I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
They all though describe an exposed penis......guy jumps out of the bushes and opens his coat and is naked...he gets arrested as a flasher....why is it different in your view if a trans female flashes her girl dick around?
Intent, obviously.
Also, there’s absolutely no evidence anywhere that Lia did any more than simply get changed in the same room as the rest of the competitors, at competitions where there were no other places to get changed. There is (as far as can be told from the contemporaneous reports of the women involved) no sexual deviance here & the fact that you & Cyclefree apparently cannot get your minds out of that particular gutter when it comes to transwomen says more about the two of you than it does anyone who was actually involved at the time, who (of course) have the absolute right to their own feelings & personal responses to competing with a transwoman.
See my post above and answer it
It’s a really obvious moving of the goalposts & trolley problems are not usually a good way to decide legal questions but sure: the answer to your question is that courts are in fact pretty good at considering questions of intent & intent matters.
A UK court would, I suspect take a very skeptical view of a defendant claiming that they had suddenly decided five minutes before entering a female changing space that they were trans & that therefore this made it ok.
On the flip side, someone who had transitioned in their actual life, was taking hormones etc would likely be treated differently.
Also, it is worth remembering that currently there is absolutely no UK law that stops anyone walking into any changing rooms, regardless of sex or gender presentation: You walking into a female changing room, getting changed & going straight into the pool doesn’t break any laws in and of itself. The pool owner may take a view on this behaviour & if anyone complains then you may risk a prosecution for indecent exposure but the act itself breaks no laws, as far as I know.
I didn't say 5 minutes before walking in though don't put words in my mouth. A man who gets off on flashing to females will declare himself female then be able to do it with impunity in you view....they will probably do it a couple of months before for credibility
What is stopping you from walking to the local pool and doing the same? Those with the inclination to can already.
You mean apart from the lack of desire to wave my genitalia in the face of women that don;t want to see it?
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
As do I as I have said multiple times. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else and the SC has confirmed that they have not lost any rights at all.
But you agreed upthread with someone who did not know what the boundaries are . Well, I'll tell you what they are: when a woman says no, it means no. No is a complete sentence. If you can't or won't understand that, then frankly you are so far out of bounds that it is hard to know what to say. It reflects appallingly on you.
When a man breaches a woman's boundary, he is a predator. When others say that it is all right for him to breach a woman's boundary, to force himself where he isn't wanted, then they are justifying and enabling predatory behaviour. The placards at the demo in London talk about shooting women and shitting on their heads. There have been other demos with placards advocating the beheading of women. This is not about rights for dysphoric people.
This is about a class of men who simply do not see women as fully human or as deserving rights to dignity, privacy or safety - and I use those words advisedly because they come from the Goodwin case in the ECHR which led to the GRA, they derive from the European Convention, they are referenced in the SC judgment and they apply to all of us - women included. And when some men say that they will force themselves into our spaces regardless of our wishes, when they publicly make violent threats, when they refuse to grant or countenance for women what they demand for themselves, then it is not those objecting to this who should be attacked or criticised.
Once again (and as my header described - so I am enjoying the irony) this forum is obsessed with what men want, with men's feelings and does not give a toss about women, their concerns and needs.
The misogyny on here is palpable and disappointing. But it shows how widespread it is. I've had enough of it.
No Cyclefree. It isn’t misogyny to point out that you don’t speak for all women, because you don’t. Neither is it for you (or for anyone else) to do so.
You trying to frame this as misogyny takes away the agency from other women - I know this because my girlfriend is one of them, so are my friends.
Also it is one thing to have an opinion on women’s spaces in various guises but it is another to disparage trans women by calling them “men in frocks” and other such insults. That is transphobia plain and simple.
I have both Fox jr and Foxjr2 with us for the weekend both with their partners, and both cis-women. Neither are bothered by having Trans-women using shared spaces such as bathrooms. Neither is Mrs Foxy.
Clearly some women feel differently, but in polling Trans rights tends to get more support from women than men.
It's not a male vs female issue, it divides both sexes, and also doesn't cleanly divide by politics or age.
So they'd be happy for a naked man to be wandering about in the changing rooms at thr gym, just as long as he's wearing a bit of blusher?
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
As do I as I have said multiple times. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else and the SC has confirmed that they have not lost any rights at all.
But you agreed upthread with someone who did not know what the boundaries are . Well, I'll tell you what they are: when a woman says no, it means no. No is a complete sentence. If you can't or won't understand that, then frankly you are so far out of bounds that it is hard to know what to say. It reflects appallingly on you.
When a man breaches a woman's boundary, he is a predator. When others say that it is all right for him to breach a woman's boundary, to force himself where he isn't wanted, then they are justifying and enabling predatory behaviour. The placards at the demo in London talk about shooting women and shitting on their heads. There have been other demos with placards advocating the beheading of women. This is not about rights for dysphoric people.
This is about a class of men who simply do not see women as fully human or as deserving rights to dignity, privacy or safety - and I use those words advisedly because they come from the Goodwin case in the ECHR which led to the GRA, they derive from the European Convention, they are referenced in the SC judgment and they apply to all of us - women included. And when some men say that they will force themselves into our spaces regardless of our wishes, when they publicly make violent threats, when they refuse to grant or countenance for women what they demand for themselves, then it is not those objecting to this who should be attacked or criticised.
Once again (and as my header described - so I am enjoying the irony) this forum is obsessed with what men want, with men's feelings and does not give a toss about women, their concerns and needs.
The misogyny on here is palpable and disappointing. But it shows how widespread it is. I've had enough of it.
No Cyclefree. It isn’t misogyny to point out that you don’t speak for all women, because you don’t. Neither is it for you (or for anyone else) to do so.
You trying to frame this as misogyny takes away the agency from other women - I know this because my girlfriend is one of them, so are my friends.
Also it is one thing to have an opinion on women’s spaces in various guises but it is another to disparage trans women by calling them “men in frocks” and other such insults. That is transphobia plain and simple.
I have both Fox jr and Foxjr2 with us for the weekend both with their partners, and both cis-women. Neither are bothered by having Trans-women using shared spaces such as bathrooms. Neither is Mrs Foxy.
Clearly some women feel differently, but in polling Trans rights tends to get more support from women than men.
It's not a male vs female issue, it divides both sexes, and also doesn't cleanly divide by politics or age.
Just to back @Gallowgate up, a handful of young women in my broader friend group went to the protest in Edinburgh.
I appreciate I move in "woke" circles, but so do most young women in the UK. None of my male friends went, including those who are gay. It also gathered more support than Palestine, which tends to be just a few ultras now.
The one interesting post I saw about it was a friend suggesting that almost all transphobia is simply projection from straight men who are desperate to get into women's spaces. I think that's right.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
As do I as I have said multiple times. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else and the SC has confirmed that they have not lost any rights at all.
But you agreed upthread with someone who did not know what the boundaries are . Well, I'll tell you what they are: when a woman says no, it means no. No is a complete sentence. If you can't or won't understand that, then frankly you are so far out of bounds that it is hard to know what to say. It reflects appallingly on you.
When a man breaches a woman's boundary, he is a predator. When others say that it is all right for him to breach a woman's boundary, to force himself where he isn't wanted, then they are justifying and enabling predatory behaviour. The placards at the demo in London talk about shooting women and shitting on their heads. There have been other demos with placards advocating the beheading of women. This is not about rights for dysphoric people.
This is about a class of men who simply do not see women as fully human or as deserving rights to dignity, privacy or safety - and I use those words advisedly because they come from the Goodwin case in the ECHR which led to the GRA, they derive from the European Convention, they are referenced in the SC judgment and they apply to all of us - women included. And when some men say that they will force themselves into our spaces regardless of our wishes, when they publicly make violent threats, when they refuse to grant or countenance for women what they demand for themselves, then it is not those objecting to this who should be attacked or criticised.
