J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Charlie Kirk's killer? Terminally online and gun culture. The far right Evergreen shooter? Terminally online and gun culture. The Annunciation killer? Terminally online and gun culture. Yesterday's killers? Online and gun culture. The always forgotten CDC killer? Online and gun culture.
Most people don’t understand the origin of the phrase “hoist on your own petard”
It comes from the 16th century French when a “petard” was a servant employed by aristocrats to elevate surprised guests, while they are sleeping, and then lower them onto enormous butt plugs made of compacted pine cones. The combination of size and bristles, within the anal passage, was said to be exquisitely painful and yet pleasurable and male guests would often involuntarily ejaculate onto a special audience of cynically laughing midgets gathered for this exact purpose
Therefore “to be hoist by your own petard” means you accidentally asked your own servant to do this to you
I love etymology
Especially when you make it up and include gratuitous, faintly repulsive and totally inaccurate sexual titbits.
A petard was a small bomb, and that is precisely what your spoofistic lieola deserves.
No. That’s a false etymology. I did a ton of research on this for a Gazette Piece - the editor thought it was very much our arena because of the butt plug detail
Shakespeare probably misconstrued it, is the consensus now
It really isn't the consensus. You're talking shit I'm afraid. (But then you know that.)
Most people don’t understand the origin of the phrase “hoist on your own petard”
It comes from the 16th century French when a “petard” was a servant employed by aristocrats to elevate surprised guests, while they are sleeping, and then lower them onto enormous butt plugs made of compacted pine cones. The combination of size and bristles, within the anal passage, was said to be exquisitely painful and yet pleasurable and male guests would often involuntarily ejaculate onto a special audience of cynically laughing midgets gathered for this exact purpose
Therefore “to be hoist by your own petard” means you accidentally asked your own servant to do this to you
I love etymology
Especially when you make it up and include gratuitous, faintly repulsive and totally inaccurate sexual titbits.
A petard was a small bomb, and that is precisely what your spoofistic lieola deserves.
No. That’s a false etymology. I did a ton of research on this for a Gazette Piece - the editor thought it was very much our arena because of the butt plug detail
Shakespeare probably misconstrued it, is the consensus now
Not in Wikipedia it isn't.
There is - in fact - no evidence whatsoever for @Leon's tall tail.
Charlie Kirk's killer? Terminally online and gun culture. The far right Evergreen shooter? Terminally online and gun culture. The Annunciation killer? Terminally online and gun culture. Yesterday's killers? Online and gun culture. The always forgotten CDC killer? Online and gun culture.
By the way - have we commented on the Imperial War Museum closing the VC gallery?
I have to admit, it was rather bizarre, the last time I visited the IWM, to see an exhibition dedicated to anti-war movements in the UK and CND. Whereas the point of the place is surely rearranging the faces of Germans and Japanese.
I can highly recommend the Imperial War Museum YouTube channel.
Most people don’t understand the origin of the phrase “hoist on your own petard”
It comes from the 16th century French when a “petard” was a servant employed by aristocrats to elevate surprised guests, while they are sleeping, and then lower them onto enormous butt plugs made of compacted pine cones. The combination of size and bristles, within the anal passage, was said to be exquisitely painful and yet pleasurable and male guests would often involuntarily ejaculate onto a special audience of cynically laughing midgets gathered for this exact purpose
Therefore “to be hoist by your own petard” means you accidentally asked your own servant to do this to you
I love etymology
Especially when you make it up and include gratuitous, faintly repulsive and totally inaccurate sexual titbits.
A petard was a small bomb, and that is precisely what your spoofistic lieola deserves.
No. That’s a false etymology. I did a ton of research on this for a Gazette Piece - the editor thought it was very much our arena because of the butt plug detail
Shakespeare probably misconstrued it, is the consensus now
Not in Wikipedia it isn't.
There is - in fact - no evidence whatsoever for @Leon's tall tail.
I've too much time on my hands ATM. That's why I had a look at Wikipedia. It isn't always right but it's extremely rarely so spectacularly wrong!
Russia is pretty much out of military radar in the occupied regions now, they’re working totally blind.
(Hell, they’re pretty much out of serviceable air defences in most of Western Russia too!)
The damage Ukraine is doing behind the lines is fantastic, but the tide needs to be turned on the ground in Ukraine.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Ukraine had two successful offensives in 2022 and one unsuccessful offensive in 2023 and another successful offensive in 2024.
In Kharkiv and Kursk, the offensive used mobility to get past weakly-held defensive lines and forced the Russians to retreat to establish a defensive line further back.
In Kherson, the Ukrainians destroyed Russian logistics, by destroying the bridges, so the Russians couldn't supply their forces on the right bank, and had to withdraw.
In 2023 the Ukrainians attacked well prepared defensive lines with reasonable functional supply routes. One of the assets that the Russians used in their defence were helicopter gunships to attack Ukrainian troops bogged down in minefields, as well as artillery and drones.
So it seems to me that the pre-requisites for a future successful Ukrainian offensive are to: 1. Work out how to more rapidly clear a way through minefields and other defensive obstacles. 2. Protect themselves from Russian attack by helicopters, drones and artillery while working through minefields. 3. Destroy Russian logistics, either directly just behind the front, or by destroying Russia's armaments factories, or by destroying railways and oil facilities (which also reduces the supply that Russia is able to buy in from abroad).
Being able to use drones to take down Russian helicopters is helpful for point (2). It seems as though clearing minefields, and defending against drones are the most problematic aspects.
If Ukraine is able to buy a large number of Tomahawks then they should be able to use them to completely wreck Russian logistics. At a certain stage, if an army's logistics is sufficiently badly damaged, it simply has to withdraw, because it has nothing with which to stand and fight with.
I'm pretty sure that if NATO were fighting this war that's the way in which they would seek to fight it. A lot of Ukrainian casualties have been caused because we haven't given them enough long-range weapons to avoid fighting a bloody artillery and drone war instead.
