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.
Isn't there an obvious answer - don't take any issue to the extreme as they have done here?
You send a trans man or woman to jail. That person is vulnerable in any jail and thus shouldn't be in the general population.
The Victory for Women brigade suggest that a trans woman is a manly man like any other man and thus should go into a man prison. Great - they'll be safe there won't they.
My point is that rights for prisoners is not suitable to then deploy as rights for all. Some nutcase political decision putting a rapist in a women's prison - clearly bonkers - should not be the excuse to consider that all trans women are rapey predators because they're not.
Which prison should they be sent to? One that segregates them from other prisoners for their own safety. Won't be fun.
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.
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?
I have no problem with the law. I just want to understand in simple practical detail how it is proposed to be implemented. A BAN ON MEN IN WOMEN'S TOILETS. Fine. How is that to be implemented and policed?
I'm not arguing against the law. I am arguing that the crowing that this is the end solution to stop men in the ladies bogs is full of hopium.
Switzerland’s centrist party has joined the Greens in calling on the Federal Council to cancel the purchase of the US F-35, pointing the finger at the cost and Donald Trump.
According to a recent poll, over 80% of Swiss citizens are against the purchase of the F-35, and at least 70% would opt for a European jet such as the Rafale.
Furthermore, the Green Party has already started collecting signatures that could theoretically lead to a federal referendum to cancel the federal government’s purchase of the F-35. https://x.com/aidefranceukr/status/1913393826070224915
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
OK, in clear detail - and none of it original or new.
Establishments that establish single-sex provision for safeguarding purposes should have policies and procedures, as well as an established point of contact for the reporting of allegations of violating safeguarding or for whistle-blowing.
If someone is violating safeguarding then they can face consequences - whether it be training, disciplinary action, or termination of employment if an employee, or facing being barred from the premises if a member of the public.
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.
Racist stereotype if you ask me.
So, Asian children are more academically successful than WWC children is due to racism? What a load of bollocks!
Culture war is British people importing American discourse uncritically.
See also - BLM and kneeling. Complete and utter nonsense that idiots imported from America and some of our denser politicians jumped on the bandwagon and poisoned race relations in the UK because idiot police in America strangled a drug addict to death.
Robin Brooks @robin_j_brooks · 3h The wheels are coming off in [Emerging Markets] EM. There's a veritable exodus of capital flows that's built very recently. You don't see this in exchange rates, because EM central banks are presumably intervening heavily to smooth markets. Capital flight is almost as bad as during peak COVID...
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.
Which kind of goes back the point about ticket prices. It’s a bit like rugby union. The premiership rugby behaves as if it’s the same financially as the premiership football, but with crowds close to league 1 or 2. Even at my beloved Bath it’s just 15000 or so at capacity. I’d love to see women’s football standing proud and on its own. By all means use the stadia, but end the links to the mens clubs. I get tweets endlessly about Swindon Town ladies. I don’t care. I support Swindon Town FC.
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?
I have no problem with the law. I just want to understand in simple practical detail how it is proposed to be implemented. A BAN ON MEN IN WOMEN'S TOILETS. Fine. How is that to be implemented and policed?
I'm not arguing against the law. I am arguing that the crowing that this is the end solution to stop men in the ladies bogs is full of hopium.
Is a ban on men going into women only toilets a new thing then? It’s something I assumed had been going my whole life.
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.
If my god fearing, teetotal, tiny, Salvation Army songster grandmother had got hold of Mick McManus, she wouldn’t have gone to heaven.
O/T: today I got an email about my MS office subscription, and rather than pay the 30% increase for an AI feature I will never use, I used this one simple trick MS executives hate:
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.
Isn't there an obvious answer - don't take any issue to the extreme as they have done here?
You send a trans man or woman to jail. That person is vulnerable in any jail and thus shouldn't be in the general population.
The Victory for Women brigade suggest that a trans woman is a manly man like any other man and thus should go into a man prison. Great - they'll be safe there won't they.
My point is that rights for prisoners is not suitable to then deploy as rights for all. Some nutcase political decision putting a rapist in a women's prison - clearly bonkers - should not be the excuse to consider that all trans women are rapey predators because they're not.
Which prison should they be sent to? One that segregates them from other prisoners for their own safety. Won't be fun.
Taking issues to extremes is kind of the Supreme Court's job - to determine the extreme edges of the law.
A male who identifies as female should not be in a female prison.
If they're not safe in a male's prison then alternative arrangements should be made for them - whether that be a trans ward if there are enough prisoners to justify that, or protective custody for the individual if needed.
Deal with the individual, don't just chuck them in a woman's prison and hope for the best.
As some of you are aware, my partner of the last decade or so was trans - note the past tense, she died some years ago.
This doesn't give me the right to speak for all - indeed for any - trans people, but it does mean I understand and have experienced more animosity and violence than most folks here. Nobody would *choose* to be trans. To be hated and pilloried on the streets. But they do it because it is who they are. And they cannot change that.
I would simply like to thank each and every one of you who has spoken out in support of trans rights on this forum in the last few days.
I'm not going to engage with the hate speech I've seen, I just want to thank those of you who've spoken up for a minority that I have seen being persecuted and hated on for no other reason than existing and trying to live their lives as best they can.
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
OK, in clear detail - and none of it original or new.
Establishments that establish single-sex provision for safeguarding purposes should have policies and procedures, as well as an established point of contact for the reporting of allegations of violating safeguarding or for whistle-blowing.
If someone is violating safeguarding then they can face consequences - whether it be training, disciplinary action, or termination of employment if an employee, or facing being barred from the premises if a member of the public.
Same as any other bloody safeguarding issue!
Sure! But that is employment law and policies. None of it is the absolute ban on men in women's loos as proclaimed. Because it can't be policed. People can complain afterwards. But that still means a "man" was in there.