Once again (and as my header described - so I am enjoying the irony) this forum is obsessed with what men want, with men's feelings and does not give a toss about women, their concerns and needs.
The misogyny on here is palpable and disappointing. But it shows how widespread it is. I've had enough of it.
No Cyclefree. It isn’t misogyny to point out that you don’t speak for all women, because you don’t. Neither is it for you (or for anyone else) to do so.
You trying to frame this as misogyny takes away the agency from other women - I know this because my girlfriend is one of them, so are my friends.
Also it is one thing to have an opinion on women’s spaces in various guises but it is another to disparage trans women by calling them “men in frocks” and other such insults. That is transphobia plain and simple and it is appropriate for men (including myself) to call that out because silence is acceptance.
My wife is also somewhat pissed off, not by ruling itself (it is what it is) but by the permission transphobes now feel to bring out their inner bigotry.
I’ve steered clear of this topic for a long time, seeing it as something for women to work out between them, and for men - generally much more anti trans than women - to butt out of. but the blatant othering and dehumanising language on show, including in a PB header, has really got my goat. It does seem there’s a significant subset of public opinion, boosted no doubt by MAGA algorithms, that sees all trans people as pretending. Fantasists. Perverts.
I posted upthread my criteria, I personally dont consider it transphobic. Do you have a problem with my suggestions?
More like that Apple's walled garden model is two product failures away from justified obliteration. The Android open model will overcome the Betamax and it may come sooner than you think.
Android has a much larger market share. It is already dominant.
Also mostly used by people who would buy and iPhone if they could afford one. So there is that.
Also used by anyone and there is a lot of us that wouldn't touch and apple device with your cock let alone our fingers
Can you operate your iPhone with your cock? Great news if so, the amount of times my hands are busy and I could just whack my cock onto the “answer call” button and then hit the speaker phone option. I thought it was just finger skin that worked but you have opened a whole new world to me.
I used to always keep my phone at arms length but now I can leave it further away.
I wonder if face ID can be trained on it? I mean, only one eye but still...
To tediously continue the theme of the evening, you’d have to be careful what state of arousal it was in.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
Nothing you have just said is anything other than opinion though. The changing room story has no credible source. As I said I don't think that trans women should compete against biological females in many sports but the fact that Lia Thomas got further in competitions as a trans woman than as a man doesn't demonstrate any malign intent on her part. I'm sorry but your scepticism does sound a lot like prejudice to me.
It’s always the same short list of examples too. Cyclefree adds a little soupçon of unsourced innuendo of sexual assault or deviance to season the story, because that’s part & parcel of the GC approach to this entire debate: to always paint trans people as sexual deviants & a danger to women so they can be shut out of society.
As far as I can find, there is /no/ report out there of Lia Thomas exposing female athletes to an erect penis ever: It simply didn’t happen. Were their fellow athletes uncomfortable, or unhappy with having to change in the same locker room as Lia & did Lia get changed in front of them? Yes, absolutely & I’m not going to minimise that, but the thing Cyclefree claims here didn’t happen.
If Cyclefree can provide a link to back up her claim then I will of course retract.
I posted 4 links
the links didnt substantiate what cyclefree claimed
I see several things happening in Ukraine right now:
1: Ukraine has pivoted to a drone based defense. Most of the gains you see Russia making right now are coming as a result of one of two things. A: Inferior Ukrainian drone units or B: Overwhelming Numerical Superiority... https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1913293007488458837
Fascinating thread.
If Ukraine survives this onslaught, and eventually forces Russia into a bankruptcy-driven retreat, then I really hope they tell Trump and his cabal of dickheads to do one with their exploitative minerals deal and flat track bully tactics.
More like that Apple's walled garden model is two product failures away from justified obliteration. The Android open model will overcome the Betamax and it may come sooner than you think.
Android has a much larger market share. It is already dominant.
Also mostly used by people who would buy and iPhone if they could afford one. So there is that.
Also used by anyone and there is a lot of us that wouldn't touch and apple device with your cock let alone our fingers
Can you operate your iPhone with your cock? Great news if so, the amount of times my hands are busy and I could just whack my cock onto the “answer call” button and then hit the speaker phone option. I thought it was just finger skin that worked but you have opened a whole new world to me.
I used to always keep my phone at arms length but now I can leave it further away.
I wonder if face ID can be trained on it? I mean, only one eye but still...
I’ve heard that Face ID can be a bit racist so might have trouble with Jap’s Eyes, just imagine the trouble if you rely on your brown eye to get into your phone.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
As do I as I have said multiple times. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else and the SC has confirmed that they have not lost any rights at all.
But you agreed upthread with someone who did not know what the boundaries are . Well, I'll tell you what they are: when a woman says no, it means no. No is a complete sentence. If you can't or won't understand that, then frankly you are so far out of bounds that it is hard to know what to say. It reflects appallingly on you.
When a man breaches a woman's boundary, he is a predator. When others say that it is all right for him to breach a woman's boundary, to force himself where he isn't wanted, then they are justifying and enabling predatory behaviour. The placards at the demo in London talk about shooting women and shitting on their heads. There have been other demos with placards advocating the beheading of women. This is not about rights for dysphoric people.
This is about a class of men who simply do not see women as fully human or as deserving rights to dignity, privacy or safety - and I use those words advisedly because they come from the Goodwin case in the ECHR which led to the GRA, they derive from the European Convention, they are referenced in the SC judgment and they apply to all of us - women included. And when some men say that they will force themselves into our spaces regardless of our wishes, when they publicly make violent threats, when they refuse to grant or countenance for women what they demand for themselves, then it is not those objecting to this who should be attacked or criticised.
Once again (and as my header described - so I am enjoying the irony) this forum is obsessed with what men want, with men's feelings and does not give a toss about women, their concerns and needs.
The misogyny on here is palpable and disappointing. But it shows how widespread it is. I've had enough of it.
No Cyclefree. It isn’t misogyny to point out that you don’t speak for all women, because you don’t. Neither is it for you (or for anyone else) to do so.
You trying to frame this as misogyny takes away the agency from other women - I know this because my girlfriend is one of them, so are my friends.
Also it is one thing to have an opinion on women’s spaces in various guises but it is another to disparage trans women by calling them “men in frocks” and other such insults. That is transphobia plain and simple.
I have both Fox jr and Foxjr2 with us for the weekend both with their partners, and both cis-women. Neither are bothered by having Trans-women using shared spaces such as bathrooms. Neither is Mrs Foxy.
Clearly some women feel differently, but in polling Trans rights tends to get more support from women than men.
It's not a male vs female issue, it divides both sexes, and also doesn't cleanly divide by politics or age.
Just to back @Gallowgate up, a handful of young women in my broader friend group went to the protest in Edinburgh.
I appreciate I move in "woke" circles, but so do most young women in the UK. None of my male friends went, including those who are gay. It also gathered more support than Palestine, which tends to be just a few ultras now.
The one interesting post I saw about it was a friend suggesting that almost all transphobia is simply projection from straight men who are desperate to get into women's spaces. I think that's right.
Be interesting to see the women-without-children/women-with-children and age splits.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I used to have the pleasure of spending the odd time with Mick McManus, a 70’s/80’s wrestling god. One of the nicest men in the world and his wife Barbara was possibly my favourite woman in the world. He would come round for lunch with Ian St John, Jimmy Greaves, emlyn Hughes, and various other sporting drunks, for reasons I won’t go into and they would all get pissed and have a giggle, was like having Grandstand live at home as a child.