Ukraine is also expanding its air force, with more F-16s due to arrive, and also Mirage and Gripen jets. If Ukraine can break the stalemate in the air war then this could also help it to make progress on the ground without incurring heavy casualties.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
I’m warming to Reeves ! Her positive comments re an EU UK youth mobility scheme are welcome .
It wasn't as dire as I was expecting, although I am not sure it was enough for a party of government twenty five points behind RefCon in the polls.
The government need to get this new agreement with the EU done as fast as possible . The government needs every bit of growth it can find . And younger people screwed by Brexit get a chance to experience what life was like before the country decided to lose its mind .
My granddaughter spent the penultimate year of her degree course at Turin University in 2024
Erasmus should never have been thrown out with Brexit. Erasmus was more comprehensive than what is now in place.
There were reasons why, including vastly increased charges to be part of it. And exchange never stopped. I have hosted >20 students since Brexit. Don't obsess over Erasmus.
I’m warming to Reeves ! Her positive comments re an EU UK youth mobility scheme are welcome .
It wasn't as dire as I was expecting, although I am not sure it was enough for a party of government twenty five points behind RefCon in the polls.
The government need to get this new agreement with the EU done as fast as possible . The government needs every bit of growth it can find . And younger people screwed by Brexit get a chance to experience what life was like before the country decided to lose its mind .
My granddaughter spent the penultimate year of her degree course at Turin University in 2024
Erasmus should never have been thrown out with Brexit. Erasmus was more comprehensive than what is now in place.
There were reasons why, including vastly increased charges to be part of it. And exchange never stopped. I have hosted >20 students since Brexit. Don't obsess over Erasmus.
As I said it didn't stop my granddaughter spending a year at Turin University
She has been offered position in the civil service, but apparently there is a delay because checks have to be carried out with the authorities in Italy to see that she did not fall foul of any laws etc
And have you ever tried to get anything official from Italy?
By the way - have we commented on the Imperial War Museum closing the VC gallery?
I have to admit, it was rather bizarre, the last time I visited the IWM, to see an exhibition dedicated to anti-war movements in the UK and CND. Whereas the point of the place is surely rearranging the faces of Germans and Japanese.
I can highly recommend the Imperial War Museum YouTube channel.
On the VC Gallery - it was just a matter of time. Museum people hate, *hate* a static, unchanging display. You should hear the anguish at the Wallace Collection (where they are forbidden to change stuff by the founder's will).
If Ashcroft has a sense of humour, he should setup a new gallery in Paris. Or maybe Berlin.
"Domestic abuser who attacked five women was allowed to stay in UK
The case of Hamilton Jorge Da Silva Pinho, from Portugal, must be reheard by judges after he avoided deportation because of a son he did not live with" (£)
Most people don’t understand the origin of the phrase “hoist on your own petard”
It comes from the 16th century French when a “petard” was a servant employed by aristocrats to elevate surprised guests, while they are sleeping, and then lower them onto enormous butt plugs made of compacted pine cones. The combination of size and bristles, within the anal passage, was said to be exquisitely painful and yet pleasurable and male guests would often involuntarily ejaculate onto a special audience of cynically laughing midgets gathered for this exact purpose
Therefore “to be hoist by your own petard” means you accidentally asked your own servant to do this to you
I love etymology
Especially when you make it up and include gratuitous, faintly repulsive and totally inaccurate sexual titbits.
A petard was a small bomb, and that is precisely what your spoofistic lieola deserves.
No. That’s a false etymology. I did a ton of research on this for a Gazette Piece - the editor thought it was very much our arena because of the butt plug detail
Shakespeare probably misconstrued it, is the consensus now
It really isn't the consensus. You're talking shit I'm afraid. (But then you know that.)
It really is true. What else would “cynically laughing midgets” do in France in the 1500s? There was very little demand for them in terms of employment, even dour or mirthless midgets found life difficult. And those constantly doubled over in cruelly sarcastic laughter had virtually no chance of landing a steady job
So they went into this business, sardonically chuckling at half awake nobles being lowered onto enormous anal intruders made of fir cones - the way Jews went into diamond dealing - they were denied other options
By the way - have we commented on the Imperial War Museum closing the VC gallery?
I have to admit, it was rather bizarre, the last time I visited the IWM, to see an exhibition dedicated to anti-war movements in the UK and CND. Whereas the point of the place is surely rearranging the faces of Germans and Japanese.
I can highly recommend the Imperial War Museum YouTube channel.
On the VC Gallery - it was just a matter of time. Museum people hate, *hate* a static, unchanging display. You should hear the anguish at the Wallace Collection (where they are forbidden to change stuff by the founder's will).
If Ashcroft has a sense of humour, he should setup a new gallery in Paris. Or maybe Berlin.
It's the same at the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford, which is telling the "wrong" story about the world, and has been ever since it was established.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Russia is pretty much out of military radar in the occupied regions now, they’re working totally blind.
(Hell, they’re pretty much out of serviceable air defences in most of Western Russia too!)
The damage Ukraine is doing behind the lines is fantastic, but the tide needs to be turned on the ground in Ukraine.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Ukraine had two successful offensives in 2022 and one unsuccessful offensive in 2023 and another successful offensive in 2024.
In Kharkiv and Kursk, the offensive used mobility to get past weakly-held defensive lines and forced the Russians to retreat to establish a defensive line further back.
In Kherson, the Ukrainians destroyed Russian logistics, by destroying the bridges, so the Russians couldn't supply their forces on the right bank, and had to withdraw.
In 2023 the Ukrainians attacked well prepared defensive lines with reasonable functional supply routes. One of the assets that the Russians used in their defence were helicopter gunships to attack Ukrainian troops bogged down in minefields, as well as artillery and drones.