I actually approve of the SC ruling - we needed a start place definition which had been muddied and blurred by all the rowing. What I disagree with is the triumphantist absolutism which it has triggered.
What will change is that the aggressive activists won't be able to impose themselves. Good. Most trans men and women aren't doing that. And most women aren't aggressively shouting about men either. In the real world, little will change.
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
OK, in clear detail - and none of it original or new.
Establishments that establish single-sex provision for safeguarding purposes should have policies and procedures, as well as an established point of contact for the reporting of allegations of violating safeguarding or for whistle-blowing.
If someone is violating safeguarding then they can face consequences - whether it be training, disciplinary action, or termination of employment if an employee, or facing being barred from the premises if a member of the public.
Same as any other bloody safeguarding issue!
Sure! But that is employment law and policies. None of it is the absolute ban on men in women's loos as proclaimed. Because it can't be policed. People can complain afterwards. But that still means a "man" was in there.
I actually approve of the SC ruling - we needed a start place definition which had been muddied and blurred by all the rowing. What I disagree with is the triumphantist absolutism which it has triggered.
What will change is that the aggressive activists won't be able to impose themselves. Good. Most trans men and women aren't doing that. And most women aren't aggressively shouting about men either. In the real world, little will change.
The language about a 'ban' is what is confusing matters. It's more a case of whose side the law is on if there is a confrontation for any reason.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
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
OK, in clear detail - and none of it original or new.
Establishments that establish single-sex provision for safeguarding purposes should have policies and procedures, as well as an established point of contact for the reporting of allegations of violating safeguarding or for whistle-blowing.
If someone is violating safeguarding then they can face consequences - whether it be training, disciplinary action, or termination of employment if an employee, or facing being barred from the premises if a member of the public.
Same as any other bloody safeguarding issue!
Sure! But that is employment law and policies. None of it is the absolute ban on men in women's loos as proclaimed. Because it can't be policed. People can complain afterwards. But that still means a "man" was in there.
I actually approve of the SC ruling - we needed a start place definition which had been muddied and blurred by all the rowing. What I disagree with is the triumphantist absolutism which it has triggered.
What will change is that the aggressive activists won't be able to impose themselves. Good. Most trans men and women aren't doing that. And most women aren't aggressively shouting about men either. In the real world, little will change.
Bans don't need to be policed to exist.
The absolutism is that the law is on their side, so if someone is breaking the law, they can object - and won't face disciplinary action for objecting, as the nurse in Fife did for example.
CSPAN @cspan · 4h Former President @BillClinton at Oklahoma City Bombing 30th Anniversary Remembrance Ceremony: "If our lives are going to be dominated by the effort to dominate people we disagree with we're going to put the 250 year old march toward a more perfect union at risk."
Interesting. Which made me wonder, “in which countries is the income of the driver a big driver of cost?” And the answer is certain very wealthy, very egalitarian European countries. So those are the ones vulnerable to Waymo. Except regulation won’t allow it.
The cost of a 15 minute taxi ride is a very good indicator of how equal a society is - or at least how well paid its lowest paid classes are. Get a cab in Geneva, or Copenhagen, or Paris, and it’ll cost you an arm or a leg. Get an equally swanky ride in Mexico City or Istanbul and it’s a relative bargain.
So if I were waymo I’d be thinking where has:
- low income inequality, low unemployment and high average earnings - A wealthy middle class who will pay to be driven around - wide, grid-like streets that will allow for a driverless vehicle combined with relatively sensible driving conditions - A liberal regulatory regime that allows for innovation including driverless vehicles
As some of you are aware, my partner of the last decade or so was trans - note the past tense, she died some years ago.
This doesn't give me the right to speak for all - indeed for any - trans people, but it does mean I understand and have experienced more animosity and violence than most folks here. Nobody would *choose* to be trans. To be hated and pilloried on the streets. But they do it because it is who they are. And they cannot change that.
I would simply like to thank each and every one of you who has spoken out in support of trans rights on this forum in the last few days.
I'm not going to engage with the hate speech I've seen, I just want to thank those of you who've spoken up for a minority that I have seen being persecuted and hated on for no other reason than existing and trying to live their lives as best they can.
Thank you, all.
Good evening
I haven't contributed to this debate, but feel I must repond and say that whilst I support the Supreme Court judgement I very much regret the division and unnecessary hostility on both sides
We should all understand that this is complex, and respect the right of transgender people to live their life with respect and without hate
CSPAN @cspan · 4h Former President @BillClinton at Oklahoma City Bombing 30th Anniversary Remembrance Ceremony: "If our lives are going to be dominated by the effort to dominate people we disagree with we're going to put the 250 year old march toward a more perfect union at risk."
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
O/T: today I got an email about my MS office subscription, and rather than pay the 30% increase for an AI feature I will never use, I used this one simple trick MS executives hate:
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
If they're male and have a penis they should be in a male prison. The GRC is not relevant for safeguarding purposes. How they "live their lives" is not relevant for safeguarding purposes. If they lived their lives legally they wouldn't be in prison, barring a miscarriage of justice.
If they need protective custody, they should get it. Protect the individual, don't jeopardise the protection of every single woman in a woman's-only prison by putting someone who is not actually a woman (for safeguarding purposes) into the prison.
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.
If my god fearing, teetotal, tiny, Salvation Army songster grandmother had got hold of Mick McManus, she wouldn’t have gone to heaven.
LOL. My nana loved Mick. iirc it was Saturday lunchtimes on itv. We would share a bag of mint humbugs whilst watching.
Interesting. Which made me wonder, “in which countries is the income of the driver a big driver of cost?” And the answer is certain very wealthy, very egalitarian European countries. So those are the ones vulnerable to Waymo. Except regulation won’t allow it.