You had that lot round to dinner as a child? Never mind grandstand that’s a question of sport live. Impressive. Did Bill Beaumont make an appearance?
I apologise for my attempt at a joke earlier in which I suggested that Sir Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, played himself in an episode of a television show aired in 1993. It clearly was not the correct forum.
Yours repentantly,
Doug Seal
Apologies. My jokedar is on the fritz today. The world has become such that it's gotten hard to tell what's real and what's a joke...
Don't worry. Let's be honest, I'm not likely to give up the day job for comedy.
You were responsible one of PB's truly comedic moments when you predicted a Liz Truss comeback somebody decided to lecture you about how The Oxford Union despite themself never being a member of The Oxford Union.
TBF it's his world, we just live in it.
I liked the time I was told that Asian heritage parents have a fanatical obsession with the education of their children.
Until that moment I had no idea.
I just ran “I’m a member of the Oxford Union you idiot” through PB Vanilla search just to relive that special moment between me and my Epping homeboy. Those were the days.
I see several things happening in Ukraine right now:
1: Ukraine has pivoted to a drone based defense. Most of the gains you see Russia making right now are coming as a result of one of two things. A: Inferior Ukrainian drone units or B: Overwhelming Numerical Superiority... https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1913293007488458837
Fascinating thread.
If Ukraine survives this onslaught, and eventually forces Russia into a bankruptcy-driven retreat, then I really hope they tell Trump and his cabal of dickheads to do one with their exploitative minerals deal and flat track bully tactics.
No, no, no.
They should allow Trump a prime location in Yalta for a new Trump hotel.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
As do I as I have said multiple times. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else and the SC has confirmed that they have not lost any rights at all.
But you agreed upthread with someone who did not know what the boundaries are . Well, I'll tell you what they are: when a woman says no, it means no. No is a complete sentence. If you can't or won't understand that, then frankly you are so far out of bounds that it is hard to know what to say. It reflects appallingly on you.
When a man breaches a woman's boundary, he is a predator. When others say that it is all right for him to breach a woman's boundary, to force himself where he isn't wanted, then they are justifying and enabling predatory behaviour. The placards at the demo in London talk about shooting women and shitting on their heads. There have been other demos with placards advocating the beheading of women. This is not about rights for dysphoric people.
This is about a class of men who simply do not see women as fully human or as deserving rights to dignity, privacy or safety - and I use those words advisedly because they come from the Goodwin case in the ECHR which led to the GRA, they derive from the European Convention, they are referenced in the SC judgment and they apply to all of us - women included. And when some men say that they will force themselves into our spaces regardless of our wishes, when they publicly make violent threats, when they refuse to grant or countenance for women what they demand for themselves, then it is not those objecting to this who should be attacked or criticised.
Once again (and as my header described - so I am enjoying the irony) this forum is obsessed with what men want, with men's feelings and does not give a toss about women, their concerns and needs.
The misogyny on here is palpable and disappointing. But it shows how widespread it is. I've had enough of it.
No Cyclefree. It isn’t misogyny to point out that you don’t speak for all women, because you don’t. Neither is it for you (or for anyone else) to do so.
You trying to frame this as misogyny takes away the agency from other women - I know this because my girlfriend is one of them, so are my friends.
Also it is one thing to have an opinion on women’s spaces in various guises but it is another to disparage trans women by calling them “men in frocks” and other such insults. That is transphobia plain and simple.
I have both Fox jr and Foxjr2 with us for the weekend both with their partners, and both cis-women. Neither are bothered by having Trans-women using shared spaces such as bathrooms. Neither is Mrs Foxy.
Clearly some women feel differently, but in polling Trans rights tends to get more support from women than men.
It's not a male vs female issue, it divides both sexes, and also doesn't cleanly divide by politics or age.
Just to back @Gallowgate up, a handful of young women in my broader friend group went to the protest in Edinburgh.
I appreciate I move in "woke" circles, but so do most young women in the UK. None of my male friends went, including those who are gay. It also gathered more support than Palestine, which tends to be just a few ultras now.
The one interesting post I saw about it was a friend suggesting that almost all transphobia is simply projection from straight men who are desperate to get into women's spaces. I think that's right.
It also seems to have a strongish generational aspect. Something like Douglas Adams's law of technology, only applied to social mores.
I apologise for my attempt at a joke earlier in which I suggested that Sir Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, played himself in an episode of a television show aired in 1993. It clearly was not the correct forum.
Yours repentantly,
Doug Seal
Apologies. My jokedar is on the fritz today. The world has become such that it's gotten hard to tell what's real and what's a joke...
Don't worry. Let's be honest, I'm not likely to give up the day job for comedy.
You were responsible one of PB's truly comedic moments when you predicted a Liz Truss comeback somebody decided to lecture you about how The Oxford Union despite themself never being a member of The Oxford Union.
TBF it's his world, we just live in it.
I liked the time I was told that Asian heritage parents have a fanatical obsession with the education of their children.
Until that moment I had no idea.
I just ran “I’m a member of the Oxford Union you idiot” through PB Vanilla search just to relive that special moment between me and my Epping homeboy. Those were the days.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I used to have the pleasure of spending the odd time with Mick McManus, a 70’s/80’s wrestling god. One of the nicest men in the world and his wife Barbara was possibly my favourite woman in the world. He would come round for lunch with Ian St John, Jimmy Greaves, emlyn Hughes, and various other sporting drunks, for reasons I won’t go into and they would all get pissed and have a giggle, was like having Grandstand live at home as a child.
You had that lot round to dinner as a child? Never mind grandstand that’s a question of sport live. Impressive. Did Bill Beaumont make an appearance?
He did funnily enough. It was all Lords Taverners and Variety club related. The family home was a bit of a revolving door of sports stars, comedians and actors.
That’s why I’m not an actor, a sportsman or a comedian now, especially the last, I rebelled and went into finance.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Zebra Kid v UFO. Late Seventies the Monaco Ballroom Hindley. Unmasking bout. "The UFO is Brian Hall of Macclesfield!!!" Happy days.
Thursday - from some on here (you know who you are):
"How dare Cyclefree think that there's a risk from men who identify as a woman? The silly woman has had her head turned by PR."
Saturday: London - "Men who identify as women turn up in a London square for a mass protest in which they indecently expose themselves (a criminal offence) and commit a public order offence by pissing in the street."
Well done, lads. Well done. Keep it up.
Cyclefree, you know as well as I do that plenty of women support the rights of trans women and pretending otherwise doesn’t reflect well on you.
As do I as I have said multiple times. They have exactly the same rights as everyone else and the SC has confirmed that they have not lost any rights at all.
But you agreed upthread with someone who did not know what the boundaries are . Well, I'll tell you what they are: when a woman says no, it means no. No is a complete sentence. If you can't or won't understand that, then frankly you are so far out of bounds that it is hard to know what to say. It reflects appallingly on you.
When a man breaches a woman's boundary, he is a predator. When others say that it is all right for him to breach a woman's boundary, to force himself where he isn't wanted, then they are justifying and enabling predatory behaviour. The placards at the demo in London talk about shooting women and shitting on their heads. There have been other demos with placards advocating the beheading of women. This is not about rights for dysphoric people.
This is about a class of men who simply do not see women as fully human or as deserving rights to dignity, privacy or safety - and I use those words advisedly because they come from the Goodwin case in the ECHR which led to the GRA, they derive from the European Convention, they are referenced in the SC judgment and they apply to all of us - women included. And when some men say that they will force themselves into our spaces regardless of our wishes, when they publicly make violent threats, when they refuse to grant or countenance for women what they demand for themselves, then it is not those objecting to this who should be attacked or criticised.