So it seems to me that the pre-requisites for a future successful Ukrainian offensive are to: 1. Work out how to more rapidly clear a way through minefields and other defensive obstacles. 2. Protect themselves from Russian attack by helicopters, drones and artillery while working through minefields. 3. Destroy Russian logistics, either directly just behind the front, or by destroying Russia's armaments factories, or by destroying railways and oil facilities (which also reduces the supply that Russia is able to buy in from abroad).
Being able to use drones to take down Russian helicopters is helpful for point (2). It seems as though clearing minefields, and defending against drones are the most problematic aspects.
If Ukraine is able to buy a large number of Tomahawks then they should be able to use them to completely wreck Russian logistics. At a certain stage, if an army's logistics is sufficiently badly damaged, it simply has to withdraw, because it has nothing with which to stand and fight with.
I'm pretty sure that if NATO were fighting this war that's the way in which they would seek to fight it. A lot of Ukrainian casualties have been caused because we haven't given them enough long-range weapons to avoid fighting a bloody artillery and drone war instead.
Ukraine is also expanding its air force, with more F-16s due to arrive, and also Mirage and Gripen jets. If Ukraine can break the stalemate in the air war then this could also help it to make progress on the ground without incurring heavy casualties.
All good stuff, but I think you miss one other significant factor that made the Kursk offensive successful, whilst the 2023 offensive was unsuccessful:
Not telling the US government what they were doing...
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruling renders the GRC largely pointless. Just one letter on a passport now I think. It will have to be reformed or dropped.
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
If it is true that post op trans women with GRCs do not have access to female spaces then that is absolutely wrong. They are not a threat. They have been through the proper process. They don’t have male genitals
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruling renders the GRC largely pointless. Just one letter on a passport now I think. It will have to be reformed or dropped.
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
So theoretically my post op trans female friend must now use the Gents? That’s bad and wrong. I cry foul scorn
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruling renders the GRC largely pointless. Just one letter on a passport now I think. It will have to be reformed or dropped.
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
Of course you can, you can use gender-neutral toilets and who is checking up on which toilet you used?
Of all the arguments, that is the most preposterous. Even if you have a GRC, if you have a penis you should not be in the female toilets. Gender neutral ones exist in almost every establishment nowadays.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
If it is true that post op trans women with GRCs do not have access to female spaces then that is absolutely wrong. They are not a threat. They have been through the proper process. They don’t have male genitals
I would agree. So there is a need for a change to the law to codify such a compromise position, but we do not live in compromising times.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
I think that'll be the last I do this year. It wasn't too bad once acclimatised, but the moment I stopped swimming it got very cold, very, very quickly.
Time to wash and dry my wetsuit ready for next spring...
What's the difference between open-water swimming and swimming in the sea/swimming in a lake/pond?
Sea swimming is, technically, open-water swimming. As is river and lake swimming. AIUI it is classified as any swimming that is outside and not in a pool.
There are many differences between them: in sea swimming you have added buoyancy from the saltwater, which makes the swim easier; but you also have to contend with currents and waves. You do not get the extra buoyancy in lakes, and the waves/swell can apparently be surprisingly large and annoying, as they can come from any direction. Navigation can be easier in river swimming as if you go too far off course you can walk (ahem!), but the currents can be very swift if you are swimming against them, and pollution can be an issue, as can weeds shallowness and territorial swans.
In OWS you also need to be able to sign and navigate really well, as you do not have the lines on the bottom of the pool (I am *terrible* at that).
I haven't done much sea swimming, but I've done a few lane and river races, and OWS is *very* different from pool swimming. You can be a brilliant pool swimmer and a poor OWS swimmer if you have not had enough practice.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruling renders the GRC largely pointless. Just one letter on a passport now I think. It will have to be reformed or dropped.
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
With respect that last one is bollocks. There are NO toilet inspectors. Who is checking up if someone transitioning is in the wrong toilet?
Russia is pretty much out of military radar in the occupied regions now, they’re working totally blind.
(Hell, they’re pretty much out of serviceable air defences in most of Western Russia too!)
The damage Ukraine is doing behind the lines is fantastic, but the tide needs to be turned on the ground in Ukraine.
I've been thinking about this a bit recently. Ukraine had two successful offensives in 2022 and one unsuccessful offensive in 2023 and another successful offensive in 2024.
In Kharkiv and Kursk, the offensive used mobility to get past weakly-held defensive lines and forced the Russians to retreat to establish a defensive line further back.
In Kherson, the Ukrainians destroyed Russian logistics, by destroying the bridges, so the Russians couldn't supply their forces on the right bank, and had to withdraw.
In 2023 the Ukrainians attacked well prepared defensive lines with reasonable functional supply routes. One of the assets that the Russians used in their defence were helicopter gunships to attack Ukrainian troops bogged down in minefields, as well as artillery and drones.
So it seems to me that the pre-requisites for a future successful Ukrainian offensive are to: 1. Work out how to more rapidly clear a way through minefields and other defensive obstacles. 2. Protect themselves from Russian attack by helicopters, drones and artillery while working through minefields. 3. Destroy Russian logistics, either directly just behind the front, or by destroying Russia's armaments factories, or by destroying railways and oil facilities (which also reduces the supply that Russia is able to buy in from abroad).
Being able to use drones to take down Russian helicopters is helpful for point (2). It seems as though clearing minefields, and defending against drones are the most problematic aspects.
If Ukraine is able to buy a large number of Tomahawks then they should be able to use them to completely wreck Russian logistics. At a certain stage, if an army's logistics is sufficiently badly damaged, it simply has to withdraw, because it has nothing with which to stand and fight with.
I'm pretty sure that if NATO were fighting this war that's the way in which they would seek to fight it. A lot of Ukrainian casualties have been caused because we haven't given them enough long-range weapons to avoid fighting a bloody artillery and drone war instead.
Ukraine is also expanding its air force, with more F-16s due to arrive, and also Mirage and Gripen jets. If Ukraine can break the stalemate in the air war then this could also help it to make progress on the ground without incurring heavy casualties.