The cost of a 15 minute taxi ride is a very good indicator of how equal a society is - or at least how well paid its lowest paid classes are. Get a cab in Geneva, or Copenhagen, or Paris, and it’ll cost you an arm or a leg. Get an equally swanky ride in Mexico City or Istanbul and it’s a relative bargain.
So if I were waymo I’d be thinking where has:
- low income inequality, low unemployment and high average earnings - A wealthy middle class who will pay to be driven around - wide, grid-like streets that will allow for a driverless vehicle combined with relatively sensible driving conditions - A liberal regulatory regime that allows for innovation including driverless vehicles
The other thing is that today’s expensive, complicated technology tends to be tomorrow’s cheap.
O/T: today I got an email about my MS office subscription, and rather than pay the 30% increase for an AI feature I will never use, I used this one simple trick MS executives hate:
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.
If my god fearing, teetotal, tiny, Salvation Army songster grandmother had got hold of Mick McManus, she wouldn’t have gone to heaven.
LOL. My nana loved Mick. iirc it was Saturday lunchtimes on itv. We would share a bag of mint humbugs whilst watching.
He was seriously soft as shit in real life. In a nice way. But he dyed his hair jet black right to the end and never changed the style. You could see it but would never mention it.
Interesting. Which made me wonder, “in which countries is the income of the driver a big driver of cost?” And the answer is certain very wealthy, very egalitarian European countries. So those are the ones vulnerable to Waymo. Except regulation won’t allow it.
The cost of a 15 minute taxi ride is a very good indicator of how equal a society is - or at least how well paid its lowest paid classes are. Get a cab in Geneva, or Copenhagen, or Paris, and it’ll cost you an arm or a leg. Get an equally swanky ride in Mexico City or Istanbul and it’s a relative bargain.
So if I were waymo I’d be thinking where has:
- low income inequality, low unemployment and high average earnings - A wealthy middle class who will pay to be driven around - wide, grid-like streets that will allow for a driverless vehicle combined with relatively sensible driving conditions - A liberal regulatory regime that allows for innovation including driverless vehicles
The other thing is that today’s expensive, complicated technology tends to be tomorrow’s cheap.
At which point, all vehicles will have it... and what's Waymo's advantage then?
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.
If my god fearing, teetotal, tiny, Salvation Army songster grandmother had got hold of Mick McManus, she wouldn’t have gone to heaven.
LOL. My nana loved Mick. iirc it was Saturday lunchtimes on itv. We would share a bag of mint humbugs whilst watching.
He and his wife would arrange to meet me for lunch when I was at uni in London and you could go to any restaurant with them and you were treated like royalty, they knew who he was and who his friends were but an absolute gent. Like one of the Krays without the murder and buggery.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
O/T: today I got an email about my MS office subscription, and rather than pay the 30% increase for an AI feature I will never use, I used this one simple trick MS executives hate:
Thank you. Extremely so. Just made the switcheroo.
Martin Lewis missed the other option - you can pay for your subscription in advance so I now don't need to worry about it until late 2028 having bought 4 years up front.
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
OK, in clear detail - and none of it original or new.
Establishments that establish single-sex provision for safeguarding purposes should have policies and procedures, as well as an established point of contact for the reporting of allegations of violating safeguarding or for whistle-blowing.
If someone is violating safeguarding then they can face consequences - whether it be training, disciplinary action, or termination of employment if an employee, or facing being barred from the premises if a member of the public.
Same as any other bloody safeguarding issue!
Sure! But that is employment law and policies. None of it is the absolute ban on men in women's loos as proclaimed. Because it can't be policed. People can complain afterwards. But that still means a "man" was in there.
I actually approve of the SC ruling - we needed a start place definition which had been muddied and blurred by all the rowing. What I disagree with is the triumphantist absolutism which it has triggered.
What will change is that the aggressive activists won't be able to impose themselves. Good. Most trans men and women aren't doing that. And most women aren't aggressively shouting about men either. In the real world, little will change.
The language about a 'ban' is what is confusing matters. It's more a case of whose side the law is on if there is a confrontation for any reason.
I was told on here that the new ruling banned men from women's toilets and that venues could be sued.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
But how do you tell? What’s below people’s belt is no one’s business but their own - and we rely on a “social contract” to respect boundaries. Men who do not want to respect boundaries are the last people women want in their single sex spaces. Of course the vast majority of men do respect those boundaries - but the reaction of those who have now been told “no” is revealing.
By the way, Leon, thanks for recommending the Ritter chocolate yesterday, just had some and it's quite nice.
Please don't; you'll only encourage him.
I want to encourage discussions like the one on dark chocolate yesterday. It enables us to see each other as real people while we bash each other with heavy politics. Talking of that, is this thing about a new colour complete bollocks? If it's not I would be fascinated to learn more.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
But how do you tell? What’s below people’s belt is no one’s business but their own - and we rely on a “social contract” to respect boundaries. Men who do not want to respect boundaries are the last people women want in their single sex spaces. Of course the vast majority of men do respect those boundaries - but the reaction of those who have now been told “no” is revealing.
You can tell because you would be granted identification of your new status post surgery. You would then be able to change your passport etc. (not your birth certificate).
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
With the medic's "diagnosis" (scare quotes because it's a propaganda word) saying what exactly? "I certify, backed by my professional insurance, that this bloke really thinks he's a woman and is unlikely to be cured out of it"?
O/T: today I got an email about my MS office subscription, and rather than pay the 30% increase for an AI feature I will never use, I used this one simple trick MS executives hate:
Interesting. Which made me wonder, “in which countries is the income of the driver a big driver of cost?” And the answer is certain very wealthy, very egalitarian European countries. So those are the ones vulnerable to Waymo. Except regulation won’t allow it.
