may believe wholeheartedly that you are woman (I would agree). But it is obviously nonsense to argue that you fit perfectly into a sporting category that was set up without you in mind, especially one that exists because of the biological differences between males and females.
In my view the absolutism that says 'I believe I should be allowed to compete as a woman despite biologically very clearly outcompeting my competitors' is so clearly wrong that it gives me one small handhold that I feel confident to cling onto ina debate that often leaves me feeling completely at sea.
(Yes I know there are edge cases amongst biological females that are difficult to deal with, but we have to draw a line somewhere).
This Mofo caused huge delays for the morning rush hour and she got caught in it.
Hopefully a long stint inside awaits
Whoever is in charge the hard left moan.
The real problem with motorsport isn't at the top but at the bottom - there's not enough girls starting out in karts in the same way that folk are putting their 4, 5-year old boys in go-karts who are the ones now making it to F1 in their late teens/early 20's. For every man making it to F1 you're not seeing the hundred or whatever men who failed to make it to from F2, from F3, from F4 etc. You need some similar fraction of women taking part from the bottom for that to cascade its way upwards in meaningful numbers.
Separately I see little reason why women can't be successful in snooker and darts. I think the main thing there is simply relative level of professionalism. There's already lots of money in the men's games for legacy reasons, so there's lots of practice and competition, so there's a naturally high level to begin with just to even get onto the main tour because the top men can basically dedicate themselves to it as there's enough money at the top to allow for that. The women's tournaments don't tend to have that level of money yet, so there's fewer tournaments with shorter formats etc., and it's hard to make a career directly from that, so there's less practice, so the level of play is lower. But fundamentally there's nothing stopping women playing both of those to high levels, it's just going to be a case of either the women's tours growing to a level where there's a similar level of professionalism or just stopping trying to have a separate women's tour and finding the Sherrocks etc. who can compete with the men on a regular basis.
I believe polling says one of the top issue with voters being nervous to back Reform is Farage’s closeness to Trump. I just assume that the ceiling isn’t at the point where that becomes relevant yet but ultimately will be a limit on his support.
And with that, fin.
https://x.com/ocado/status/1913185767108583678?s=61
The statistics were disputed and following a review were downgraded from "official statistics" to "official statistics in development". The final report (latest version 18 Nov 2024)[1] said that
"...At the national level, triangulation with other sources, including data from the Scottish Census, suggests that an estimate of around “1 in 200” triangulates with other sources and is not likely to be materially misleading. While the information on the size and nature of all the potential biases is incomplete, it is hard to draw the same conclusion for some more-detailed breakdowns, including for local areas where the data indicate a higher concentration of people misunderstanding the question..."
So the figure of "around 1 in 200" works at the national level, but not at local level.
It's now April 2025 and stuff has been published since then. My impression is that the 1-in-200-at-the-national-level is correct and is still the current position, but happy to be contradicted by UK Statistical System sources.
This does not constitute professional advice from me and you must DYOR
[1] https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/review-of-statistics-on-gender-identity-based-on-data-collected-as-part-of-the-2021-england-and-wales-census-final-report/
I watched Rachael win a novice chase at Cheltenham on Thursday and mused about whether we would ever see her like again.