One other factor worth noting with regards to minefields is there is a potential Maginot Line issue with them.
Yes Russia has very well prepared minefields in occupied territories, but there's very limited surrounding them, which is partially how Ukraine has been able to surprise Russia sometimes by going into Russian territory.
If Ukraine were to try another offensive one possible route would be to go around, rather than through, the minefields by going into Russia and liberating Ukrainian territory that way.
It brings its own challenges, but if they can have logistical superiority then its another possible outcome.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
It needs to be per-topic, really. Toilets? Be post-op. Sports? Be born a woman. And so on.
2. Had the operation. So they no longer have a penis
Once they get the GRC then they should absolutely have access to female spaces. I imagine 90% of Britons would agree with this sensible position. If the law no longer admits this sensible middle path then the law is an ass
By the way - have we commented on the Imperial War Museum closing the VC gallery?
I have to admit, it was rather bizarre, the last time I visited the IWM, to see an exhibition dedicated to anti-war movements in the UK and CND. Whereas the point of the place is surely rearranging the faces of Germans and Japanese.
I can highly recommend the Imperial War Museum YouTube channel.
On the VC Gallery - it was just a matter of time. Museum people hate, *hate* a static, unchanging display. You should hear the anguish at the Wallace Collection (where they are forbidden to change stuff by the founder's will).
If Ashcroft has a sense of humour, he should setup a new gallery in Paris. Or maybe Berlin.
It's the same at the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford, which is telling the "wrong" story about the world, and has been ever since it was established.
Actually, while maintaining the terms of the bequest, it's now quite woke enough to annoy folk like Leon, in the stories it tells regarding its collection.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
Just the other day, someone on here explicitly said that a transwoman who had the operation decades ago, and has been living as a woman for all that time, should not use women's facilities.
Whenever anyone says: "Transwomen should not use women's toilets!" they are *not* excluding post-op transwomen. They are referring to all transwomen.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
Just the other day, someone on here explicitly said that a transwoman who had the operation decades ago, and has been living as a woman for all that time, should not use women's facilities.
Whenever anyone says: "Transwomen should not use women's toilets!" they are *not* excluding post-op transwomen. They are referring to all transwomen.
"Domestic abuser who attacked five women was allowed to stay in UK
The case of Hamilton Jorge Da Silva Pinho, from Portugal, must be reheard by judges after he avoided deportation because of a son he did not live with" (£)
Forget the £. Read the decision here. Procedural error so it will go back round the merry-go-round. He does seem to be a bad'un so suspect the Times won't publish an article when he eventually gets thrown out.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruling renders the GRC largely pointless. Just one letter on a passport now I think. It will have to be reformed or dropped.
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
So theoretically my post op trans female friend must now use the Gents? That’s bad and wrong. I cry foul scorn
Why do you think your friend is so upset with the hardline radical trans activists? The old consensus was uncontroversial and would never have been tested in a court. Their antics forced a fightback from people who could clearly see that crossdressers saying they were women obviously weren't and shouldn't be allowed into women's spaces but in order to do that the law also clamped down on biological males who have been through the operation to remove their meat and two veg.
The activists tried to defy reality, gambled with your friend's lifestyle and lost. The old consensus was working. Those few who went through the operation and no longer had male parts were able to use women's spaces, those who didn't were crossdressers and transvestites, they were men playing dress up and were kept out of women's private spaces.
2. Had the operation. So they no longer have a penis
Once they get the GRC then they should absolutely have access to female spaces. I imagine 90% of Britons would agree with this sensible position. If the law no longer admits this sensible middle path then the law is an ass
Depends upon the space.
I don't think many would object with those who have had the op using toilets, sport OTOH is another matter.
Male testosterone and genetics and puberty doesn't vanish in an op, so professional women's sport should remain the preserve of actual women and not trans women, even post-op.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
It needs to be per-topic, really. Toilets? Be post-op. Sports? Be born a woman. And so on.
Surely toilets are less of an issue as all womens toilets are cubicles? I get that some would feel uncomfortable in the bit with washbasins, but no one is stripping to pants etc there.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
The law as currently written is contradictory and was written with some confusion between the terms gender and sex. SCOTUK was forced to clarify it under pressure from activists on either side looking for a maximalist interpretation. It's up to the Commons to amend the law to be clear.
If a Gender Recognition Certificate gives a person the means to change their gender, but there are rights that are sex-based, then what other interpretation of the law was SCOTUK supposed to come to? They couldn't arbitrarily decide that gender and sex were synonyms.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Yes. The Supreme Court ruling renders the GRC largely pointless. Just one letter on a passport now I think. It will have to be reformed or dropped.
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
So theoretically my post op trans female friend must now use the Gents? That’s bad and wrong. I cry foul scorn
Why do you think your friend is so upset with the hardline radical trans activists? The old consensus was uncontroversial and would never have been tested in a court. Their antics forced a fightback from people who could clearly see that crossdressers saying they were women obviously weren't and shouldn't be allowed into women's spaces but in order to do that the law also clamped down on biological males who have been through the operation to remove their meat and two veg.
The activists tried to defy reality, gambled with your friend's lifestyle and lost. The old consensus was working. Those few who went through the operation and no longer had male parts were able to use women's spaces, those who didn't were crossdressers and transvestites, they were men playing dress up and were kept out of women's private spaces.
Yes, I understand more clearly now. I’ve tended to avoid the trans debate because it is so poisonous and also opaque
2. Had the operation. So they no longer have a penis
Once they get the GRC then they should absolutely have access to female spaces. I imagine 90% of Britons would agree with this sensible position. If the law no longer admits this sensible middle path then the law is an ass
Depends upon the space.
I don't think many would object with those who have had the op using toilets, sport OTOH is another matter.
Male testosterone and genetics and puberty doesn't vanish in an op, so professional women's sport should remain the preserve of actual women and not trans women, even post-op.