The cost of a 15 minute taxi ride is a very good indicator of how equal a society is - or at least how well paid its lowest paid classes are. Get a cab in Geneva, or Copenhagen, or Paris, and it’ll cost you an arm or a leg. Get an equally swanky ride in Mexico City or Istanbul and it’s a relative bargain.
So if I were waymo I’d be thinking where has:
- low income inequality, low unemployment and high average earnings - A wealthy middle class who will pay to be driven around - wide, grid-like streets that will allow for a driverless vehicle combined with relatively sensible driving conditions - A liberal regulatory regime that allows for innovation including driverless vehicles
The other thing is that today’s expensive, complicated technology tends to be tomorrow’s cheap.
At which point, all vehicles will have it... and what's Waymo's advantage then?
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
But how do you tell? What’s below people’s belt is no one’s business but their own - and we rely on a “social contract” to respect boundaries. Men who do not want to respect boundaries are the last people women want in their single sex spaces. Of course the vast majority of men do respect those boundaries - but the reaction of those who have now been told “no” is revealing.
You can tell because you would be granted identification of your new status post surgery. You would then be able to change your passport etc. (not your birth certificate).
Requiring surgical modification would almost certainly be a human rights breach.
The whole point is that “gender” is a philosophical belief - it can’t be “proved” or “tested for”.
Just like having a “soul”.
People sincerely believe in both, and both are protected beliefs. I believe in neither. Which is also protected.
But they are different from “sex” - which is an objective reality and can be proved. You can’t change sex.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
With the medic's "diagnosis" (scare quotes because it's a propaganda word) saying what exactly? "I certify, backed by my professional insurance, that this bloke really thinks he's a woman and is unlikely to be cured out of it"?
O/T: today I got an email about my MS office subscription, and rather than pay the 30% increase for an AI feature I will never use, I used this one simple trick MS executives hate:
Thank you. Extremely so. Just made the switcheroo.
Martin Lewis missed the other option - you can pay for your subscription in advance so I now don't need to worry about it until late 2028 having bought 4 years up front.
Still happily working on my MS Office 16 for Mac... the one I got for free 8 years ago under some corporate licensing scheme that allowed employees to access a free home use licence. No subscription costs.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
With the medic's "diagnosis" (scare quotes because it's a propaganda word) saying what exactly? "I certify, backed by my professional insurance, that this bloke really thinks he's a woman and is unlikely to be cured out of it"?
Yes.
Your confidence in the probity and objectivity of medics is heroic, but if I might venture, misplaced.
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
But how do you tell? What’s below people’s belt is no one’s business but their own - and we rely on a “social contract” to respect boundaries. Men who do not want to respect boundaries are the last people women want in their single sex spaces. Of course the vast majority of men do respect those boundaries - but the reaction of those who have now been told “no” is revealing.
You can tell because you would be granted identification of your new status post surgery. You would then be able to change your passport etc. (not your birth certificate).
Requiring surgical modification would almost certainly be a human rights breach.
The whole point is that “gender” is a philosophical belief - it can’t be “proved” or “tested for”.
Just like having a “soul”.
People sincerely believe in both, and both are protected beliefs. I believe in neither. Which is also protected.
But they are different from “sex” - which is an objective reality and can be proved. You can’t change sex.
Thankfully we have Brexited, and the Human Rights Act is unlikely to survive the next parliament in its current form anyway.
My suggestion is humane and just.
If one wishes to retain and enjoy the use of the distinguishing marks of one's sex, one cannot credibly claim to find life as that sex unbearable. Such people deserve to live their lives without prejudice and whatever works for them is cool - but they don't warrant any special allowances from the law or society.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
There is truly nothing more fun than people arguing about trans at about 10.30 on a Saturday night.
Now I’m on a night off being a slutty drunk but it seems that it’s a better option than a circular argument where people just keep fighting their side.
Anyway. Hope everyone gets out and has fun on one night this weekend.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
What risk do trans men (women) pose to other female prisoners?
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.
If my god fearing, teetotal, tiny, Salvation Army songster grandmother had got hold of Mick McManus, she wouldn’t have gone to heaven.
LOL. My nana loved Mick. iirc it was Saturday lunchtimes on itv. We would share a bag of mint humbugs whilst watching.
He was seriously soft as shit in real life. In a nice way. But he dyed his hair jet black right to the end and never changed the style. You could see it but would never mention it.
What about John Bindon though? The five half-pint beer glasses routine that according to scurrilous rumour entertained Princess [redacted] so much suggests the opposite of softness.
Vance is going to be in charge of a task force to tackle the spiralling prices and other systemic shocks caused by Trump’s insane tariff war with China.
Hint: there is no solution so Vance gets the blame - and someone else can be made Vice President or at least has a chance to stand against Vance come the 2028 primaries.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
No - the wholly sensible and humane notion that all prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary doesn't suggest anything regarding what kind of prisons gender dysphoric male prisoners should be put in. The reason they should go into male prisons is because they are male.
Vance is going to be in charge of a task force to tackle the spiralling prices and other systemic shocks caused by Trump’s insane tariff war with China.
Hint: there is no solution so Vance gets the blame - and someone else can be made Vice President or at least has a chance to stand against Vance come the 2028 primaries.
The Chinese are already taking the piss out Vance's eyeliner on TikTok - "made in China..."
Vance is going to be in charge of a task force to tackle the spiralling prices and other systemic shocks caused by Trump’s insane tariff war with China.
Hint: there is no solution so Vance gets the blame - and someone else can be made Vice President or at least has a chance to stand against Vance come the 2028 primaries.
To be fair, the working group in the CBS piece includes every single one of the guilty men who are involved in the economic tariff clown show.
But, yeh, the highest profile casualty when the Kids of America don't get any toys this coming xmas will be Vance.
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.
Racist stereotype if you ask me.
So, Asian children are more academically successful than WWC children is due to racism? What a load of bollocks!
