Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
There is a neglected side to this equation. Those fleeing the tyranny of living in the UK are, I presume, moving out of their fine houses and flats and either selling them or renting them at fancy prices to someone.
In one way or another, 30,000 people are taking the place of these highly valued people.
Who are they? And is everyone sure that the second lot are not in some way to be valued and appreciated as much as the departing ones?
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
So what do you mean by 'special tax rates' ? How would they compare to the taxes highly paid workers have to pay ?
And while some such people may be moving out there will be others moving in.
A process which has always happened to varying extents.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
What is your IQ. 3? Many of them won’t have salaried jobs you stupid frigging twit
So you're accepting that the number of high paying jobs in London has increased.
And what you're getting upset about is the possibility that the number of foreign oligarchs in London has decreased.
Which might or might not have either advantages and disadvantages.
Overall though London's oligarch strategy is a matter for Westminster and City Hall.
I’ve accepted nothing other than your very obvious stupidity
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
Are you seriously arguing that the 90s was a worse time to grow up if you were gay than it had been in the 70s or 80s?
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
Plenty of (young) women support trans rights. This isn’t a men vs women thing, which you conveniently forget.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
Plenty of (young) women support trans rights. This isn’t a men vs women thing, which you conveniently forget.
Trans people have rights - but not the sex based rights women have. But the outrage has only been when men have had rights they thought they had “removed” (they weren’t there in the first place).
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
Plenty of (young) women support trans rights. This isn’t a men vs women thing, which you conveniently forget.
Trans people have rights - but not the sex based rights women have. But the outrage has only been when men have had rights they thought they had “removed” (they weren’t there in the first place).
Plenty of young women support gender based rights for trans people. Your transphobia doesn’t change that.
I don’t know any billionaires. And I think the UK under-taxes wealth.
But I just think it’s stupid to drive out lucrative foreigners. Britain’s non-dom regime struck me as reasonably civilized, protecting wealth built up elsewhere from UK taxes. Likely it was open to abuse, and it was grotesque to have a serving Chancellor (and then PM)’s wife registered as non-dom, but it seems to me that the attack on non-doms is primarily driven by envy.
And now everyone’s poorer, including non-doms for whom London really is a convivial homebase.
I don't believe a class of people should be under a separate tax regime. It is not envy but a very human response to an unfair tax status.
If people leave so be it, the UK cannot compete with low tax city states. However I'd start looking at a more US model of taxation for representation. Moving to the gulf is fine but you can't expect the benefits of citizenship without the responsibilities to support it.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
Are you seriously arguing that the 90s was a worse time to grow up if you were gay than it had been in the 70s or 80s?
Didn't say that, but it wasn't as good as it is now. I remember canvassing in Exeter 1997 against Adrian "Homosexuality is a sterile, disease-ridden, God-forsaken occupation" Rogers. It was a hot-button issue then, luckily it would be nothing today.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
Why is the rallying cry not "trans people are people"?
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
I promise you, the super rich dead are so incensed about the situation they are quitting too.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
Why is the rallying cry not "trans people are people"?
Because not even JK Rowling thinks that trans people aren't people.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Where are these boundaries? It's all very similar to people saying that they are fine with gays but 'they shouldn't flaunt it in public'
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
Why is the rallying cry not "trans people are people"?
Because not even JK Rowling thinks that trans people aren't people.
Then their existence isn't under any threat, is it?
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Where are these boundaries? It's all very similar to people saying that they are fine with gays but 'they shouldn't flaunt it in public'
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Where are these boundaries? It's all very similar to people saying that they are fine with gays but 'they shouldn't flaunt it in public'
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Deranged persecution of lucrative tax-payers. The UK is simply poorer as a result.
And 3/4 of PBers are literally too stupid to understand this, or how or why it might be bad
They are plenty clever enough to understand it, but a majority of people here have staked out a political position, and then work out their observations about politics back from that. Rather than the other way round. Hence you get blind insistence that UK millionaires must 'pay their way' despite the obvious economic consequences, but blind fury about Trump’s tariffs affecting share prices and global supply chains in the US - which is pretty much the opposing argument.
