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?
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:
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."
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
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
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
You could just about do Lab / Con Unity government. But Ref > Con looks a lot more stable.
I still think Con/Ref is more likely than Ref/Con when it comes to the actual election.
I think my principles are still pretty conservative but (a) it's quite rare for me to find anyone who now shares them and (b) I'm not sure I trust them to put them into practice; I do expect them to fight amongst themselves like lions all over again as soon as they get the chance.
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.
I did wonder if “fo” would enlighten me on your username.
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:
SNP -21% Con -21% Lab - 21% Ref -20% LD- 12%
Bet they'd still do a barchart claiming it was a two-horse race and noone else could win there.
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:
Nothing to see here, just Lab MP Steve Race calling the law that protects women's rights - provisions of the Equality Act that were passed by a Labour government - "pretty appalling". And a minister, Chris Bryant agreeing. Whether or not he faces this down is a test for Starmer.
Mr. Royale, no idea whereabouts you are, but as a kid I remember my parents taking me to Temple Newsam. I have vague memories of rather liking it, and strong memories of the smell of horses.
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:
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.
By using a laser to stimulate very specific parts of the retina, they have induced a new visual sensation in the small number of volunteers in the study. If you think of colour as a perception, then one can say they have created a new colour. If you think of colour as a thing in the external world, then you might not consider it a new colour.
This research paper, https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239 , is very interesting on the transwomen in prison debate. The author interviewed ciswomen prisoners’ experience of transwomen prisoners. To greatly simplify, the ciswomen were very accepting of some transwomen, but saw others as frauds.
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:
This research paper, https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239 , is very interesting on the transwomen in prison debate. The author interviewed ciswomen prisoners’ experience of transwomen prisoners. To greatly simplify, the ciswomen were very accepting of some transwomen, but saw others as frauds.
Interesting study - though the title ‘She Was Just Like A Lassie’: Analysing The Views of Cis-Women In Custody About Their Experiences of Living With Transgender Women In The Scottish Prison Estate does not quite capture the varied views of the 15 interviewees.
The author had previously tweeted an interview with Judith Butler critical of JK Rowling, so while I don't doubt his academic rigour, that may be a clue as to where his sympathies lie.
The ‘debate’ here yesterday was instructive. The people obsessed and commenting/sneering about toilets were predominantly pro trans men. Not those gender critical trying to protect women only spaces.
I’m afraid I think you will end up losing. With all the problems in the world and in this country this clearly will be a big focus for many MPs.
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.
Quite clearly many are. Saying "we might all suffer less" is hardly a denial of personal responsibility.
Analogously, you not believe, for example, that the criminal justice system has any deterrent effect on crime ?
As many others have pointed out the SC did not change the law. They interpreted what had been passed by Parliament and made it coherent. If that is not what the government wants then they can change it.
Personally, like some others on this site, I think that a GRC which has been obtained against the rigorous criteria in the 2004 Act is an adequate protection for women, especially if it is backed up with surgery. But this is their call, not mine, they are the ones at risk or being made to be uncomfortable. If they don't like a man leering at them in a changing room, even when he no longer has a penis, that is a view worthy of respect and consideration.
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.
By using a laser to stimulate very specific parts of the retina, they have induced a new visual sensation in the small number of volunteers in the study. If you think of colour as a perception, then one can say they have created a new colour. If you think of colour as a thing in the external world, then you might not consider it a new colour.
Colour is perception, light is just a mix of wavelengths.
Any animal with colour perception has a more than one type of coloured sensing cells in its visual system. The number varies; humans have three types (some shrimps have five times that - and do perceive a far larger number of 'colours')
In humans, the sensitivity of the three types of cells to wavelengths of light overlaps. So when you perceive a colour, it's the result of signals from a mix of types of cells.
What the experiment did was to very precisely (using laser pulses) stimulate only one type of cell. So the subjects 'saw' a colour signal they could never experience in nature.
The ‘debate’ here yesterday was instructive. The people obsessed and commenting/sneering about toilets were predominantly pro trans men. Not those gender critical trying to protect women only spaces.
I’m afraid I think you will end up losing. With all the problems in the world and in this country this clearly will be a big focus for many MPs.
The ‘debate’ here yesterday was instructive. The people obsessed and commenting/sneering about toilets were predominantly pro trans men. Not those gender critical trying to protect women only spaces.
I’m afraid I think you will end up losing. With all the problems in the world and in this country this clearly will be a big focus for many MPs.
And politicians wonder why they are held in contempt.
Comments
(Think about it…)
F1: just starting the pre-race ramble now. Qualifying certainly set things up nicely.
Those are pretty big issues.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161612037?source=queue
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1913720244499108007
Taking my dog (2 year old son, who's obsessed with farm animals) out for a 6.45am walk.
Betting PostBacked Russell to win each way (top 2) at 12 (boosted price). Start of the race, with three men all vying to pass Norris in the title standings, will be rather good.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/04/saudi-arabian-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14628401/Labour-Whatsapp-leaked-messages-transgender-court-ruling.html
I don't want it and don't want to pay for it, but it seems built in to the new Samsungs.
The author had previously tweeted an interview with Judith Butler critical of JK Rowling, so while I don't doubt his academic rigour, that may be a clue as to where his sympathies lie.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czjn0pn830ko
The ‘debate’ here yesterday was instructive. The people obsessed and commenting/sneering about toilets were predominantly pro trans men. Not those gender critical trying to protect women only spaces.
I’m afraid I think you will end up losing. With all the problems in the world and in this country this clearly will be a big focus for many MPs.
Saying "we might all suffer less" is hardly a denial of personal responsibility.
Analogously, you not believe, for example, that the criminal justice system has any deterrent effect on crime ?
Personally, like some others on this site, I think that a GRC which has been obtained against the rigorous criteria in the 2004 Act is an adequate protection for women, especially if it is backed up with surgery. But this is their call, not mine, they are the ones at risk or being made to be uncomfortable. If they don't like a man leering at them in a changing room, even when he no longer has a penis, that is a view worthy of respect and consideration.
NEW THREAD
Any animal with colour perception has a more than one type of coloured sensing cells in its visual system. The number varies; humans have three types (some shrimps have five times that - and do perceive a far larger number of 'colours')
In humans, the sensitivity of the three types of cells to wavelengths of light overlaps. So when you perceive a colour, it's the result of signals from a mix of types of cells.
What the experiment did was to very precisely (using laser pulses) stimulate only one type of cell. So the subjects 'saw' a colour signal they could never experience in nature.