2. Had the operation. So they no longer have a penis
Once they get the GRC then they should absolutely have access to female spaces. I imagine 90% of Britons would agree with this sensible position. If the law no longer admits this sensible middle path then the law is an ass
IIRC I mentioned that various (male + female) Reform politicians were pointing this out a month or two ago. When Reform is taking a more publicly pro-trans position than the Labour or Conservative parties you know things are getting weird.
2. Had the operation. So they no longer have a penis
Once they get the GRC then they should absolutely have access to female spaces. I imagine 90% of Britons would agree with this sensible position. If the law no longer admits this sensible middle path then the law is an ass
Why do you need (1), given (2) requires it anyway?
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Ofc for transwomen who pass the Leon test I can't imagine (m)any people would have any issue if they used a women's loo or changing room, if they noticed at all.
I think most people, and certainly sensible women I've no doubt (speaking as someone who sees women all the time, well at least now and again, actually I saw one the other day walking into Tesco's) have a very great deal of sympathy for those who have made the full transition and are wholly (and not just for the purposes of the courts/sentencing) living their lives as the opposite sex.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
If it is true that post op trans women with GRCs do not have access to female spaces then that is absolutely wrong. They are not a threat. They have been through the proper process. They don’t have male genitals
I know you are rich and successful and scoot around the works and whatnot, but you can be very naive. The ruling is available online and guidance and rules are being changed accordingly. Your friend is (no longer) legally a woman.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Not quite: IIUC that single-sex space has to be one for which provision is made in the Equality Act or elsewhere in UK law. If it’s not defined to be single-sex in law it’s just a sparkling gender space.
But this is an evolving area of legal interpretation & no test cases have been brought (yet).
Most people don’t understand the origin of the phrase “hoist on your own petard”
It comes from the 16th century French when a “petard” was a servant employed by aristocrats to elevate surprised guests, while they are sleeping, and then lower them onto enormous butt plugs made of compacted pine cones. The combination of size and bristles, within the anal passage, was said to be exquisitely painful and yet pleasurable and male guests would often involuntarily ejaculate onto a special audience of cynically laughing midgets gathered for this exact purpose
Therefore “to be hoist by your own petard” means you accidentally asked your own servant to do this to you
I love etymology
Especially when you make it up and include gratuitous, faintly repulsive and totally inaccurate sexual titbits.
A petard was a small bomb, and that is precisely what your spoofistic lieola deserves.
No. That’s a false etymology. I did a ton of research on this for a Gazette Piece - the editor thought it was very much our arena because of the butt plug detail
Shakespeare probably misconstrued it, is the consensus now
It really isn't the consensus. You're talking shit I'm afraid. (But then you know that.)
It really is true. What else would “cynically laughing midgets” do in France in the 1500s? There was very little demand for them in terms of employment, even dour or mirthless midgets found life difficult. And those constantly doubled over in cruelly sarcastic laughter had virtually no chance of landing a steady job
So they went into this business, sardonically chuckling at half awake nobles being lowered onto enormous anal intruders made of fir cones - the way Jews went into diamond dealing - they were denied other options
Your persistence is impressive. But I don't think you're changing any minds here.
At one end you have men who are violent sexual predators and simply want a more lenient sentence so say they are women, while on the other you have people who genuinely want to become members of the opposite sex and have gone to great physical and emotional lengths to do so and fwiw (not a lot) are "indistinguishable" from those of the opposite birth sex.
Everyone draws a line at what rights and privileges should be afforded based upon an arbitrary sensibility. I share the outrage of Leon if those at the latter end of the continuum are denied rights of those of the opposite birth sex.
The physical scale of the OpenAI-Oracle-SoftBank Stargate is simply mind blowing. I looked up how they are being powered. The data centers in Texas, including the operational Abilene site and the new Shackelford and Milam County projects, require an estimated over 3 GW combined so far. (I think nationwide we’ve announced expansion to at least 7 GW.)
• Grid: The primary power source is Texas’s ERCOT grid. Abilene’s 1.4 GW facility is fully integrated with ERCOT, drawing from a mix of natural gas, wind, and solar. • Renewables: The Milam County site includes onsite solar arrays and battery storage, targeting 50% renewable power within its 1.5 GW capacity. Abilene has a 300 MW solar-plus-battery project under construction, expected online by mid-2026. • Natural Gas Backup: Given the intermittent nature of renewables, natural gas plants provide a reliable baseline. Oracle has collaborated with local utilities to secure dedicated gas-fired generation. https://x.com/stevehou0/status/1971141586403680350
That's a staggering amount of power, about the same as 7 odd million people use here.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Yes, the SC ruling clarifies what sex means under the EA but rather makes a nonsense of the GRA.
At one end you have men who are violent sexual predators and simply want a more lenient sentence so say they are women, while on the other you have people who genuinely want to become members of the opposite sex and have gone to great physical and emotional lengths to do so and fwiw (not a lot) are "indistinguishable" from those of the opposite birth sex.
Everyone draws a line at what rights and privileges should be afforded based upon an arbitrary sensibility. I share the outrage of Leon if those at the latter end of the continuum are denied rights of those of the opposite birth sex.
I think Britain has a few laws that are messy compromises. The law around abortion is one, and prostitution is another.
The lesson from the trans culture war is that if you smash up an existing such compromise without broad public support then the outcome will not necessarily be to your advantage.
But I would guess that the coming Reform government will not look kindly on messy compromise and we are likely to see more assaults on these fruits of a mature democracy. It looks like they are coming for abortion, which I am sure will be just great for everyone.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
Iirc that point was specifically made in the ruling. I'm on the tablet at the moment and so cannot look up the specifics, but will do so later tonight.
Brave Viewcode. You will let me know when the Trans stop screaming, won't you?
I suppose it's a bit like abortion - a continuum. At one end you have men who are violent sexual predators and simply want a more lenient sentence so say they are women, while on the other you have people who genuinely want to become members of the opposite sex and have gone to great physical and emotional lengths to do so and fwiw (not a lot) are "indistinguishable" from those of the opposite birth sex.