Yes because you’re completely unbiased and objective in all your opinions
As far as party politics is concerned, I am very unbiased. If Sir Twit suddenly turns around and puts in place the solutions that I feel will work, I will support him. Even as much as I'm appalled by this Government, I've expressed positivity about: 1. Capital Gains changes (against almost all of PB) 2. Starmer's diplomacy on Trump 3. Nationalisation (ish) of steel 4. Legislating against the racist sentencing guidelines 5. Abolition of NHS England I think there have been a couple of other things but I can't immediately recall them.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
I’ve told you, there are other reasons AS WELL
London has gone from easily majority White British to obvious minority white British in about 30 years. Many will welcome this as improving our *rich diversity*, which is such a wonderful gift to everyone, and indeed our only source of strength; but perhaps some foreigners came to London coz they liked its quintessential Britishness? And that is now gone, or at least drastically changed - like East London
This works all ways. When I go to Japan I like to see Japanese people doing Japanese things and I enjoy being part of it for a while, and eating and drinking in Izakayas - and I am grateful to their kindness and hospitality of the Japanese in hosting me in their unique country. I don’t go to Kyoto to sit in a fake British pub with Brits, Irish, Aussies
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Everything you post is centred on the premise that trans women aren’t women. Most people are relaxed about women only spaces provided that trans women can use them without abuse or transphobia.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
‘Dead men walking’? Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Everything you post is centred on the premise that trans women aren’t women. Most people are relaxed about women only spaces provided that trans women can use them without abuse or transphobia.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
‘Dead men walking’? Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
oh give over you epicene Nit. @CarlottaVance is being hyperbolic and wry
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Everything you post is centred on the premise that trans women aren’t women. Most people are relaxed about women only spaces provided that trans women can use them without abuse or transphobia.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
No, I do not feel that it is my place as a man to opine on safeguarding. However it is my place to remind you that you don’t speak for all women and that plenty of women are relaxed about trans women being allowed in women-only spaces such as toilets, hospital wards and changing rooms. Their opinions as women are valid too and it isn’t misogyny to say that.
Almost everyone appreciates that there are nuances when it comes to prisons and sports but you don’t care about that, you just seem to want to spread transphobic hate in light of the “victory” in the Supreme Court.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
‘Dead men walking’? Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
oh give over you epicene Nit. @CarlottaVance is being hyperbolic and wry
You’d think TUD would have appropriate respect (fear? -ed.) for middle aged Scottish Women!
Well chaps, if you think men should be allowed into women’s single sex spaces, go right ahead and campaign to change the law.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
I’ve told you, there are other reasons AS WELL
London has gone from easily majority White British to obvious minority white British in about 30 years. Many will welcome this as improving our *rich diversity*, which is such a wonderful gift to everyone, and indeed our only source of strength; but perhaps some foreigners came to London coz they liked its quintessential Britishness? And that is now gone, or at least drastically changed - like East London
This works all ways. When I go to Japan I like to see Japanese people doing Japanese things and I enjoy being part of it for a while, and eating and drinking in Izakayas - and I am grateful to their kindness and hospitality of the Japanese in hosting me in their unique country. I don’t go to Kyoto to sit in a fake British pub with Brits, Irish, Aussies
OK I understand that. If I stand in the shopping centre by Hammersmith tube, there are some views straight out of Blade Runner. But there are still a lot of good old fashioned quintessential British pubs in London.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Everything you post is centred on the premise that trans women aren’t women. Most people are relaxed about women only spaces provided that trans women can use them without abuse or transphobia.
It’s what the Supreme Court said.
No, the Supreme Court simply clarified the definition of “woman” in respect of a specific law. The courts are not the arbiter of morals and the law can be changed.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
‘Dead men walking’? Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
oh give over you epicene Nit. @CarlottaVance is being hyperbolic and wry
You’d think TUD would have appropriate respect (fear? -ed.) for middle aged Scottish Women!
Well chaps, if you think men should be allowed into women’s single sex spaces, go right ahead and campaign to change the law.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
I’ve told you, there are other reasons AS WELL
London has gone from easily majority White British to obvious minority white British in about 30 years. Many will welcome this as improving our *rich diversity*, which is such a wonderful gift to everyone, and indeed our only source of strength; but perhaps some foreigners came to London coz they liked its quintessential Britishness? And that is now gone, or at least drastically changed - like East London
This works all ways. When I go to Japan I like to see Japanese people doing Japanese things and I enjoy being part of it for a while, and eating and drinking in Izakayas - and I am grateful to their kindness and hospitality of the Japanese in hosting me in their unique country. I don’t go to Kyoto to sit in a fake British pub with Brits, Irish, Aussies
Bit uncharitable towards all our ultra-rich friends - that they only tolerated London when it was a kind of white-ethnic theme park.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
No, I do not feel that it is my place as a man to opine on safeguarding. However it is my place to remind you that you don’t speak for all women and that plenty of women are relaxed about trans women being allowed in women-only spaces such as toilets, hospital wards and changing rooms. Their opinions as women are valid too and it isn’t misogyny to say that.
Almost everyone appreciates that there are nuances when it comes to prisons and sports but you don’t care about that, you just seem to want to spread transphobic hate in light of the “victory” in the Supreme Court.
I’m not claiming I do speak for “all women” - nor am I name calling.
Ask your women friends if they want to campaign to get the law changed.
They might, then again, given they will have to admit all men, they might not.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
‘Dead men walking’? Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
oh give over you epicene Nit. @CarlottaVance is being hyperbolic and wry
You’d think TUD would have appropriate respect (fear? -ed.) for middle aged Scottish Women!
Well chaps, if you think men should be allowed into women’s single sex spaces, go right ahead and campaign to change the law.
Honestly I find your transphobia disgusting.
If that’s what you want you need to change the law - why is that “disgusting”?
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
No, I do not feel that it is my place as a man to opine on safeguarding. However it is my place to remind you that you don’t speak for all women and that plenty of women are relaxed about trans women being allowed in women-only spaces such as toilets, hospital wards and changing rooms. Their opinions as women are valid too and it isn’t misogyny to say that.