Once again (and as my header described - so I am enjoying the irony) this forum is obsessed with what men want, with men's feelings and does not give a toss about women, their concerns and needs.
The misogyny on here is palpable and disappointing. But it shows how widespread it is. I've had enough of it.
No Cyclefree. It isn’t misogyny to point out that you don’t speak for all women, because you don’t. Neither is it for you (or for anyone else) to do so.
You trying to frame this as misogyny takes away the agency from other women - I know this because my girlfriend is one of them, so are my friends.
Also it is one thing to have an opinion on women’s spaces in various guises but it is another to disparage trans women by calling them “men in frocks” and other such insults. That is transphobia plain and simple.
I have both Fox jr and Foxjr2 with us for the weekend both with their partners, and both cis-women. Neither are bothered by having Trans-women using shared spaces such as bathrooms. Neither is Mrs Foxy.
Clearly some women feel differently, but in polling Trans rights tends to get more support from women than men.
It's not a male vs female issue, it divides both sexes, and also doesn't cleanly divide by politics or age.
Just to back @Gallowgate up, a handful of young women in my broader friend group went to the protest in Edinburgh.
I appreciate I move in "woke" circles, but so do most young women in the UK. None of my male friends went, including those who are gay. It also gathered more support than Palestine, which tends to be just a few ultras now.
The one interesting post I saw about it was a friend suggesting that almost all transphobia is simply projection from straight men who are desperate to get into women's spaces. I think that's right.
Be interesting to see the women-without-children/women-with-children and age splits.
Maybe it is about time to simply ban all gender non-conformity? Men beards, women dresses, makeup and heels. Prison for the recalcitrant. Would be a simpler, more harmonious society.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I used to have the pleasure of spending the odd time with Mick McManus, a 70’s/80’s wrestling god. One of the nicest men in the world and his wife Barbara was possibly my favourite woman in the world. He would come round for lunch with Ian St John, Jimmy Greaves, emlyn Hughes, and various other sporting drunks, for reasons I won’t go into and they would all get pissed and have a giggle, was like having Grandstand live at home as a child.
You had that lot round to dinner as a child? Never mind grandstand that’s a question of sport live. Impressive. Did Bill Beaumont make an appearance?
He did funnily enough. It was all Lords Taverners and Variety club related. The family home was a bit of a revolving door of sports stars, comedians and actors.
That’s why I’m not an actor, a sportsman or a comedian now, especially the last, I rebelled and went into finance.
What was Jimmy Greaves like ?
He had that lovable ‘Greavesie’ persona but had many demons and addiction issues.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I used to have the pleasure of spending the odd time with Mick McManus, a 70’s/80’s wrestling god. One of the nicest men in the world and his wife Barbara was possibly my favourite woman in the world. He would come round for lunch with Ian St John, Jimmy Greaves, emlyn Hughes, and various other sporting drunks, for reasons I won’t go into and they would all get pissed and have a giggle, was like having Grandstand live at home as a child.
You had that lot round to dinner as a child? Never mind grandstand that’s a question of sport live. Impressive. Did Bill Beaumont make an appearance?
He did funnily enough. It was all Lords Taverners and Variety club related. The family home was a bit of a revolving door of sports stars, comedians and actors.
That’s why I’m not an actor, a sportsman or a comedian now, especially the last, I rebelled and went into finance.
What was Jimmy Greaves like ?
He had that lovable ‘Greavesie’ persona but had many demons and addiction issues.
When you are a kid between 9 and say young teen, having your own private Saints and Greavsie in the kitchen over breakfast was awesome. Just a genuinely lovely smiley man. Who knows what he was like away from that but with all of us children he was like a genial bear. Lovely man. Ian St John was just so cool though, like James Bond for some reason. Slick.
I think “famous people” back in the 80s were more normal because they didn’t have a dickhead child filming it on their phone and catching them out. They could get pissed with parents, roll into the kitchen, chat with the kids, swear. Laugh and everyone is happy.
On fancying his chances in the race: "We will do our best, so far I’m just very happy that again we had a solid qualifying, much better than in Bahrain, so let’s see what we can do."
More like that Apple's walled garden model is two product failures away from justified obliteration. The Android open model will overcome the Betamax and it may come sooner than you think.
Android has a much larger market share. It is already dominant.
Also mostly used by people who would buy and iPhone if they could afford one. So there is that.
I started with an I phone. It wouldn't load my e mail. I spent weeks with Apple trying to sort it out both online and in the Vodaphone Store in Brighton. I had had enough. I switched to Android and it's been fine ever since and that's 25 yrs....?
"I've sent a letter by mistake" is the new "We've come on holiday by mistake".
I wonder at what point American universities will threaten to withdraw degrees from anyone serving in the Trump administration?
Especially the Cabinet.
Withdraw degrees from people for being despotic shitheads?
Why am I reminded of the LSE/Qaddafi comedy?
I remember being in Geneva when Gaddafi-duck junior was arrested in his hotel. Friends who were gov lawyers there said he turned to the police once cuffed up and said “ you are very lucky my security aren’t armed right now” and senior officer replied “if they were, you would be dead now”. Possibly a good story but knowing the story source, the Swiss police and Gaddafi Jr’ rep it sounds about right.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
Jimmy Rushton @JimmySecUK · 4h Pay attention to any journalist who uncritically repeats Kremlin claims about observing an "Easter ceasefire" and treat all of their future reporting with extreme scepticism.
I'm genuinely surprised Hegseth remained sober long enough to graduate from Princeton, never mind Harvard.
Luckily our fine British politicians who graduate from top British universities are all magnificent in brain and character and in no way make you question whether a university’s standing has anything to do with the people it shits out.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I used to have the pleasure of spending the odd time with Mick McManus, a 70’s/80’s wrestling god. One of the nicest men in the world and his wife Barbara was possibly my favourite woman in the world. He would come round for lunch with Ian St John, Jimmy Greaves, emlyn Hughes, and various other sporting drunks, for reasons I won’t go into and they would all get pissed and have a giggle, was like having Grandstand live at home as a child.
You had that lot round to dinner as a child? Never mind grandstand that’s a question of sport live. Impressive. Did Bill Beaumont make an appearance?
He did funnily enough. It was all Lords Taverners and Variety club related. The family home was a bit of a revolving door of sports stars, comedians and actors.
That’s why I’m not an actor, a sportsman or a comedian now, especially the last, I rebelled and went into finance.
What was Jimmy Greaves like ?
He had that lovable ‘Greavesie’ persona but had many demons and addiction issues.
When you are a kid between 9 and say young teen, having your own private Saints and Greavsie in the kitchen over breakfast was awesome. Just a genuinely lovely smiley man. Who knows what he was like away from that but with all of us children he was like a genial bear. Lovely man. Ian St John was just so cool though, like James Bond for some reason. Slick.
I think “famous people” back in the 80s were more normal because they didn’t have a dickhead child filming it on their phone and catching them out. They could get pissed with parents, roll into the kitchen, chat with the kids, swear. Laugh and everyone is happy.
His demons were booze related. He drank a lot but once off it was sober for the rest of his life.
I’m glad to hear how nice they were. I used to watch Saint and Greavesie every week and they seemed nice guys but you often here about people who seem nice on TV being utter arseholes IRL.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
No, people seem interested only in people whose views support their own.
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
You wanted 'world city' and you got 'world city'.
So now you get to live with the advantages and disadvantages that brings.
Though I doubt that foreign oligarchs in their Mayfair mansions experience too many of the disadvantages.