No:
"Asian heritage parents have a fanatical obsession with the education of their children"
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
But how do you tell? What’s below people’s belt is no one’s business but their own - and we rely on a “social contract” to respect boundaries. Men who do not want to respect boundaries are the last people women want in their single sex spaces. Of course the vast majority of men do respect those boundaries - but the reaction of those who have now been told “no” is revealing.
You can tell because you would be granted identification of your new status post surgery. You would then be able to change your passport etc. (not your birth certificate).
Requiring surgical modification would almost certainly be a human rights breach.
The whole point is that “gender” is a philosophical belief - it can’t be “proved” or “tested for”.
Just like having a “soul”.
People sincerely believe in both, and both are protected beliefs. I believe in neither. Which is also protected.
But they are different from “sex” - which is an objective reality and can be proved. You can’t change sex.
My suggestion is humane and just.
If one wishes to retain and enjoy the use of the distinguishing marks of one's sex, one cannot credibly claim to find life as that sex unbearable. Such people deserve to live their lives without prejudice and whatever works for them is cool - but they don't warrant any special allowances from the law or society.
I disagree but it will be interesting to read the reactions of the vocal supporters of trans rights to your suggestions.
I do not think the solution to a belief issue (who I think I am) lies in the operating theatre.
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
No - the wholly sensible and humane notion that all prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary doesn't suggest anything regarding what kind of prisons gender dysphoric male prisoners should be put in. The reason they should go into male prisons is because they are male.
All cells should be individual with a shower and a fo for each prisoner. Maybe a smaller space but a massive increase in safety. A lot easier then to close down a corridor for those prisoners who aren’t quite sure yet whether they are boys or girls. It’s not about soft life for prisoners but nobody should be afraid of being bummed or attacked in prison.
Being a bank holiday weekend you have to watch Zulu (or Zulu dawn as I did as part of hangover recovery yesterday) so you need to have a bit of “Impi” by South Africa’s finest, Jonny Clegg, about the Zulu war - not the usual source of inspiration for songs but wonderful all the same.
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
This trans debate just reinforces my view that we should have the transition process, involving a medical diagnosis, counselling, and culminating in surgery, after which the person concerned, whilst still biologically their birth sex, is afforded the courtesy of society treating them as their assigned gender, except in the case of competitive sport. And NOT before.
This solves: 1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol 2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos 4. Strip searching issues 5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
I think there is a common misconception that most trans journeys conclude in surgery - they do not.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
Isn't that @Luckyguy1983 point? The surgery is the gateway to really being given the courtesy as he puts it.
But how do you tell? What’s below people’s belt is no one’s business but their own - and we rely on a “social contract” to respect boundaries. Men who do not want to respect boundaries are the last people women want in their single sex spaces. Of course the vast majority of men do respect those boundaries - but the reaction of those who have now been told “no” is revealing.
You can tell because you would be granted identification of your new status post surgery. You would then be able to change your passport etc. (not your birth certificate).
Requiring surgical modification would almost certainly be a human rights breach.
The whole point is that “gender” is a philosophical belief - it can’t be “proved” or “tested for”.
Just like having a “soul”.
People sincerely believe in both, and both are protected beliefs. I believe in neither. Which is also protected.
But they are different from “sex” - which is an objective reality and can be proved. You can’t change sex.
My suggestion is humane and just.
If one wishes to retain and enjoy the use of the distinguishing marks of one's sex, one cannot credibly claim to find life as that sex unbearable. Such people deserve to live their lives without prejudice and whatever works for them is cool - but they don't warrant any special allowances from the law or society.
I disagree but it will be interesting to read the reactions of the vocal supporters of trans rights to your suggestions.
I do not think the solution to a belief issue (who I think I am) lies in the operating theatre.
It is the judgement of Solomon. Either you desperately need to be a woman (or man), or you don'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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
What risk do trans men (women) pose to other female prisoners?
Ideally none as I've said I have confidence in the prison service protecting prisoners from other prisoners (not matter what their sex or gender is). But trans men would be more comfortable in a prison that matches their gender.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
No - the wholly sensible and humane notion that all prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary doesn't suggest anything regarding what kind of prisons gender dysphoric male prisoners should be put in. The reason they should go into male prisons is because they are male.
So if I understand you right, you believe, that trans women are men, trans men are men?
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Rayner, Streeting, Cooper, Reynolds, Phillipson and Ed Miliband all forecast to lose their seats
We’ve had trans. We’ve had knee bending. We’ve had misogyny. We’ve had just stop oil. We’ve had a mental health epidemic. We have troublemaking extremists involved in them all. The common factor is shit stirrers on social media. Control that and we might all suffer less from people with extreme views who don’t accept that other people are entitled to hold different views.
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Rayner, Streeting, Cooper, Reynolds, Phillipson and Ed Miliband all forecast to lose their seats
I wonder how safe Sir Keir is in Holborn & St Pancras. He still has a 11,000 majority, but it was 28,000 in 2019.
Vance is going to be in charge of a task force to tackle the spiralling prices and other systemic shocks caused by Trump’s insane tariff war with China.
Hint: there is no solution so Vance gets the blame - and someone else can be made Vice President or at least has a chance to stand against Vance come the 2028 primaries.
Trump can remove responsibilities from Vance but he can't lawfully sack him as vice president or remove his right to succeed or his right to call on the 25th if he gets enough support. Given that Trump and his pal Musk are crapping on the judiciary, though, and the Federal Reserve, etc., it won't be a big surprise if they try to crap on the vice presidency too. It could get interesting if Trump tells the secret service "Stop telling that mfer where I am and what I'm doing".
5 years ago, a liberal, trans-supporting friend who lives in Brighton warned me I'd be on the wrong side of history when I argued over drinks that trans women perhaps shouldn't be allowed in women's sports or women's only safe shelters.