Almost everyone appreciates that there are nuances when it comes to prisons and sports but you don’t care about that, you just seem to want to spread transphobic hate in light of the “victory” in the Supreme Court.
I’m not claiming I do speak for “all women” - nor am I name calling.
Ask your women friends if they want to campaign to get the law changed.
They might, then again, given they will have to admit all men, they might not.
No, they seem to just want trans women to be able to access women-only spaces without hate and abuse. It’s that simple.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
‘Dead men walking’? Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
oh give over you epicene Nit. @CarlottaVance is being hyperbolic and wry
You’d think TUD would have appropriate respect (fear? -ed.) for middle aged Scottish Women!
Well chaps, if you think men should be allowed into women’s single sex spaces, go right ahead and campaign to change the law.
Honestly I find your transphobia disgusting.
If that’s what you want you need to change the law - why is that “disgusting”?
Homophobia was still disgusting when homosexuality was illegal.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Opening myself up to abuse probably but my view is this
Toilets....don't really care Pronoun usage I try to be polite New names I try to be polite Open plan changing rooms....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Rape therapy centres....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Domestic abuse hostels....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Prisons ....fully support the rights of women to say that they don't want trans females that still have a penis Sport....fully support women to say they don't want people to compete that reached puberty as male.
Now for rape therapy, domestic abuse, and prisons....you had gender reassignment surgery I say yes I personally think thats ok
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
I’ve told you, there are other reasons AS WELL
London has gone from easily majority White British to obvious minority white British in about 30 years. Many will welcome this as improving our *rich diversity*, which is such a wonderful gift to everyone, and indeed our only source of strength; but perhaps some foreigners came to London coz they liked its quintessential Britishness? And that is now gone, or at least drastically changed - like East London
This works all ways. When I go to Japan I like to see Japanese people doing Japanese things and I enjoy being part of it for a while, and eating and drinking in Izakayas - and I am grateful to their kindness and hospitality of the Japanese in hosting me in their unique country. I don’t go to Kyoto to sit in a fake British pub with Brits, Irish, Aussies
OK I understand that. If I stand in the shopping centre by Hammersmith tube, there are some views straight out of Blade Runner. But there are still a lot of good old fashioned quintessential British pubs in London.
So add that to the increasing tax burden, the dying nightlife (partly related - Muslims don’t drink etc), the sense of increasing streetcrime, the general decay of everything, the graffiti and litter (also related. I’d argue as London feels evermore transient) and then you see why rich mobile people will flee
And they will flee, and they are fleeing, and their fleeing is increasing, and we risk fucking up the entire British economy as a result
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Yes but you and probably your bubble is so left wing you make corbyn look like a nazi
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Everything you post is centred on the premise that trans women aren’t women. Most people are relaxed about women only spaces provided that trans women can use them without abuse or transphobia.
In ordinary life people are entitled to whatever views they like, whether rational or not. Also in ordinary life words have variable meanings, so that it is perfectly possible for a trans person to be describable as 'female' 'woman' etc in some contexts and not others.
Statutory interpretation isn't like that. It requires precision. Precision creates conflict because you can't use the ordinary verbal softenings and equivocations which oil the wheels of daily life.
Once the statutory meaning of one particular word in one particular act reaches the SC (that's what the argument was about) you can be absolutely sure that whatever is decided, someone won't care for it. Otherwise it would not have got there in the first place.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
I’ve told you, there are other reasons AS WELL
London has gone from easily majority White British to obvious minority white British in about 30 years. Many will welcome this as improving our *rich diversity*, which is such a wonderful gift to everyone, and indeed our only source of strength; but perhaps some foreigners came to London coz they liked its quintessential Britishness? And that is now gone, or at least drastically changed - like East London
This works all ways. When I go to Japan I like to see Japanese people doing Japanese things and I enjoy being part of it for a while, and eating and drinking in Izakayas - and I am grateful to their kindness and hospitality of the Japanese in hosting me in their unique country. I don’t go to Kyoto to sit in a fake British pub with Brits, Irish, Aussies
Small sample size, of one... my parents still live in the house I grew up in, in Hornchurch, which is increasingly being called part of East London, though I always thought as myself as from Essex. They bought it in the late 70s. It's a long road, 120 or so houses, but in the part that they live in they are now the only white people left. This isn't a tale of racial tension, my parents get on great with their new neighbours, a couple of whom have said they moved to zone 6 from inner London because they wanted to live amongst English people not only Asians... looked like they picked the wrong street!
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Yes but you and probably your bubble is so left wing you make corbyn look like a nazi
It’s not to be honest. Most of my bubble is quite gentle left millennials and older Gen Z. However I appreciate that it’s a bubble and not necessarily reflective of the nation but in any event these women are entitled to have their voices heard on the definition of “woman” the same as others are without people pretending it’s just men telling women what they should think.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Opening myself up to abuse probably but my view is this
Toilets....don't really care Pronoun usage I try to be polite New names I try to be polite Open plan changing rooms....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Rape therapy centres....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Domestic abuse hostels....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Prisons ....fully support the rights of women to say that they don't want trans females that still have a penis Sport....fully support women to say they don't want people to compete that reached puberty as male.