Incidentally if you, or they, are yearning for that vision of Britain it can be found in varying degrees throughout much of the country.
Although you might not know that if the last time you went outside London was back in the Berni Inn era.
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?
One in which their rights are respected, but the safeguarding of others is also respected.
Which is what the Supreme Court did.
Any teacher who doesn't understand the concept of safeguarding, should not be a teacher.
Like every Persian carpet, it has a single flaw - because no AI is perfect.
This action figure craze is all very well, but the environmental impact of the endless landfill of discarded toys, and packaging, that it's going to produce when the novelty wears off doesn't bear thinking about.
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?
One in which their rights are respected, but the safeguarding of others is also respected.
Which is what the Supreme Court did.
Any teacher who doesn't understand the concept of safeguarding, should not be a teacher.
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?
One in which their rights are respected, but the safeguarding of others is also respected.
Which is what the Supreme Court did.
Any teacher who doesn't understand the concept of safeguarding, should not be a teacher.
More like that Apple's walled garden model is two product failures away from justified obliteration. The Android open model will overcome the Betamax and it may come sooner than you think.
Android has a much larger market share. It is already dominant.
Also mostly used by people who would buy and iPhone if they could afford one. So there is that.
I started with an I phone. It wouldn't load my e mail. I spent weeks with Apple trying to sort it out both online and in the Vodaphone Store in Brighton. I had had enough. I switched to Android and it's been fine ever since and that's 25 yrs....?
Outrageous that the iPhone (released 2007) wasn't able to load your email 25 years ago.
Though how Android (released 2008) did any better is a mystery.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
No, people seem interested only in people whose views support their own.
Which is very foolish. As the old saying goes “know your enemy” - but easier to shout “transphobe” and run away…..
More like that Apple's walled garden model is two product failures away from justified obliteration. The Android open model will overcome the Betamax and it may come sooner than you think.
Android has a much larger market share. It is already dominant.
Also mostly used by people who would buy and iPhone if they could afford one. So there is that.
Also used by anyone and there is a lot of us that wouldn't touch and apple device with your cock let alone our fingers
You seem a bit obsessed with male genitalia today.
Four people close to Hegseth, including his three top aides, have all fallen in his search for who is leaking embarrassing information about him. It looks like *everybody* is! Because he’s a buffoon!
Like every Persian carpet, it has a single flaw - because no AI is perfect.
This action figure craze is all very well, but the environmental impact of the endless landfill of discarded toys, and packaging, that it's going to produce when the novelty wears off doesn't bear thinking about.
But in 30 years those who have the three 50p Lee action figures unopened are going to be in the same situation as those of us who saved the Star Wars figure cardboard backs for the limited edition Nien Nunb figure where you get a rarity that nobody actually remembers or wants.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
Trans activists, heroes to a few here, deface a statue of Millicent Fawcett.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I used to have the pleasure of spending the odd time with Mick McManus, a 70’s/80’s wrestling god. One of the nicest men in the world and his wife Barbara was possibly my favourite woman in the world. He would come round for lunch with Ian St John, Jimmy Greaves, emlyn Hughes, and various other sporting drunks, for reasons I won’t go into and they would all get pissed and have a giggle, was like having Grandstand live at home as a child.
You had that lot round to dinner as a child? Never mind grandstand that’s a question of sport live. Impressive. Did Bill Beaumont make an appearance?
He did funnily enough. It was all Lords Taverners and Variety club related. The family home was a bit of a revolving door of sports stars, comedians and actors.
That’s why I’m not an actor, a sportsman or a comedian now, especially the last, I rebelled and went into finance.
What was Jimmy Greaves like ?
He had that lovable ‘Greavesie’ persona but had many demons and addiction issues.
When you are a kid between 9 and say young teen, having your own private Saints and Greavsie in the kitchen over breakfast was awesome. Just a genuinely lovely smiley man. Who knows what he was like away from that but with all of us children he was like a genial bear. Lovely man. Ian St John was just so cool though, like James Bond for some reason. Slick.
I think “famous people” back in the 80s were more normal because they didn’t have a dickhead child filming it on their phone and catching them out. They could get pissed with parents, roll into the kitchen, chat with the kids, swear. Laugh and everyone is happy.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
Trans activists, heroes to a few here, deface a statue of Millicent Fawcett.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
They all though describe an exposed penis......guy jumps out of the bushes and opens his coat and is naked...he gets arrested as a flasher....why is it different in your view if a trans female flashes her girl dick around?
Intent, obviously.
Also, there’s absolutely no evidence anywhere that Lia did any more than simply get changed in the same room as the rest of the competitors, at competitions where there were no other places to get changed. There is (as far as can be told from the contemporaneous reports of the women involved) no sexual deviance here & the fact that you & Cyclefree apparently cannot get your minds out of that particular gutter when it comes to transwomen says more about the two of you than it does anyone who was actually involved at the time, who (of course) have the absolute right to their own feelings & personal responses to competing with a transwoman.
See my post above and answer it
It’s a really obvious moving of the goalposts & trolley problems are not usually a good way to decide legal questions but sure: the answer to your question is that courts are in fact pretty good at considering questions of intent & intent matters.
A UK court would, I suspect take a very skeptical view of a defendant claiming that they had suddenly decided five minutes before entering a female changing space that they were trans & that therefore this made it ok.
On the flip side, someone who had transitioned in their actual life, was taking hormones etc would likely be treated differently.
Also, it is worth remembering that currently there is absolutely no UK law that stops anyone walking into any changing rooms, regardless of sex or gender presentation: You walking into a female changing room, getting changed & going straight into the pool doesn’t break any laws in and of itself. The pool owner may take a view on this behaviour & if anyone complains then you may risk a prosecution for indecent exposure but the act itself breaks no laws, as far as I know.
I didn't say 5 minutes before walking in though don't put words in my mouth. A man who gets off on flashing to females will declare himself female then be able to do it with impunity in you view....they will probably do it a couple of months before for credibility
(Yet more goalpost moving.)
I think that women are perfectly capable of telling the difference between someone who is getting off on exposing themselves & someone who is just getting on with whatever they need to do without bothering anyone else. In the former case their complaints should be acted upon, regardless of the state of the law on trans issues.
Whether the latter case is permissible is a question on which people can disagree & on which society will make a collective, democratic agreement (which itself may change over time).
Ah I see so in your view they can complain after the fact rather than we stop the act, Well such a dick sorry what other way to say it.........you are happy for them to be exposed to it on the grounds they can always lodge a complaint.......tell you what I will come sodomize you and you should let me as you can always complain later
This is all starting to sound an awful lot like psychological projection on your part frankly.
I don’t think answering any your obscene hypotheticals involving my own rape will add anything constructive to this discussion.
I doubt if there is any sport where men's physiology does not give them an advantage.
And if there is such a sport then there is no need to have women's and men's categories at all. Just one competition where all participate. So the question of excluding groups would not arise.
But - forgive the cynicism - what we have instead is second or third rate sportsmen who can't win in the male category declare themselves women and proceed to cheat women out of places, prizes, opportunities and money/sponsorship opportunities.
This was my problem with your otherwise excellent previous thread. I agree that trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete with biological women in most sports but what evidence do you have other than prejudice that people are deliberately declaring themselves a trans women to gain an advantage in professional sport?
Let's see: Lia Thomas, swimmer. As a man, got nowhere in competitions. As a woman won loads, upset female competitors by wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis (according to reports) and is now in a heterosexual relationship with a woman planning to start a family.
It's not prejudice. It's scepticism about the motives of men who appear to want to have their cake and eat it and have been enabled by sporting authorities with little regard for fairness in sport or the interests of female athletes.