At the time I opined that trans activists should be finding common ground and compromise with a liberal like me, because then we could fight the right together on wider issues and not let this be a distraction.
Indeed, I think the constructive ambiguity before the last 5 years or so worked better. Trans women being treated as women in polite society was something liberals could support. Trans women being women took things to another level and led to an inevitable pushback.
Personally I wish liberals had gone down the route of pushing equality for men, identifying as men, to wear dresses and makeup in everyday attire harder. And vice versa for women who wish to have short hair and no makeup etc. I can't help thinking if society was less binary with gender norms, fewer people would identify as trans.
Male on male rape -- in US prisons -- is often treated as a joke, or even as a justifiable part of the victim's sentence. I don't know of any good recent estimates on the frequency, but here's a report from Human Rights Watch on the problem: https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report1.html
(For the record: I do consider male on female rape more serious, because of the additional possible consequences, for example, sterility and pregnancy. But I think we can treat both kinds of rape more seriously than we do.)
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Rayner, Streeting, Cooper, Reynolds, Phillipson and Ed Miliband all forecast to lose their seats
I wonder how safe Sir Keir is in Holborn & St Pancras. He still has a 11,000 majority, but it was 28,000 in 2019.
He might leak a few to the Greens but will hold on, North London loathes Farage and the Muslim vote is smaller than East London so Gaza Independents are weaker too
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Rayner, Streeting, Cooper, Reynolds, Phillipson and Ed Miliband all forecast to lose their seats
I wonder how safe Sir Keir is in Holborn & St Pancras. He still has a 11,000 majority, but it was 28,000 in 2019.
He might leak a few to the Greens but will hold on, North London loathes Farage and the Muslim vote is smaller than East London so Gaza Independents are weaker too
This kind of poll shows a flaw in John Rentoul’s thinking that Streeting should find a new seat so as to continue his with as Health Sec; he’ll be in Opposition, albeit possibly as leader I suppose
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:
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Rayner, Streeting, Cooper, Reynolds, Phillipson and Ed Miliband all forecast to lose their seats
I wonder how safe Sir Keir is in Holborn & St Pancras. He still has a 11,000 majority, but it was 28,000 in 2019.
He might leak a few to the Greens but will hold on, North London loathes Farage and the Muslim vote is smaller than East London so Gaza Independents are weaker too
This kind of poll shows a flaw in John Rentoul’s thinking that Streeting should find a new seat so as to continue his with as Health Sec; he’ll be in Opposition, albeit possibly as leader I suppose
Craziest seat prediction there that I've spotted is Dumfriesshire:
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Ref and Con are close enough together that Con could demand a rotating PMship a la Ireland. For me, any coalition would need 350 seats to be really secure, allowing for defections/byelections/disciplinary matters
We’ve had trans. We’ve had knee bending. We’ve had misogyny. We’ve had just stop oil. We’ve had a mental health epidemic. We have troublemaking extremists involved in them all. The common factor is shit stirrers on social media. Control that and we might all suffer less from people with extreme views who don’t accept that other people are entitled to hold different views.
This sounds a bit like personal responsibility doesn't really exist, and that people are just putty in the hands of social media personalities.
We’ve had trans. We’ve had knee bending. We’ve had misogyny. We’ve had just stop oil. We’ve had a mental health epidemic. We have troublemaking extremists involved in them all. The common factor is shit stirrers on social media. Control that and we might all suffer less from people with extreme views who don’t accept that other people are entitled to hold different views.
This sounds a bit like personal responsibility doesn't really exist, and that people are just putty in the hands of social media personalities.
Yup, we all know where the off button is..🤨 And being a twat on twitter isn't a human right..💩
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
That would be a bit like the 1924 General Election where three parties could potentially form a government with some support from another party. If Kemi made the same mistake as the Liberals and concluded that it would be a safe time to try a Reform Government then she'll be consigning the Tories to electoral oblivion.
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
That would be a bit like the 1924 General Election where three parties could potentially form a government with some support from another party. If Kemi made the same mistake as the Liberals and concluded that it would be a safe time to try a Reform Government then she'll be consigning the Tories to electoral oblivion.
You mean 1923? In 1924 Baldwin led the Tories to a 200+ seat majority.
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Ref and Con are close enough together that Con could demand a rotating PMship a la Ireland. For me, any coalition would need 350 seats to be really secure, allowing for defections/byelections/disciplinary matters
We’ve had trans. We’ve had knee bending. We’ve had misogyny. We’ve had just stop oil. We’ve had a mental health epidemic. We have troublemaking extremists involved in them all. The common factor is shit stirrers on social media. Control that and we might all suffer less from people with extreme views who don’t accept that other people are entitled to hold different views.
This sounds a bit like personal responsibility doesn't really exist, and that people are just putty in the hands of social media personalities.
New @Moreincommon_ MRP in @thetimes from polling of over 16,000 people finds a highly fragmented and divided electorate. It estimates Reform UK as the largest party with 180 seats, followed by Labour & the Tories on 165 seats each, but hundreds of seats on a knife edge.
The full seat totals from the MRP are ➡️Reform UK 180 (+175) 🌹Labour 165 (-246) 🌳Conservative 165 (+44) 🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5) 🟡SNP 35 (+26) ⬜️Independent 10 (+4) 🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1) 🌎Green 4 (-) Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are ➡️Reform UK 24% (+9) 🌹Labour 24% (-10) 🌳Conservative 24% (-) 🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1) 🟡SNP 2% (-) 🌎Green 8% (+1) Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
So Farage would become PM if he got Badenoch's support.
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
Ref and Con are close enough together that Con could demand a rotating PMship a la Ireland. For me, any coalition would need 350 seats to be really secure, allowing for defections/byelections/disciplinary matters
Reform voters don’t want the Tories in Government
My guess, if it really came out that close, would be 6 months of Lab minority then another election. If it came out similarly second time around then you would have to have one of Con/Ref, Con/Lab, Lab/Ref, however, unlikely bedfellows.