Now for rape therapy, domestic abuse, and prisons....you had gender reassignment surgery I say yes I personally think thats ok
I think that’s fair - although given men are notoriously bad at raising the seat and have indifferent (at best) aim I’d not do toilets.
Gender reassignment surgery (mercifully, in my view as many outcomes are poor and complications challenging) is rare.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Yes but you and probably your bubble is so left wing you make corbyn look like a nazi
It’s not to be honest. Most of my bubble is quite gentle left millennials and older Gen Z. However I appreciate that it’s a bubble and not necessarily reflective of the nation but in any event these women are entitled to have their voices heard on the definition of “woman” the same as others are without people pretending it’s just men telling women what they should think.
I bit the bullet and posted what I thought reasonable....care to comment on it?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Opening myself up to abuse probably but my view is this
Toilets....don't really care Pronoun usage I try to be polite New names I try to be polite Open plan changing rooms....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Rape therapy centres....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Domestic abuse hostels....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Prisons ....fully support the rights of women to say that they don't want trans females that still have a penis Sport....fully support women to say they don't want people to compete that reached puberty as male.
Now for rape therapy, domestic abuse, and prisons....you had gender reassignment surgery I say yes I personally think thats ok
I think that’s fair - although given men are notoriously bad at raising the seat and have indifferent (at best) aim I’d not do toilets.
Gender reassignment surgery (mercifully, in my view as many outcomes are poor and complications challenging) is rare.
Womens toilets are pretty much cubicles anyway and as others have pointed out the sign on the door doesn't prevent men in any case. Been in plenty of womens loo's myself though more to share out the coke or a quick spliff than sexual
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
It's not a hateful opinion to think that trans women are not actually women.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Yes but you and probably your bubble is so left wing you make corbyn look like a nazi
It’s not to be honest. Most of my bubble is quite gentle left millennials and older Gen Z. However I appreciate that it’s a bubble and not necessarily reflective of the nation but in any event these women are entitled to have their voices heard on the definition of “woman” the same as others are without people pretending it’s just men telling women what they should think.
I bit the bullet and posted what I thought reasonable....care to comment on it?
Yes. You and I are generally in agreement. It all essentially comes down to “don’t be a dick” on both sides, ironically.
However the “winning side” in the recent SC decision has effectively doubled down on the transphobic “men in frocks” trans erasure when in reality it isn’t as simple as that. The law maybe is, now, but not morality.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Yes but you and probably your bubble is so left wing you make corbyn look like a nazi
It’s not to be honest. Most of my bubble is quite gentle left millennials and older Gen Z. However I appreciate that it’s a bubble and not necessarily reflective of the nation but in any event these women are entitled to have their voices heard on the definition of “woman” the same as others are without people pretending it’s just men telling women what they should think.
I bit the bullet and posted what I thought reasonable....care to comment on it?
Yes. You and I are generally in agreement. It all essentially comes down to “don’t be a dick” on both sides, ironically.
However the “winning side” in the recent SC decision has effectively doubled down on the transphobic “men in frocks” trans erasure when in reality it isn’t as simple as that. The law maybe is, now, but not morality.
Because extremists on both sides and frankly you are coming across as one whether you realise it or not. Personally I think my take reasonable and not anti anyone
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
It's not a hateful opinion to think that trans women are not actually women.
Maybe not “hateful” in of itself but as it is effectively the same as calling trans women “men”, that is quite distasteful.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
It's not a hateful opinion to think that trans women are not actually women.
Maybe not “hateful” in of itself but as it is effectively the same as calling trans women “men”, that is quite distasteful.
Would you be comfortable with calling them "male" rather than "men"?
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
It seems to me the entire debate gets out of control. The SC was asked to answer exactly one question, which was this:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Yes, the problems arose because activists sought to impose their world view and craven public bodies and cowardly politicians meekly went along.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Oh, we're all dead eventually, but hopefully before I die we'll get over this bout of anti-trans nonsense.
Why is protecting women, lesbians and gay rights “anti-trans nonsense”?
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Everything you post is centred on the premise that trans women aren’t women. Most people are relaxed about women only spaces provided that trans women can use them without abuse or transphobia.
It’s what the Supreme Court said.
Thec SC were only giving a view of the application and meaning of the word 'woman' in a single Act of Parliament. The SC were not prohibiting, commending or judging any of the varying opinions individuals hold about what are clearly contested matters.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
It's not a hateful opinion to think that trans women are not actually women.
If that's what you believe, and it's what I do, then being called a transphobe is neither here nor there
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Yes but you and probably your bubble is so left wing you make corbyn look like a nazi
It’s not to be honest. Most of my bubble is quite gentle left millennials and older Gen Z. However I appreciate that it’s a bubble and not necessarily reflective of the nation but in any event these women are entitled to have their voices heard on the definition of “woman” the same as others are without people pretending it’s just men telling women what they should think.
I bit the bullet and posted what I thought reasonable....care to comment on it?
Yes. You and I are generally in agreement. It all essentially comes down to “don’t be a dick” on both sides, ironically.