I can’t see any reports of Thomas “wandering round the changing rooms naked with an erect penis”. Do you have a source for that?
They all though describe an exposed penis......guy jumps out of the bushes and opens his coat and is naked...he gets arrested as a flasher....why is it different in your view if a trans female flashes her girl dick around?
Intent, obviously.
Also, there’s absolutely no evidence anywhere that Lia did any more than simply get changed in the same room as the rest of the competitors, at competitions where there were no other places to get changed. There is (as far as can be told from the contemporaneous reports of the women involved) no sexual deviance here & the fact that you & Cyclefree apparently cannot get your minds out of that particular gutter when it comes to transwomen says more about the two of you than it does anyone who was actually involved at the time, who (of course) have the absolute right to their own feelings & personal responses to competing with a transwoman.
See my post above and answer it
It’s a really obvious moving of the goalposts & trolley problems are not usually a good way to decide legal questions but sure: the answer to your question is that courts are in fact pretty good at considering questions of intent & intent matters.
A UK court would, I suspect take a very skeptical view of a defendant claiming that they had suddenly decided five minutes before entering a female changing space that they were trans & that therefore this made it ok.
On the flip side, someone who had transitioned in their actual life, was taking hormones etc would likely be treated differently.
Also, it is worth remembering that currently there is absolutely no UK law that stops anyone walking into any changing rooms, regardless of sex or gender presentation: You walking into a female changing room, getting changed & going straight into the pool doesn’t break any laws in and of itself. The pool owner may take a view on this behaviour & if anyone complains then you may risk a prosecution for indecent exposure but the act itself breaks no laws, as far as I know.
I didn't say 5 minutes before walking in though don't put words in my mouth. A man who gets off on flashing to females will declare himself female then be able to do it with impunity in you view....they will probably do it a couple of months before for credibility
(Yet more goalpost moving.)
I think that women are perfectly capable of telling the difference between someone who is getting off on exposing themselves & someone who is just getting on with whatever they need to do without bothering anyone else. In the former case their complaints should be acted upon, regardless of the state of the law on trans issues.
Whether the latter case is permissible is a question on which people can disagree & on which society will make a collective, democratic agreement (which itself may change over time).
Ah I see so in your view they can complain after the fact rather than we stop the act, Well such a dick sorry what other way to say it.........you are happy for them to be exposed to it on the grounds they can always lodge a complaint.......tell you what I will come sodomize you and you should let me as you can always complain later
This is all starting to sound an awful lot like psychological projection on your part frankly.
I don’t think answering any your obscene hypotheticals involving my own rape will add anything constructive to this discussion.
It was you suggesting people could complain if it happened not me....sauce for the goose etc
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
Trans activists, heroes to a few here, deface a statue of Millicent Fawcett.
It's quite short, but I think the author has a problem accepting that the SC's task in the case was not to set public policy, nor to resolve the unresolvable, but to patiently tell parliament what parliament had done, insofar as sense can be made of its legislation, so that, inter alia, parliament now knowing what it has already done can amend it if it wishes, something from which parliament will probably flee in terror.
The author overlooks the fact that the case only got to the SC because good people hold passionately different convictions about the underlying matters. And the implication that the SC should be better than they are at empathetic gender therapy is, to say the least, sub-optimal.
They will always feel more at home with simple things like whether or not to overrule Boardman v Phipps (see the recent judgment in Rukhadze v Recovery Partners GP Ltd. BTW they said No)
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
I apologise for my attempt at a joke earlier in which I suggested that Sir Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, played himself in an episode of a television show aired in 1993. It clearly was not the correct forum.
Yours repentantly,
Doug Seal
Apologies. My jokedar is on the fritz today. The world has become such that it's gotten hard to tell what's real and what's a joke...
Don't worry. Let's be honest, I'm not likely to give up the day job for comedy.
You were responsible one of PB's truly comedic moments when you predicted a Liz Truss comeback somebody decided to lecture you about how The Oxford Union despite themself never being a member of The Oxford Union.
TBF it's his world, we just live in it.
I liked the time I was told that Asian heritage parents have a fanatical obsession with the education of their children.
The ongoing trans row and allegations of motivations just demonstrates Ian's first law in action - in any subject tell the loudest angriest activists to STFU so that the rational can actually debate the issue.
I respect the perspective and opinions of the extreme activists. But unlike them I can see that they represent a very narrow viewpoint which is not - no matter how loudly they scream it - the view of the majority or even the correct view.
When "all trans people are rapey men" and "all women's rights people are bigots" is all that they have left, its time to stop listening.
Micromanaging would be telling a specific pub they must open until 1am.
Extending licensing laws for the entire country, then letting individual businesses do as they please within those laws, is not micromanaging.
If a pub still wishes to close at 11pm (or sooner) they will retain that right.
Weren't the national pub-closing hours abolished during the Blair years?
Not exactly.
Pubs need to apply for longer licensing hours still and have it on their license. The presumption that longer hours would be rejected was abolished during the Blair years, but all premises still have licensing hours and trading outside of your licensed hours is illegal.
Pubs can apply for Temporary Events Notices to extend their hours outside normal trading hours for an event, but that requires both a cost and it requires paperwork being dealt with by the Council etc too
National extensions of licensing hours have occurred many times previously. It means that all pubs can operate on that day as if their license extends to the later (or earlier) times as if they have a TEN without the Council needing to deal with a TEN for every pub.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
Trans activists, heroes to a few here, deface a statue of Millicent Fawcett.
First they came for Edward Colston..... Then they came for Cecil Rhodes..... Then they came for Winston Churchill..... Then they came for Paddington Bear..... Then they came for Millicent Fawcett...... Then they came for me......
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
Not sure I understand your response to 1, given your answers to 4-6.
If female BTP officers have to strip search trans women (men), male BTP officers who declare they are women will strip search women. Is that right? Have I understood you correctly?
On sport I disagree, as amateur sport is the pathway to professional sport and women won't make their way through to it if their places are being taken by men.
On prisons I disagree, given the disparity in strength between men and women. A man has a much better chance of fighting off a male rapist than a woman does. Yes trans women may be vulnerable in the male prison estate, but thats a reason to solve the problem in the male prison estate, not shift the problem to the female prison estate.
No idea. But that 40,000 would watch women's football would be unthinkable a few years ago, and that women might play football likewise in decades past.
So what's your point? That the men's game dominates? Has anyone doubted that?
No, the point is that it’s easier to fill a stadium at £5 a ticket than at £100. I love that women’s football is taking off. It’s brilliant for those that want to watch and play it. It’s not about comparing to the mens game either. One thing that makes me sad is that all the womens teams are off shoots of men’s teams. Would be nice if they weren’t.
In other sport, for all interested, it is the first night of the WWE’s Wrestlemania tonight. Underwhelming card.
WWE isnt a sport its theatre
No one is claiming WWE is a sport. 😂😂😂😂 WWE is an organisation that promotes professional wrestling. One of many.
I prefer AEW personally.
I was referencing professional wrestling which, in spite of what WWE marks think, is not just the WWE and the theatre side of it is great.
Working class ballet. Love it.
Yup, it’s ace. Been a fan of wrestling since the late eighties, early nineties. One of the reasons I got satellite TV was for the German channels that used to show WCW PPV’s in the early nineties.
Sorry, it's not proper wrestling if it doesn't have Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks in it.
I remember seeing 'professional wrestling' (yes, Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks) in Blackpool sometime in the early 80s. One of the best holidays of my childhood. The anger and venom from the older ladies towards Giant Haystacks in particular has stuck with me.