Everyone draws a line at what rights and privileges should be afforded based upon an arbitrary sensibility. I share the outrage of Leon if those at the latter end of the continuum are denied rights of those of the opposite birth sex.
I think Britain has a few laws that are messy compromises. The law around abortion is one, and prostitution is another.
The lesson from the trans culture war is that if you smash up an existing such compromise without broad public support then the outcome will not necessarily be to your advantage.
But I would guess that the coming Reform government will not look kindly on messy compromise and we are likely to see more assaults on these fruits of a mature democracy. It looks like they are coming for abortion, which I am sure will be just great for everyone.
I’m honestly not even sure that it was trans activists who managed to get the GRA & Equality Act into law as written. Those laws created a legislative vacuum into which trans-rights activism expanded.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
That's not what the judgement said. That's a false interpretation.
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the protected characteristic of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not legal or acquired gender, meaning that a transgender woman is legally defined as male for the purposes of sex-based protections under the Act.
However, transgender people remain protected from discrimination under the separate characteristic of "gender reassignment".
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Yes, the SC ruling clarifies what sex means under the EA but rather makes a nonsense of the GRA.
The SC ruling means that a trans woman cannot use the Equality Act to demand access to a woman's space. This will stop men, self identifying as women but obviously still men, using the law to force access to women's prisons, hospital wards or toilets. But in practice it won't affect trans women who present as women. They won't need to use the law.
It is not the case that trans women are not allowed to use women's toilets. It's just that they can't use the equalities law to insist on access if they are refused access by the management.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Yes, the SC ruling clarifies what sex means under the EA but rather makes a nonsense of the GRA.
The SC ruling means that a trans woman cannot use the Equality Act to demand access to a woman's space. This will stop men, self identifying as women but obviously still men, using the law to force access to women's prisons, hospital wards or toilets. But in practice it won't affect trans women who present as women. They won't need to use the law.
It is not the case that trans women are not allowed to use women's toilets. It's just that they can't use the equalities law to insist on access if they are refused access by the management.
This goes both ways I believe - female-only toilets are a requirement in law for employers. The Equality Act now makes it possible for any woman to sue their employer for sex discrimination if they permit a trans woman to use female toilets, since they are clearly no longer single sex under the definition in the Equality Act & the provision of single-sex toilets is a legal requirement.
So employers are therefore legally compelled to exclude transwomen from female toilets. Same goes for any other single-sex space mandated by law.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Yes, the SC ruling clarifies what sex means under the EA but rather makes a nonsense of the GRA.
The SC ruling means that a trans woman cannot use the Equality Act to demand access to a woman's space. This will stop men, self identifying as women but obviously still men, using the law to force access to women's prisons, hospital wards or toilets. But in practice it won't affect trans women who present as women. They won't need to use the law.
It is not the case that trans women are not allowed to use women's toilets. It's just that they can't use the equalities law to insist on access if they are refused access by the management.
This goes both ways I believe - female-only toilets are a requirement in law for employers. The Equality Act now makes it possible for any woman to sue their employer for sex discrimination if they permit a trans woman to use female toilets, since they are clearly no longer single sex under the definition in the Equality Act & the provision of single-sex toilets is a legal requirement.
So employers are therefore legally compelled to exclude transwomen from female toilets. Same goes for any other single-sex space mandated by law.
They'll only be compelled to exclude transwomen from female toilets if a (real) woman sues an employer under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. NB This only applies to employees - not to customers or service users.
In practice a woman employee is not going to sue their employer unless someone is taking the piss.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Yes, the SC ruling clarifies what sex means under the EA but rather makes a nonsense of the GRA.
The SC ruling means that a trans woman cannot use the Equality Act to demand access to a woman's space. This will stop men, self identifying as women but obviously still men, using the law to force access to women's prisons, hospital wards or toilets. But in practice it won't affect trans women who present as women. They won't need to use the law.
It is not the case that trans women are not allowed to use women's toilets. It's just that they can't use the equalities law to insist on access if they are refused access by the management.
This goes both ways I believe - female-only toilets are a requirement in law for employers. The Equality Act now makes it possible for any woman to sue their employer for sex discrimination if they permit a trans woman to use female toilets, since they are clearly no longer single sex under the definition in the Equality Act & the provision of single-sex toilets is a legal requirement.
So employers are therefore legally compelled to exclude transwomen from female toilets. Same goes for any other single-sex space mandated by law.
They'll only be compelled to exclude transwomen from female toilets if a (real) woman sues an employer under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. NB This only applies to employees - not to customers or service users.
In practice a woman employee is not going to sue their employer unless someone is taking the piss.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I don’t know anyone who wants to roll back the rights of trans women who went through the old process (like my friend) - 2 years of living as a woman and then the operation
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
Just the other day, someone on here explicitly said that a transwoman who had the operation decades ago, and has been living as a woman for all that time, should not use women's facilities.
Whenever anyone says: "Transwomen should not use women's toilets!" they are *not* excluding post-op transwomen. They are referring to all transwomen.
Then I object. This is wrong and cruel
I'm amazed that, after all the discussion on here, you've just realised that.
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
That's not what the judgement said. That's a false interpretation.
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the protected characteristic of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not legal or acquired gender, meaning that a transgender woman is legally defined as male for the purposes of sex-based protections under the Act.
However, transgender people remain protected from discrimination under the separate characteristic of "gender reassignment".
It also pointed out that the comparator for a trans woman when it came to EqA was a cis man. And just as a cis man cannot go into a properly designated female single-sex space, then neither can a trans woman.
(All this is IIRC. Will check later tonight when I get home)
J K Rowling giving Watson and Radcliffe an absolutely shoeing. Hilarious. And righteously deserved
Entitled pricks who turned on the writer that made them. Feck them
I think it's tragic. You can view Emma Watson's latest statements as an attempt to mend bridges and Joanne Rowling has chosen to respond with a tirade full of bitterness.