However the “winning side” in the recent SC decision has effectively doubled down on the transphobic “men in frocks” trans erasure when in reality it isn’t as simple as that. The law maybe is, now, but not morality.
Because extremists on both sides and frankly you are coming across as one whether you realise it or not. Personally I think my take reasonable and not anti anyone
I don’t know how you can call me an extremist when I pretty much agree with you.
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Opening myself up to abuse probably but my view is this
Toilets....don't really care Pronoun usage I try to be polite New names I try to be polite Open plan changing rooms....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Rape therapy centres....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Domestic abuse hostels....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Prisons ....fully support the rights of women to say that they don't want trans females that still have a penis Sport....fully support women to say they don't want people to compete that reached puberty as male.
Now for rape therapy, domestic abuse, and prisons....you had gender reassignment surgery I say yes I personally think thats ok
That's good. You have agreement and likes from both Gallowgate and Carlotta.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Sounds like quite a twatto-media network you've got there. I've never heard a single woman say she wants five rapists wearing frocks and lipstick to enter the women's toilet she's gone into. But then I don't use twatto-media.
Anyway how do you know these "women" on twatto-media aren't men?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
It's not a hateful opinion to think that trans women are not actually women.
Maybe not “hateful” in of itself but as it is effectively the same as calling trans women “men”, that is quite distasteful.
Would you be comfortable with calling them "male" rather than "men"?
I am personally happy to call them whatever they want to be called. I appreciate that as a man that doesn’t hold as much weight, but so do plenty of women.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
Well that leaves you mainly the Greens or possibly the Lib Dem’s…
Just out of curiosity, has it emerged yet what the practical test for "biological gender" will be in the light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Given that it can't be production of a birth certificate, given the consequences of the Gender Recognition Act.
And also given the ruling that it has to be strictly binary.
That's the question that no-one who is celebrating the judgement have been willing to answer. In practice it's going to be on appearance, if a trans woman passes then she's fine, if you're a cis woman who looks too masculine then things will be different. The bunch that are very vocal about women's rights don't seem to care about the women who will find themselves on the wrong side of the line.
I agree that, in practice, it is going to be on appearance.
A trans woman who passes would, in practice, have had no need to invoke the Equalities Act and is unaffected by the clarification.
A trans woman who doesn't pass who wanted to use the Equality Act to force admission to women's spaces now can't.
A masculine looking cis woman is unaffected. If she is denied entry to a women's space, she can use the Equality Act to gain access, as she always could. But this is a very unlikely scenario.
"Trans woman" covers a wide spectrum from those who have surgically transitioned and who are totally accepted as women and are unaffected by the clarification, to the other extreme end of the spectrum - men dressed as women who identify as women for larks or kicks who now can't force entry to women's spaces using the Equality Act.
The trans population is not at all homogenous. I think there should be a cut-off point on the trans spectrum with different words to describe those on either side of it.
So if you're not able to go to the toilet, you just have to file a claim on the Equality Act and wait 2 years to get it resolved. Is it reasonable to ask someone to hold it in for that long?
Who are you talking about in practice?
A relative, she is a butch lesbian in her 60s, she does not look feminine in the slightest and likes it that way. With the scare around 'predators' I fear she's going to be beaten up trying to use the ladies.
Beaten up by the ladies in the ladies?? Come on Andy. This is a strawman argument.
The clarification of the Equalities Act makes zero difference to butch looking cis women. They have always been entitled to use the Act as women if they are discriminated.
But your relative, in practice, if challenged, should ignore or rebut the challenge, depending how she feels at the time. No woman is going to beat her up. She doesn't need the Act. You should reassure her.
The procession of strawmen marching out with concerns about lesbians when they were silent about lesbians being called sexual racists for not liking “girl dick” has been a sight to behold.
That and men worrying about “trans women who pass” - it’s a vanishingly small number - women learn from a young age to spot the difference - and don’t bother with heavily filtered photos from the internet.
Men who want to cross women’s boundaries are the men who shouldn’t be going into female single sex spaces.
When have I ever said anything remotely offensive about lesbians?
I didn’t say you had - just much of the commentary today has evinced a sudden concern for lesbians which was invisible before men were being affected.
I promise you I would be just as exercised if the rights of lesbians were being restricted. And they will be, look at Russia and Hungary, getting rid of trans people is always the first step, lesbians and gays are next. Maybe you're old enough to have been at school when Section 28 happened. Teachers feeling scared to even mention homosexuality and gay kids having to live within themselves for fear of being bullied. What do you want to happen to this generation of trans kids? What society do you want them to become adults in?
A classic example of the selective outrage has been complaints that the British Transport Police will require people to be searched by people of the same sex. There was silence when they were forcing female officers to search men who say they are women. But now men are affected so it’s an outrage.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
I'm not trying to coerce you or even particularly persuade you. But trans people exist, it's no more a belief than homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice'. As a man, I like being a man and I can't completely understand why anyone would be trans, but there are and I don't want to see them hurt. So I'll ask again, what you want to happen to trans people?
They should live their lives to the best, without intruding on the boundaries of others. It was what they were doing before an aggressive movement forced the issue and brought this difficulty down on their own heads.