Possibly the same holiday - but whenever I rewatch 'Edge of Darkness' and see Joe Don Baker lilting along to the ballroom dancing - it takes me back.
For any interested in analysis from a thoughtful academic*:
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
Trans activists, heroes to a few here, deface a statue of Millicent Fawcett.
First they came for Edward Colston..... Then they came for Cecil Rhodes..... Then they came for Winston Churchill..... Then they came for Paddington Bear..... Then they came for Millicent Fawcett...... Then they came for me......
Culture war is each extreme pointing at the other side’s extremists and claiming they represent everyone on the other side.
I remember seeing 'professional wrestling' (yes, Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks) in Blackpool sometime in the early 80s. One of the best holidays of my childhood.
I apologise for my attempt at a joke earlier in which I suggested that Sir Isaac Newton, who died in 1727, played himself in an episode of a television show aired in 1993. It clearly was not the correct forum.
Yours repentantly,
Doug Seal
Apologies. My jokedar is on the fritz today. The world has become such that it's gotten hard to tell what's real and what's a joke...
Don't worry. Let's be honest, I'm not likely to give up the day job for comedy.
You were responsible one of PB's truly comedic moments when you predicted a Liz Truss comeback somebody decided to lecture you about how The Oxford Union despite themself never being a member of The Oxford Union.
TBF it's his world, we just live in it.
I liked the time I was told that Asian heritage parents have a fanatical obsession with the education of their children.
Until that moment I had no idea.
I just ran “I’m a member of the Oxford Union you idiot” through PB Vanilla search just to relive that special moment between me and my Epping homeboy. Those were the days.
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
Okay, let's run this though, say you are a 6'4" cis woman, like the woman in this article. You are arrested by the BTP, and they assume you to be a trans woman like the guy in that article did. How do you prove that you're not trans?
No idea. But that 40,000 would watch women's football would be unthinkable a few years ago, and that women might play football likewise in decades past.
So what's your point? That the men's game dominates? Has anyone doubted that?
No, the point is that it’s easier to fill a stadium at £5 a ticket than at £100. I love that women’s football is taking off. It’s brilliant for those that want to watch and play it. It’s not about comparing to the mens game either. One thing that makes me sad is that all the womens teams are off shoots of men’s teams. Would be nice if they weren’t.
Not all of them, in the Championship there's London City Lionesses (used to be part of Millwall but now independent) and Durham (which sort of span off from Durham University's women's side).
No idea. But that 40,000 would watch women's football would be unthinkable a few years ago, and that women might play football likewise in decades past.
So what's your point? That the men's game dominates? Has anyone doubted that?
No, the point is that it’s easier to fill a stadium at £5 a ticket than at £100. I love that women’s football is taking off. It’s brilliant for those that want to watch and play it. It’s not about comparing to the mens game either. One thing that makes me sad is that all the womens teams are off shoots of men’s teams. Would be nice if they weren’t.
Not all of them, in the Championship there's London City Lionesses (used to be part of Millwall but now independent) and Durham (which sort of span off from Durham University's women's side).
I knew someone would bring a fact to the table. I accept not all of them but seriously - look at the womens premier league.
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
Okay, let's run this though, say you are a 6'4" cis woman, like the woman in this article. You are arrested by the BTP, and they assume you to be a trans woman like the guy in that article did. How do you prove that you're not trans?
Surely the onus is on them to prove that you are trans? Innocent until proven guilty still stands, surely?
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
Okay, let's run this though, say you are a 6'4" cis woman, like the woman in this article. You are arrested by the BTP, and they assume you to be a trans woman like the guy in that article did. How do you prove that you're not trans?
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
Okay, let's run this though, say you are a 6'4" cis woman, like the woman in this article. You are arrested by the BTP, and they assume you to be a trans woman like the guy in that article did. How do you prove that you're not trans?
You are off-script. This is Victory for Women. No more will men ever ever be in women's toilets. See that aggressive rapist? He will see the LADIES sign in the door, respect the SC ruling and walk away.
And how do we police toilets to ensure that women and ONLY women are in there? And remember - policing is needed because "toilet operators will be sued" if men get in. So the only solution is security. On the door. To ensure that only ladies get in. Sorry luv, you are tall / butch / short haired / not curvy enough - can you prove you're not a man? No, I am serious because if I let you in and you are a man, we get sued.
No, sorry. That is me being mysoginist. Apparently.
I just want someone to tell me in clear detail how this absolute toilet law will be implemented. Without "isn't it obvious?" as an answer, because it really isn't
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
Okay, let's run this though, say you are a 6'4" cis woman, like the woman in this article. You are arrested by the BTP, and they assume you to be a trans woman like the guy in that article did. How do you prove that you're not trans?
You don't. You say that you are and if they can't prove otherwise they accept your word.
And if you're lying and get caught out, then that is criminal.
Now do you care to answer as to why there should be any convicted rapists in a female's prison when it takes a penis to be a rapist under the law (anything else is not rape, it is another offence) and women don't have a penis.
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?
Sorry I was away for a while,
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers. 2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics). 3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe. 4) No. 5) No. 6) No.
1) Why would they be? If the individual is biologically male, then that is what matters for safeguarding purposes - "identity" does not circumvent safeguarding. 2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place. 3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
Okay, let's run this though, say you are a 6'4" cis woman, like the woman in this article. You are arrested by the BTP, and they assume you to be a trans woman like the guy in that article did. How do you prove that you're not trans?
You are off-script. This is Victory for Women. No more will men ever ever be in women's toilets. See that aggressive rapist? He will see the LADIES sign in the door, respect the SC ruling and walk away.
And how do we police toilets to ensure that women and ONLY women are in there? And remember - policing is needed because "toilet operators will be sued" if men get in. So the only solution is security. On the door. To ensure that only ladies get in. Sorry luv, you are tall / butch / short haired / not curvy enough - can you prove you're not a man? No, I am serious because if I let you in and you are a man, we get sued.
No, sorry. That is me being mysoginist. Apparently.
I just want someone to tell me in clear detail how this absolute toilet law will be implemented. Without "isn't it obvious?" as an answer, because it really isn't
Neither is "whataboutery".
People break the law. Or should we not have laws so people don't break them?
No idea. But that 40,000 would watch women's football would be unthinkable a few years ago, and that women might play football likewise in decades past.
So what's your point? That the men's game dominates? Has anyone doubted that?
No, the point is that it’s easier to fill a stadium at £5 a ticket than at £100. I love that women’s football is taking off. It’s brilliant for those that want to watch and play it. It’s not about comparing to the mens game either. One thing that makes me sad is that all the womens teams are off shoots of men’s teams. Would be nice if they weren’t.
Not all of them, in the Championship there's London City Lionesses (used to be part of Millwall but now independent) and Durham (which sort of span off from Durham University's women's side).
I knew someone would bring a fact to the table. I accept not all of them but seriously - look at the womens premier league.
Yes, and it leaves the women's team at the mercy of the men's team financially. There was a very successful women's team called Red Star Southampton, they were founder members of the FA WNL National Division and reached the final of the Women's Cup twice. They accepted a merger with Southampton FC in 2001 but were cut off by them in 2005 (under Chairman Rupert Lowe - wonder what happened to him), they carried on for a while and then folded (having three Southampton women's clubs proved to be at least one too many).
Even now there's problems, we've seen Reading FC cut off their women's team which is why the Championship is only 11 teams for this season.
Comments
I appreciate I move in "woke" circles, but so do most young women in the UK. None of my male friends went, including those who are gay. It also gathered more support than Palestine, which tends to be just a few ultras now.
The one interesting post I saw about it was a friend suggesting that almost all transphobia is simply projection from straight men who are desperate to get into women's spaces. I think that's right.