Rowling is exhibit A of being driven mad by social media.
The people who are mad are those who think men with penises are actually women
...which begs the question about men who have had their penises flensed, amputated, and the remaining skin involuted and turned into something approximating a vagina. I'm sure you can find pictures online about this, which will distract you on your wait for your flight
A good friend of mine has had exactly that surgery. And is now a she having been a he
She’s of the opinion that J K Rowling is correct and you can’t just say “I’m a woman” and then get access to female only spaces while keeping your male tackle intact
She is also very critical of radical trans activists who, she believes, are actively making things worse for trans people
So, there you go
I understand the point and I recall you speaking of her before. But I don't think you've internalised the fact that following the Supreme Court ruling your good friend is no longer considered a woman under English law and is no longer entitled to use women's toilets, stay in women's prisons, take part in women's sports, or be addressed as "she" in court by witnesses. There is now no longer the distinction in law between the "good" and "bad" trans your trans friend makes, and the gender critical argue that there never has been.
Is that true? That trans women with GRCs do not have rights to female spaces? I honestly don’t know
As I currently understand the state of the law: Any space defined as single-sex in law is no longer accessible to people with a GRC after the Surpreme Court case that redefined (or clarified, depending on your POV!) the terms in the Equality Act.
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think that's basically it. The process now is
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex * Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
Yes, the SC ruling clarifies what sex means under the EA but rather makes a nonsense of the GRA.
The SC ruling means that a trans woman cannot use the Equality Act to demand access to a woman's space. This will stop men, self identifying as women but obviously still men, using the law to force access to women's prisons, hospital wards or toilets. But in practice it won't affect trans women who present as women. They won't need to use the law.
It is not the case that trans women are not allowed to use women's toilets. It's just that they can't use the equalities law to insist on access if they are refused access by the management.
IiRC (again) trans women by Leon's definition are being placed in male wards *now*.
You vote for him if you want to. I reserve my right to consider Burnham to be an entitled idiot. He took a low shot below the belt and ended up on his arse. Quite probably dead on his arse. No one is going to donate their seat after his conniving performance over the last week.
I suspect Starmer has had his day, and I was warming to Burnham, but after his recent behaviour let's find someone less Johnsonian to take over the reins.
Comments
Charlie Kirk's killer? Terminally online and gun culture.
The far right Evergreen shooter? Terminally online and gun culture.
The Annunciation killer? Terminally online and gun culture.
Yesterday's killers? Online and gun culture.
The always forgotten CDC killer? Online and gun culture.
https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3lzxsn3oibs25
In Kharkiv and Kursk, the offensive used mobility to get past weakly-held defensive lines and forced the Russians to retreat to establish a defensive line further back.
In Kherson, the Ukrainians destroyed Russian logistics, by destroying the bridges, so the Russians couldn't supply their forces on the right bank, and had to withdraw.
In 2023 the Ukrainians attacked well prepared defensive lines with reasonable functional supply routes. One of the assets that the Russians used in their defence were helicopter gunships to attack Ukrainian troops bogged down in minefields, as well as artillery and drones.
So it seems to me that the pre-requisites for a future successful Ukrainian offensive are to:
1. Work out how to more rapidly clear a way through minefields and other defensive obstacles.
2. Protect themselves from Russian attack by helicopters, drones and artillery while working through minefields.
3. Destroy Russian logistics, either directly just behind the front, or by destroying Russia's armaments factories, or by destroying railways and oil facilities (which also reduces the supply that Russia is able to buy in from abroad).
Being able to use drones to take down Russian helicopters is helpful for point (2). It seems as though clearing minefields, and defending against drones are the most problematic aspects.
If Ukraine is able to buy a large number of Tomahawks then they should be able to use them to completely wreck Russian logistics. At a certain stage, if an army's logistics is sufficiently badly damaged, it simply has to withdraw, because it has nothing with which to stand and fight with.
I'm pretty sure that if NATO were fighting this war that's the way in which they would seek to fight it. A lot of Ukrainian casualties have been caused because we haven't given them enough long-range weapons to avoid fighting a bloody artillery and drone war instead.
Ukraine is also expanding its air force, with more F-16s due to arrive, and also Mirage and Gripen jets. If Ukraine can break the stalemate in the air war then this could also help it to make progress on the ground without incurring heavy casualties.
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1972677757784998299?s=19
She has been offered position in the civil service, but apparently there is a delay because checks have to be carried out with the authorities in Italy to see that she did not fall foul of any laws etc
And have you ever tried to get anything official from Italy?
Sky breaking news just now
Burnham would beat PM
If Ashcroft has a sense of humour, he should setup a new gallery in Paris. Or maybe Berlin.
The case of Hamilton Jorge Da Silva Pinho, from Portugal, must be reheard by judges after he avoided deportation because of a son he did not live with" (£)
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/migrant-deportation-tribunal-retrial-bdzgd0cms
So they went into this business, sardonically chuckling at half awake nobles being lowered onto enormous anal intruders made of fir cones - the way Jews went into diamond dealing - they were denied other options
Not telling the US government what they were doing...
(To get a GRC you have to live as the other gender for two years. Can't do that know if you can't go in the wrong/right toilet...)
That’s: work toilets, work toilets & changing rooms, school toilets & changing rooms, NHS wards (I think). Possibly some other spaces as well.
Other spaces which are single-sex by convention but not defined to be so by law are currently legally accessible to everyone, regardless of gender/sex. I believe it’s perfectly legal for a man or women or trans person of either gender to use whichever changing room they like at a swimming pool for instance, although obviously such use will be subject to the whims of the institution that runs them. If the law doesn’t demand a female- or male-only space be available in a particular case, then the Equality Act as currently defined does not apply, whether the provider chooses to offer single-sex spaces or not.