Victim blaming, the rallying call of the transphobe. Do you comment on this blog on any other topic? It’s pathetic
Frankly I’d grown bored of the mansplaining on here but saw Cyclefree’s header. I post on plenty, and when I do I try to engage with the argument and avoid cheap sloganeering or telling others what to post
Why is Stonewall a victim?
I am not mansplaining anything. Almost all the woman in my life supports the rights of trans Women to access women’s toilets, etc, and just because you don’t think they should doesn’t mean all women do.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
Since you won’t engage with the issues but resort to name calling,I’ll ask you this too:
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Opening myself up to abuse probably but my view is this
Toilets....don't really care Pronoun usage I try to be polite New names I try to be polite Open plan changing rooms....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Rape therapy centres....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Domestic abuse hostels....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis Prisons ....fully support the rights of women to say that they don't want trans females that still have a penis Sport....fully support women to say they don't want people to compete that reached puberty as male.
Now for rape therapy, domestic abuse, and prisons....you had gender reassignment surgery I say yes I personally think thats ok
That's good. You have agreement and likes from both Gallowgate and Carlotta.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Sounds like quite a twatto-media network you've got there. I've never heard a single woman say she wants five rapists wearing frocks and lipstick to enter the women's toilet she's gone into. But then I don't use twatto-media.
Anyway how do you know these "women" on twatto-media aren't men?
Edit: OK I get it - it's their pronouns.
Nobody wants rapists entering their toilet, men or women.
The Supreme Court had no choice but to find unanimously in favour of science. What else could they do? They'd be open to sentimental twaddle otherwise.
Far more interesting is the the example of the extreme cases that are very rare. CAIS, short for Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Less than one in about 50,000 people with a chromosomal pattern of XY have this mutation in the androgen receptor. But the lack of effect of the the major androgens means the external body pattern is female at birth (the default) and includes testes in the abdomen (usually taken out when the syndrome is discovered). Lacking a uterus, ovary, and fallopian tubes, but the oestrogens do work with no competion ensuring a vagina that can be albeit a little shorter which means they are usually brought up as female.
The nembers are small, but they seem to be generally heterosexual i.e. they prefer male partners. Whether because they are brought up that way or the hormones are the deciding factors.
As usual the scientists are reluctant to confirm because of the small numbers and the non-scientists will be certain depending on whatever they feel.
In Physics, the Goldilocks pattern of Earth's physical constants leaves two options as well. It was fortuitously that way because otherwise we wouldn't be here, or it strongly suggests an intelligent designer. Even scientists tend to follow one or the other depending on their psycological outlook.
Facts are sacred and they are the safe option in his case.
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
I’m not “erasing” anyone.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
I mean you literally are. That is exactly what you’re doing.
Are you going to campaign to change the law?
No. I don’t campaign on anything. But I will vote accordingly and call out transphobia and hate when I see it, which I see as my duty
It's not a hateful opinion to think that trans women are not actually women.
Maybe not “hateful” in of itself but as it is effectively the same as calling trans women “men”, that is quite distasteful.
Would you be comfortable with calling them "male" rather than "men"?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
He was placed in a women's prison, not a women's loo. Are you and the many women who agree with you comfortable with him being there then?
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
I suspect there are more rapists in male toilets than female, you merely dont realise it because they prefer to rape women
PB has become tragically dim. Too many smart people have left. It’s like Britain driving away milllionaires
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
I guess on the plus side we tardigrades will survive any impending nuclear holocaust. 😉
Oh dear leon has gone full on "I did 18 holes in ones on my first game of golf" Kim il jong style....if he scored 237 on the iq scale its merely suggesting the iq scale is a worthless measure
In my network on social media and amongst my friends it is notable that it is 99% women who are the most outspoken against the Supreme Court decision. It is not men who are angry about it. However the likes of @CarlottaVance are happy to erase them too.
Is saying you think someone is wrong 'erasing them' now?
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
She isn’t saying people are wrong. That’s the problem. It isn’t a debate, it’s just “these people aren’t women so what is the problem” not even acknowledging that some women do consider them women. There is no nuance.
Perhaps these women should consider who they are encompassing within this broad category. If you are a physically intact and sexually active male rapist but you've chucked on a wig, most people, including Nicola Sturgeon, will think that you're not actually a woman; you're at it. And if that is the case, clearly we need a more robust system than self-id as a measure of who is allowed to be in single sex spaces?
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Not really. I am a man and I don’t want a rapist in the men’s toilet either. That isn’t the gotcha you think it is.
He was placed in a women's prison, not a women's loo. Are you and the many women who agree with you comfortable with him being there then?
I have continuously acknowledged that there nuances around prisons and sport. I think most people agree with that - even the “woke”.
Nearly 10% of all London properties are worth at least £1 million. I am a London millionaire. So "30,000 millionaires fleeing the capital in ten years" is not a lot. And were they all fleeing? It seems a small number to me.
This doesn’t sound like it’s just millionaire homeowners.
According to research by the Adam Smith Institute, each of the millionaires who left the capital over the last decade would have paid at least £393,957 in income tax per year.