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.
Note here, I'm talking about an trans woman with a GRC, someone who lives their life as a woman not whatever fantasy is in some people's heads. If they commit a crime and are sentenced to prison then they should be in a female prison. According to the Prison Service in 2023/24 that was 3 women. I think the chances of someone with a GRC even being able to commit rape is unlikely, even if they still have a penis the HRT will mess up being able to have an erection as far as I know (is that right?). If by some bizarre reason there was such a case then it's up to the prison service to keep other prisoners safe from them. They manage it with Rose West, they managed with Myra Hindley, they protect gay male prisoners from Stephen Port. I genuinely don't see it as a problem.
All of that applies if they are where they should be too - in a male prison. A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
That's a view, it would mean that Trans men should be in female prisons. I don't agree with that proposition.
No - the wholly sensible and humane notion that all prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary doesn't suggest anything regarding what kind of prisons gender dysphoric male prisoners should be put in. The reason they should go into male prisons is because they are male.
All cells should be individual with a shower and a fo for each prisoner. Maybe a smaller space but a massive increase in safety. A lot easier then to close down a corridor for those prisoners who aren’t quite sure yet whether they are boys or girls. It’s not about soft life for prisoners but nobody should be afraid of being bummed or attacked in prison.
+1 for "fo". A private fo > a communal bidet-room for sure. On the serious point, though, I agree.
Comments
You send a trans man or woman to jail. That person is vulnerable in any jail and thus shouldn't be in the general population.
The Victory for Women brigade suggest that a trans woman is a manly man like any other man and thus should go into a man prison. Great - they'll be safe there won't they.
My point is that rights for prisoners is not suitable to then deploy as rights for all. Some nutcase political decision putting a rapist in a women's prison - clearly bonkers - should not be the excuse to consider that all trans women are rapey predators because they're not.
Which prison should they be sent to? One that segregates them from other prisoners for their own safety. Won't be fun.
I'm not arguing against the law. I am arguing that the crowing that this is the end solution to stop men in the ladies bogs is full of hopium.
According to a recent poll, over 80% of Swiss citizens are against the purchase of the F-35, and at least 70% would opt for a European jet such as the Rafale.
Furthermore, the Green Party has already started collecting signatures that could theoretically lead to a federal referendum to cancel the federal government’s purchase of the F-35.
https://x.com/aidefranceukr/status/1913393826070224915
Waymo is doomed:
https://open.substack.com/pub/robertsmithson1/p/waymo-is-doomed
Establishments that establish single-sex provision for safeguarding purposes should have policies and procedures, as well as an established point of contact for the reporting of allegations of violating safeguarding or for whistle-blowing.
If someone is violating safeguarding then they can face consequences - whether it be training, disciplinary action, or termination of employment if an employee, or facing being barred from the premises if a member of the public.
Same as any other bloody safeguarding issue!
Robin Brooks
@robin_j_brooks
·
3h
The wheels are coming off in [Emerging Markets] EM. There's a veritable exodus of capital flows that's built very recently. You don't see this in exchange rates, because EM central banks are presumably intervening heavily to smooth markets. Capital flight is almost as bad as during peak COVID...
https://x.com/robin_j_brooks
It’s a bit like rugby union. The premiership rugby behaves as if it’s the same financially as the premiership football, but with crowds close to league 1 or 2. Even at my beloved Bath it’s just 15000 or so at capacity.
I’d love to see women’s football standing proud and on its own. By all means use the stadia, but end the links to the mens clubs. I get tweets endlessly about Swindon Town ladies. I don’t care. I support Swindon Town FC.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2025/02/microsoft-365-price-hike/
Hopefully useful for a few others here.
A male who identifies as female should not be in a female prison.
If they're not safe in a male's prison then alternative arrangements should be made for them - whether that be a trans ward if there are enough prisoners to justify that, or protective custody for the individual if needed.
Deal with the individual, don't just chuck them in a woman's prison and hope for the best.
This doesn't give me the right to speak for all - indeed for any - trans people, but it does mean I understand and have experienced more animosity and violence than most folks here. Nobody would *choose* to be trans. To be hated and pilloried on the streets. But they do it because it is who they are. And they cannot change that.
I would simply like to thank each and every one of you who has spoken out in support of trans rights on this forum in the last few days.
I'm not going to engage with the hate speech I've seen, I just want to thank those of you who've spoken up for a minority that I have seen being persecuted and hated on for no other reason than existing and trying to live their lives as best they can.
Thank you, all.
I actually approve of the SC ruling - we needed a start place definition which had been muddied and blurred by all the rowing. What I disagree with is the triumphantist absolutism which it has triggered.
What will change is that the aggressive activists won't be able to impose themselves. Good. Most trans men and women aren't doing that. And most women aren't aggressively shouting about men either. In the real world, little will change.
This solves:
1. 18 stone rapists chucking on a lopsided wig and pretending to be called Trudy to get into a women's gaol
2. Perverts exposing themselves in women's loos
4. Strip searching issues
5. People treating womanhood like this month's fashion accessory
I think it solves almost everything.
The absolutism is that the law is on their side, so if someone is breaking the law, they can object - and won't face disciplinary action for objecting, as the nurse in Fife did for example.
CSPAN
@cspan
·
4h
Former President
@BillClinton
at Oklahoma City Bombing 30th Anniversary Remembrance Ceremony: "If our lives are going to be dominated by the effort to dominate people we disagree with we're going to put the 250 year old march toward a more perfect union at risk."
https://x.com/cspan/status/1913629555115405634
The cost of a 15 minute taxi ride is a very good indicator of how equal a society is - or at least how well paid its lowest paid classes are. Get a cab in Geneva, or Copenhagen, or Paris, and it’ll cost you an arm or a leg. Get an equally swanky ride in Mexico City or Istanbul and it’s a relative bargain.