Ferrari, have you noticed that Carlos Sainz in a Williams is ahead of your new man in his Ferrari?
Just thought I'd mention it...
They should allow Trump a prime location in Yalta for a new Trump hotel.
Then lock him up for evading taxes on it.
Or to be exact, one fewer race than Max Verstappen...
That’s why I’m not an actor, a sportsman or a comedian now, especially the last, I rebelled and went into finance.
Unmasking bout.
"The UFO is Brian Hall of Macclesfield!!!"
Happy days.
Doesn’t cover with/without children but does cover age.
Men beards, women dresses, makeup and heels.
Prison for the recalcitrant.
Would be a simpler, more harmonious society.
He had that lovable ‘Greavesie’ persona but had many demons and addiction issues.
I think “famous people” back in the 80s were more normal because they didn’t have a dickhead child filming it on their phone and catching them out. They could get pissed with parents, roll into the kitchen, chat with the kids, swear. Laugh and everyone is happy.
Especially the Cabinet.
On fancying his chances in the race: "We will do our best, so far I’m just very happy that again we had a solid qualifying, much better than in Bahrain, so let’s see what we can do."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cgkm6j1p8ygt
Why am I reminded of the LSE/Qaddafi comedy?
Taking away money, now...
I had had enough. I switched to Android and it's been fine ever since and that's 25 yrs....?
I’m quite sure that if Trump had offered to double the grant money, they’d have sent a list of students send to El Salvador by return post.
A detailed look at what the Supreme Court did and did not decide in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers this week. The ruling was unequivocal and the judgment should be read in full, but this is a summary and analysis that I hope will be useful:
* who the Supreme Court cited in their judgement.
@JimmySecUK
·
4h
Pay attention to any journalist who uncritically repeats Kremlin claims about observing an "Easter ceasefire" and treat all of their future reporting with extreme scepticism.
I'm genuinely surprised Hegseth remained sober long enough to graduate from Princeton, never mind Harvard.
That's it for now, despite the spelling mistake.
Like every Persian carpet, it has a single flaw - because no AI is perfect.
I’m glad to hear how nice they were. I used to watch Saint and Greavesie every week and they seemed nice guys but you often here about people who seem nice on TV being utter arseholes IRL.
So now you get to live with the advantages and disadvantages that brings.
Though I doubt that foreign oligarchs in their Mayfair mansions experience too many of the disadvantages.
Incidentally if you, or they, are yearning for that vision of Britain it can be found in varying degrees throughout much of the country.
Although you might not know that if the last time you went outside London was back in the Berni Inn era.
Which is what the Supreme Court did.
Any teacher who doesn't understand the concept of safeguarding, should not be a teacher.
They should become an inspector.
Though how Android (released 2008) did any better is a mystery.
Four people close to Hegseth, including his three top aides, have all fallen in his search for who is leaking embarrassing information about him. It looks like *everybody* is! Because he’s a buffoon!
https://bsky.app/profile/waldo.net/post/3ln6bn5yhy22o
https://x.com/_helendale/status/1913638531563483175?s=61
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRMJ3ftUtnw&t=28s
https://x.com/AdameMedia/status/1913347964061491569
https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/biological-sex-in-the-uk-supreme-court-four-problems-with-for-women-scotland-v-scottish-ministers/
I don’t think answering any your obscene hypotheticals involving my own rape will add anything constructive to this discussion.
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1913493046072574397
He became a Voodoo Pole!
(I thank you).
If I'd purged from our annual reporting references to stolen elections in Venezuela or unjust imprisonment in China, he'd have called for my resignation. 1/..
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1913451707507368176.html
Micromanaging would be telling a specific pub they must open until 1am.
Extending licensing laws for the entire country, then letting individual businesses do as they please within those laws, is not micromanaging.
If a pub still wishes to close at 11pm (or sooner) they will retain that right.
1) Yes, otherwise cis women will be strip searched by male BTP officers.
2) Yes, in amateur sport, professional sport brings an incentive to abuse the rules (cf Spain in the Sydney Paralympics).
3) Yes, in the same way as male on male rapists are in the male prison estate, it's the job of the prison service to keep prisoners safe.
4) No.
5) No.
6) No.
The author overlooks the fact that the case only got to the SC because good people hold passionately different convictions about the underlying matters. And the implication that the SC should be better than they are at empathetic gender therapy is, to say the least, sub-optimal.
They will always feel more at home with simple things like whether or not to overrule Boardman v Phipps (see the recent judgment in Rukhadze v Recovery Partners GP Ltd. BTW they said No)
2) If the individual is biologically male, then again the answer should be no for the same reason it should be no for professional sport. If its open to everyone, it wouldn't be sex-segregated in the first place.
3) Female on female rape is legally and biologically impossible. There can not be a female rapist in the female prison estate.
Female sexual offenders are possible, but a woman can not be a rapist, since it requires a penis to be a rapist and women don't have a penis.
I respect the perspective and opinions of the extreme activists. But unlike them I can see that they represent a very narrow viewpoint which is not - no matter how loudly they scream it - the view of the majority or even the correct view.
When "all trans people are rapey men" and "all women's rights people are bigots" is all that they have left, its time to stop listening.
Pubs need to apply for longer licensing hours still and have it on their license. The presumption that longer hours would be rejected was abolished during the Blair years, but all premises still have licensing hours and trading outside of your licensed hours is illegal.
Pubs can apply for Temporary Events Notices to extend their hours outside normal trading hours for an event, but that requires both a cost and it requires paperwork being dealt with by the Council etc too
National extensions of licensing hours have occurred many times previously. It means that all pubs can operate on that day as if their license extends to the later (or earlier) times as if they have a TEN without the Council needing to deal with a TEN for every pub.
Then they came for Cecil Rhodes.....
Then they came for Winston Churchill.....
Then they came for Paddington Bear.....
Then they came for Millicent Fawcett......
Then they came for me......
If female BTP officers have to strip search trans women (men), male BTP officers who declare they are women will strip search women. Is that right? Have I understood you correctly?
On sport I disagree, as amateur sport is the pathway to professional sport and women won't make their way through to it if their places are being taken by men.
On prisons I disagree, given the disparity in strength between men and women. A man has a much better chance of fighting off a male rapist than a woman does. Yes trans women may be vulnerable in the male prison estate, but thats a reason to solve the problem in the male prison estate, not shift the problem to the female prison estate.
One thing that makes me sad is that all the womens teams are off shoots of men’s teams. Would be nice if they weren’t.
Possibly the same holiday - but whenever I rewatch 'Edge of Darkness' and see Joe Don Baker lilting along to the ballroom dancing - it takes me back.
https://x.com/bristolgreen/status/1913651131647230206
And how do we police toilets to ensure that women and ONLY women are in there? And remember - policing is needed because "toilet operators will be sued" if men get in. So the only solution is security. On the door. To ensure that only ladies get in. Sorry luv, you are tall / butch / short haired / not curvy enough - can you prove you're not a man? No, I am serious because if I let you in and you are a man, we get sued.
No, sorry. That is me being mysoginist. Apparently.
I just want someone to tell me in clear detail how this absolute toilet law will be implemented. Without "isn't it obvious?" as an answer, because it really isn't
And if you're lying and get caught out, then that is criminal.
Now do you care to answer as to why there should be any convicted rapists in a female's prison when it takes a penis to be a rapist under the law (anything else is not rape, it is another offence) and women don't have a penis.
People break the law. Or should we not have laws so people don't break them?
Even now there's problems, we've seen Reading FC cut off their women's team which is why the Championship is only 11 teams for this season.