So not millionaires but people earning over a million each year.
So have the number of London jobs paying over a million each year increased or decreased in that time period ?
If its increased then those 'fleeing' are being replaced by others.
I have tried to post about this many times on PB but usually just get abuse. I deal with a good number of these people leaving the UK and solving certain issues for them.
When I point out how many are leaving it’s not out of joy and counting my money that I make as a result - I genuinely love the UK and want it to be a success but the country is full of people who wilfully refuse to understand that these people are not just people working in a bank on a fat salary but entrepreneurs who employ many people, contribute to the tax base in many ways through personal taxation, spending and corporate taxes, on top of employment taxes and the subsequent income tax those employees make.
In the last couple of weeks I have met three people leaving the uk and their combined wealth is well over £4 billion.
This is wealth that will no longer be taxed in the UK. These are people who are moving businesses out and will not be employing in the UK anymore.
Just think about it - if you gave them some special tax rates you would get what is still a large tax take and benefit from the businesses they would continue to operate in the UK.
I know I will get the usual attack on parasites, the “don’t let the door hit their arses on the way out” ignorant bullshit but I don’t care now - I write about it because it’s happening on a large scale - tax money leaving that you will never get back until the UK makes not only the tax regime attractive but drops the envy about wealth.
It’s truly frustrating that I am unable to tell you more about these people because it would highlight what you are losing - not just tax but their businesses and all the future spin offs from them.
Maybe we should introduce the US tax system whereby you have to file a UK tax return to report your worldwide income regardless of where you live and work. The only way to avoid submitting a UK tax return would be to renounce your UK citizenship and take up some other citizenship.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
It’s rarely income tax that these people have an issue with. It’s CGT and Inheritance tax they want to minimise.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
If it was inheritance tax they were paying, they won't be leaving!
If they are in London, very wealthy and still have estates bigly liable to IHT there is a very large number of lawyers and accountants who will jump into a taxi to come and see them right now at special low rates starting at around £1,500 per hour to see them right. It is the world's most avoidable tax.
Since I work in private banking and actually know some of the people in question....
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Yes, it’s a holistic choice. It’s not just the tax - it’s a whole bunch of things, of which tax is one important part but far from the whole
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
I think I'd feel more comfortable wandering around the Tube network these days than I would in the 1970s. 'Whispers in the shadows - gruff blazing voices, Hating, waiting' etc.
Comments
In one way or another, 30,000 people are taking the place of these highly valued people.
Who are they? And is everyone sure that the second lot are not in some way to be valued and appreciated as much as the departing ones?
And while some such people may be moving out there will be others moving in.
A process which has always happened to varying extents.
I find it odd that some wealthy people are so sensitive to reducing their very large incomes by paying extra tax that they are willing to give up all that London offers them, including their friends. But that's just me. I wouldn't do it. I don't value huge amounts of income that much. I'm happy as I am.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” argument.
LGB is who you are attracted to
Trans is who you think you are.
Forced teaming has been bad for LGB rights - if the decision had gone the other way it would have outlawed same-sex associations and stripped trans men of maternity rights - but we don’t hear about that.
Trans is based on a philosophy called “gender” - some people believe they have a gender - just like some believe they have a soul. I don’t believe in either and won’t be coerced into believing in them or creating law based on them.
https://britainelects.substack.com/p/labour-loses-its-lead-on-the-economy
I personally am keeping the average IQ over 90 with my IQ of 237. When I go this place will be like a fucking kindergarten of tardigrades
If people leave so be it, the UK cannot compete with low tax city states. However I'd start looking at a more US model of taxation for representation. Moving to the gulf is fine but you can't expect the benefits of citizenship without the responsibilities to support it.
And a lot of the super wealthy leaving the UK aren’t UK nationals so stripping their citizenship isn’t the threat that it might seem on first glance.
Ultimately these people will be paying nothing in tax in the UK in the future whereas under the old non-doms regime they were paying tax.
Now what's your take on UK Tax Law?
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
That's all. Their answer is entirely unsurprising and is boringly based on what parliament appears to have said once their contradictions and obfuscations have been untangled. Anything that people agree causes problems with it can be rectified by parliament. There is much less to see here than people seem to think.
Then they pissed off some middle aged Scottish women.
Dead men walking, every last one of them.
Why is Stonewall a victim?
1. Capital Gains changes (against almost all of PB)
2. Starmer's diplomacy on Trump
3. Nationalisation (ish) of steel
4. Legislating against the racist sentencing guidelines
5. Abolition of NHS England
I think there have been a couple of other things but I can't immediately recall them.
I don’t have any right to tell you what you should think but I do have the right to call you a transphobe, which is what you are.
To be clear - do you think female BTP should search trans women? Than men should compete in women’s sports? That rapists should be in the female prison estate? That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
London has gone from easily majority White British to obvious minority white British in about 30 years. Many will welcome this as improving our *rich diversity*, which is such a wonderful gift to everyone, and indeed our only source of strength; but perhaps some foreigners came to London coz they liked its quintessential Britishness? And that is now gone, or at least drastically changed - like East London
This works all ways. When I go to Japan I like to see Japanese people doing Japanese things and I enjoy being part of it for a while, and eating and drinking in Izakayas - and I am grateful to their kindness and hospitality of the Japanese in hosting me in their unique country. I don’t go to Kyoto to sit in a fake British pub with Brits, Irish, Aussies
Golly, time to deploy it’s only a metaphor fig leaf.