So if I were waymo I’d be thinking where has:
- low income inequality, low unemployment and high average earnings
- A wealthy middle class who will pay to be driven around
- wide, grid-like streets that will allow for a driverless vehicle combined with relatively sensible driving conditions
- A liberal regulatory regime that allows for innovation including driverless vehicles
I haven't contributed to this debate, but feel I must repond and say that whilst I support the Supreme Court judgement I very much regret the division and unnecessary hostility on both sides
We should all understand that this is complex, and respect the right of transgender people to live their life with respect and without hate
It's time to remember that it's OK to disagree. But it's not OK to be a dick to people.
If they need protective custody, they should get it. Protect the individual, don't jeopardise the protection of every single woman in a woman's-only prison by putting someone who is not actually a woman (for safeguarding purposes) into the prison.
@sianberry [Green Party]
I believe trans women are women.
BBC Radio 4.
The overwhelming majority of trans women (men) are intact, and for very good reason that has never been a requirement of getting a GRC.
The simple fact of the matter is none of us can “change sex” - all anyone can do is alter, to a limited degree of success, some secondary sexual characteristics - and these procedures have many challenges and are not infrequently regretted.
How? Specifically?
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161695754
The whole point is that “gender” is a philosophical belief - it can’t be “proved” or “tested for”.
Just like having a “soul”.
People sincerely believe in both, and both are protected beliefs. I believe in neither. Which is also protected.
But they are different from “sex” - which is an objective reality and can be proved. You can’t change sex.
My suggestion is humane and just.
If one wishes to retain and enjoy the use of the distinguishing marks of one's sex, one cannot credibly claim to find life as that sex unbearable. Such people deserve to live their lives without prejudice and whatever works for them is cool - but they don't warrant any special allowances from the law or society.
A man can't live his life "as a woman". That would make the concept of "woman" void. It's not void. And yes this is essentialist.
All prisoners should be protected from other prisoners if necessary. That includes gender dysphorics and for that matter it also includes rapists who aren't gender dysphorics.
Now I’m on a night off being a slutty drunk but it seems that it’s a better option than a circular argument where people just keep fighting their side.
Anyway. Hope everyone gets out and has fun on one night this weekend.
https://x.com/StephenM/status/1913676492061786502
Really? Paradise? Safety?
I mean, Watts for a start in my life time. Never mind what all else.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-china-tariff-task-force/
Vance is going to be in charge of a task force to tackle the spiralling prices and other systemic shocks caused by Trump’s insane tariff war with China.
Hint: there is no solution so Vance gets the blame - and someone else can be made Vice President or at least has a chance to stand against Vance come the 2028 primaries.
But, yeh, the highest profile casualty when the Kids of America don't get any toys this coming xmas will be Vance.
"Asian heritage parents have a fanatical obsession with the education of their children"
Is a racist stereotype.
I do not think the solution to a belief issue (who I think I am) lies in the operating theatre.
The full seat totals from the MRP are
➡️Reform UK 180 (+175)
🌹Labour 165 (-246)
🌳Conservative 165 (+44)
🟠Liberal Democrat 67 (-5)
🟡SNP 35 (+26)
⬜️Independent 10 (+4)
🟢Plaid Cymru 5 (+1)
🌎Green 4 (-)
Changes are with the 2024 General Election
This should not be seen as a prediction of an election some 4 years away, but an indication of how the electorate has splintered since last July. In addition with three parties on ~24% many of the seats are being decided on tiny margins & realistically could flip any way
The implied vote shares are
➡️Reform UK 24% (+9)
🌹Labour 24% (-10)
🌳Conservative 24% (-)
🟠Liberal Democrat 13% (+1)
🟡SNP 2% (-)
🌎Green 8% (+1)
Changes with the 2024 General Election
Reform seat gains are largely at Labour's expense & in this scenario they would take the seats of 9 cabinet members. They would also gain ~20 seats from the Tories. Despite fractionally trailing Labour & Tories on vote share Reform's vote is slightly more efficient
https://x.com/luketryl/status/1913703674590777615?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/latest-insights/more-in-common-s-april-mrp/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJLRRMye4YI
"Taba Chake - Walk With Me"
Trump must be bigly favourite now?
https://youtu.be/3vhWhX3ZkW8?si=4PuX7wTCTT1QtNzQ
Seriously - what other song refers to Chelmsford’s army sleeping and fucking up a battle .
Kemi would have achieved the triumph of reaching Hague 2001 and Major 1997 levels in terms of Tory MPs from their nadir last year of just 121, the LDs would tread water and the SNP make gains too.
Starmer would lose more MPs from his party, 246, than even Major in 1997, Churchill in 1945 or Brown in 2010 but would still lose 5 fewer MPs than Rishi managed to do last year
At the time I opined that trans activists should be finding common ground and compromise with a liberal like me, because then we could fight the right together on wider issues and not let this be a distraction.
Indeed, I think the constructive ambiguity before the last 5 years or so worked better. Trans women being treated as women in polite society was something liberals could support. Trans women being women took things to another level and led to an inevitable pushback.
Personally I wish liberals had gone down the route of pushing equality for men, identifying as men, to wear dresses and makeup in everyday attire harder. And vice versa for women who wish to have short hair and no makeup etc. I can't help thinking if society was less binary with gender norms, fewer people would identify as trans.
(For the record: I do consider male on female rape more serious, because of the additional possible consequences, for example, sterility and pregnancy. But I think we can treat both kinds of rape more seriously than we do.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqfs8r2B4RE
SNP -21%
Con -21%
Lab - 21%
Ref -20%
LD- 12%
It’s an old, old argument.
On the serious point, though, I agree.