The next GRC line of attack on restricting trans women will probably be to try and use some of the laws around sexual exposure - outraging public decency perhaps - to further exclude trans women from those remaining spaces. They’re on a roll having successfully redefined the definitions in the Equality Act through Supreme Court.
I think a toaster on life support would be more popular than Starmer.
Of all the arguments, that is the most preposterous. Even if you have a GRC, if you have a penis you should not be in the female toilets. Gender neutral ones exist in almost every establishment nowadays.
I’m genuinely shocked that this is the ruling by the SCOTUK. It’s clearly unfair and cruel
There are many differences between them: in sea swimming you have added buoyancy from the saltwater, which makes the swim easier; but you also have to contend with currents and waves. You do not get the extra buoyancy in lakes, and the waves/swell can apparently be surprisingly large and annoying, as they can come from any direction. Navigation can be easier in river swimming as if you go too far off course you can walk (ahem!), but the currents can be very swift if you are swimming against them, and pollution can be an issue, as can weeds shallowness and territorial swans.
In OWS you also need to be able to sign and navigate really well, as you do not have the lines on the bottom of the pool (I am *terrible* at that).
I haven't done much sea swimming, but I've done a few lane and river races, and OWS is *very* different from pool swimming. You can be a brilliant pool swimmer and a poor OWS swimmer if you have not had enough practice.
"Hallelujah! Another flight with a wondrous miracle baby joyfully exercising its vocal chords so close to me that I can smell its milky burps."
Is there something about Leon that makes babies cry?
Yes Russia has very well prepared minefields in occupied territories, but there's very limited surrounding them, which is partially how Ukraine has been able to surprise Russia sometimes by going into Russian territory.
If Ukraine were to try another offensive one possible route would be to go around, rather than through, the minefields by going into Russia and liberating Ukrainian territory that way.
It brings its own challenges, but if they can have logistical superiority then its another possible outcome.
1. Lived as a woman for 2 years
And then
2. Had the operation. So they no longer have a penis
Once they get the GRC then they should absolutely have access to female spaces. I imagine 90% of Britons would agree with this sensible position. If the law no longer admits this sensible middle path then the law is an ass
Whenever anyone says: "Transwomen should not use women's toilets!" they are *not* excluding post-op transwomen. They are referring to all transwomen.
https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/2025-ukut-00317
The activists tried to defy reality, gambled with your friend's lifestyle and lost. The old consensus was working. Those few who went through the operation and no longer had male parts were able to use women's spaces, those who didn't were crossdressers and transvestites, they were men playing dress up and were kept out of women's private spaces.
I don't think many would object with those who have had the op using toilets, sport OTOH is another matter.
Male testosterone and genetics and puberty doesn't vanish in an op, so professional women's sport should remain the preserve of actual women and not trans women, even post-op.
If a Gender Recognition Certificate gives a person the means to change their gender, but there are rights that are sex-based, then what other interpretation of the law was SCOTUK supposed to come to? They couldn't arbitrarily decide that gender and sex were synonyms.
What a mess. No wonder my friend hates the TRAs
As You Like It, I think ?
* A legal entity can declare that a space is single-sex
* Once that declaration is made, trans people are not allowed to go in the ones for their "new" sex (so to speak) but are restricted to those for their original birth sex
If a space is not declared but is thought to be a single-sex space by convention,then it's a bit blurry, but I assume the effect will be the same and no doubt case law will accrue to clarify this.
I think most people, and certainly sensible women I've no doubt (speaking as someone who sees women all the time, well at least now and again, actually I saw one the other day walking into Tesco's) have a very great deal of sympathy for those who have made the full transition and are wholly (and not just for the purposes of the courts/sentencing) living their lives as the opposite sex.
But this is an evolving area of legal interpretation & no test cases have been brought (yet).
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1972685699875844443?s=19
At one end you have men who are violent sexual predators and simply want a more lenient sentence so say they are women, while on the other you have people who genuinely want to become members of the opposite sex and have gone to great physical and emotional lengths to do so and fwiw (not a lot) are "indistinguishable" from those of the opposite birth sex.
Everyone draws a line at what rights and privileges should be afforded based upon an arbitrary sensibility. I share the outrage of Leon if those at the latter end of the continuum are denied rights of those of the opposite birth sex.
NEW THREAD
The lesson from the trans culture war is that if you smash up an existing such compromise without broad public support then the outcome will not necessarily be to your advantage.
But I would guess that the coming Reform government will not look kindly on messy compromise and we are likely to see more assaults on these fruits of a mature democracy. It looks like they are coming for abortion, which I am sure will be just great for everyone.
Also: NEW THREAD!
In April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the protected characteristic of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, not legal or acquired gender, meaning that a transgender woman is legally defined as male for the purposes of sex-based protections under the Act.
However, transgender people remain protected from discrimination under the separate characteristic of "gender reassignment".
You gov poll labour members poll
Burnham 62% Starmer 29% as PM
This will stop men, self identifying as women but obviously still men, using the law to force access to women's prisons, hospital wards or toilets.
But in practice it won't affect trans women who present as women. They won't need to use the law.
It is not the case that trans women are not allowed to use women's toilets. It's just that they can't use the equalities law to insist on access if they are refused access by the management.
So employers are therefore legally compelled to exclude transwomen from female toilets. Same goes for any other single-sex space mandated by law.
In practice a woman employee is not going to sue their employer unless someone is taking the piss.
Should SKS fight the next election?
Yes 53% No 37%.
(Even the Powellites are evenly spilt on the subject.)
Also worth noting that the polling was 19-25 September, so before Burnham's Telegraph interview.
(All this is IIRC. Will check later tonight when I get home)
You vote for him if you want to. I reserve my right to consider Burnham to be an entitled idiot. He took a low shot below the belt and ended up on his arse. Quite probably dead on his arse. No one is going to donate their seat after his conniving performance over the last week.
I suspect Starmer has had his day, and I was warming to Burnham, but after his recent behaviour let's find someone less Johnsonian to take over the reins.