Do you think female BTP should search trans women?
Than men should compete in women’s sports?
That rapists should be in the female prison estate?
That there should be no single sex toilets, changing rooms or hospital wards?
Almost everyone appreciates that there are nuances when it comes to prisons and sports but you don’t care about that, you just seem to want to spread transphobic hate in light of the “victory” in the Supreme Court.
Well chaps, if you think men should be allowed into women’s single sex spaces, go right ahead and campaign to change the law.
But there are still a lot of good old fashioned quintessential British pubs in London.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that they are UK citizens. Many aren't. They are immigrants. Just with added money.
And it's not just the clients - many of those working in the banks are not UK citizens.
Sure, we have a Chinese guy and an Indian guy in the team, working on their UK citizenships. But born here? Not so much. And they are considering transfers to other countries (within the bank) - the team already has international working, so they would simply dial into the calls from where ever.
So just like the clients, they see where they are as transactional. A Japanese lady of my acquaintance is moving back there, because housing is cheap and she wants to start a family - and in Tokyo childcare and other kids stuff is free. Is she a Citizen of Nowhere dodging tax?
A common theme is value - when the council announces a tax increase, combined with a "consultation" on reducing the bin collection to once everything *3* weeks, why shouldn't they consider Switzerland. More expensive, but works.
The clients talk about potholes, crime and lack of anything like a plan in government - combined with an attitude that business is a problem. Try building a factory in the UK.
If they simply wanted low tax, they could move to the US. We are talking about people who would never need medical insurance - that's what a credit card is for, right?
Ask your women friends if they want to campaign to get the law changed.
They might, then again, given they will have to admit all men, they might not.
Nor am I resorting to hysterical hyperbole.
Toilets....don't really care
Pronoun usage I try to be polite
New names I try to be polite
Open plan changing rooms....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis
Rape therapy centres....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis
Domestic abuse hostels....fully support the rights of women to say they don't want trans females in there that still have a penis
Prisons ....fully support the rights of women to say that they don't want trans females that still have a penis
Sport....fully support women to say they don't want people to compete that reached puberty as male.
Now for rape therapy, domestic abuse, and prisons....you had gender reassignment surgery I say yes I personally think thats ok
And they will flee, and they are fleeing, and their fleeing is increasing, and we risk fucking up the entire British economy as a result
Statutory interpretation isn't like that. It requires precision. Precision creates conflict because you can't use the ordinary verbal softenings and equivocations which oil the wheels of daily life.
Once the statutory meaning of one particular word in one particular act reaches the SC (that's what the argument was about) you can be absolutely sure that whatever is decided, someone won't care for it. Otherwise it would not have got there in the first place.
Gender reassignment surgery (mercifully, in my view as many outcomes are poor and complications challenging) is rare.
'Get a life' as someone wisely once said.
Britain - especially London - used to sell itself as a rainy grey city BUT it was a land of laws, ethnically British, a city of pubs and churches, high trust, low crime, stable and enduring, Wimbledon and Wembley, the Old Red Lion down the road, and on top of that it had a nice mix of diversity, good Asian restaurants, interesting Chinatowns etc - there is a perfect blend and we had it for a while
I’d argue we have gone way over that and London is now, sadly, increasingly, nowheresville. And it’s still rainy and grey as someone steals your Rolex with a machete - and now you must pay a fuckload of tax. So, these people leave
However the “winning side” in the recent SC decision has effectively doubled down on the transphobic “men in frocks” trans erasure when in reality it isn’t as simple as that. The law maybe is, now, but not morality.
Anyway how do you know these "women" on twatto-media aren't men?
Edit: OK I get it - it's their pronouns.
Personally, as I've said, I think that surgical transition at the end of a long medical process, should be the test. But given what has happened, I can empathise with those who take a harder line.
Far more interesting is the the example of the extreme cases that are very rare. CAIS, short for Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Less than one in about 50,000 people with a chromosomal pattern of XY have this mutation in the androgen receptor. But the lack of effect of the the major androgens means the external body pattern is female at birth (the default) and includes testes in the abdomen (usually taken out when the syndrome is discovered). Lacking a uterus, ovary, and fallopian tubes, but the oestrogens do work with no competion ensuring a vagina that can be albeit a little shorter which means they are usually brought up as female.
The nembers are small, but they seem to be generally heterosexual i.e. they prefer male partners. Whether because they are brought up that way or the hormones are the deciding factors.
As usual the scientists are reluctant to confirm because of the small numbers and the non-scientists will be certain depending on whatever they feel.
In Physics, the Goldilocks pattern of Earth's physical constants leaves two options as well. It was fortuitously that way because otherwise we wouldn't be here, or it strongly suggests an intelligent designer. Even scientists tend to follow one or the other depending on their psycological outlook.
Facts are sacred and they are the safe option in his case.