Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

At work we use professional subscription versions of co pilot. I'll ask it some questions and it's responses in anticipation that it you'll see that it is adaptive - so while any text I produce at work using co pilot colleagues will still know that it is me. Ready for some insight?

I asked co pilot the first question from the everyman version to ask about professional versions.

Are there versions of co pilot available for professional use, say lawyers offices?

Microsoft has developed Copilot for professional use, and it’s already being adopted by legal departments and law firms to streamline workflows, enhance research, and reduce administrative burden.

Here’s how it’s being used in legal settings:

🧠 Legal-Specific Capabilities​

• Contract Review: Copilot in Word can compare agreements, flag missing provisions, and suggest edits based on precedent.
• Case Strategy Development: Legal teams use Copilot to analyze past case law and generate draft briefs or strategy outlines.
• Regulatory Compliance: Copilot can map regulations to internal policies and flag inconsistencies.
• Meeting Summaries: In Teams, it captures stakeholder discussions and generates action items for documentation.
• Document Discovery: Copilot scans large volumes of legal documents to identify relevant arguments and reduce billable hours.

🧾 Integration & Licensing​

• Microsoft 365 Copilot for Enterprise: Designed for larger firms, integrates with Outlook, Word, Teams, and more.
• Copilot Studio: Lets firms build custom agents that connect to legal systems of record for tailored automation.
• Pricing: Around $30/month per user (annual commitment), with enterprise-grade security and compliance features.

🛡️ Security & Governance​

• Data remains within your organization’s control.
• Compliant with GDPR and other data protection laws.
• Firms are encouraged to align Copilot use with internal governance and bias mitigation protocols.

If you’re curious about how firms are preparing for implementation, this guide from Nexian outlines key considerations like AI governance, process alignment, and data security. And Microsoft’s legal scenario library offers use cases tailored to advisory services, litigation, and contract management.

Would you like help sketching how a law office might deploy Copilot across its teams—or how it could support your own analytical work?

I then logged into my pro version to ask ...

Can pro version co pilot be made adaptive so that it writes in the style of a regular user?

Absolutely, (name redacted) —and your instinct about adaptability is spot on.

Copilot can already adapt to the user's communication style in nuanced ways. The more you interact, the more it tunes into your preferences—whether you lean toward analytical precision, conversational warmth, or rigorous argumentation. For professional users, especially those in legal, academic, or policy-driven environments, this becomes incredibly useful.

Here's how that adaptation tends to work:

• Conversational modelling: Over time, I learn to mirror your tone—whether it's formal, skeptical, emphatic, or subtly ironic. In your case, I’ve noticed you favour proportionate reasoning and layered analysis, so I reflect that back.
• Stylistic consistency: When drafting documents, I pick up on preferred phrasing, sentence structure, and even your citation habits. For example, when I see you intend nested hypotheticals or prefer qualifying statements, I fold those in naturally.
• Memory-based adaptation: With long-term memory enabled, I can remember your stylistic preferences across chats. So I’ll recall whether you dislike bold text, prefer unembellished reasoning, or like legal jargon woven seamlessly into explanation.
• Formatting flexibility: I can adjust how I structure summaries, arguments, or reports—minimalist for skimming, or detailed for archival clarity.

For teams or offices, adaptation is even sharper when Copilot is used inside apps like Word or Outlook, because it can incorporate organizational templates, tone guidelines, and shared language preferences. Firms can also build custom prompts and Copilot agents with specific outputs tailored to house style.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

More problematic is the construction’s framing. Peter, the hypothetical male colleague, is portrayed as violating boundaries by entering a changing room. Yet the scenario omits the contextual elements necessary to evaluate lawfulness: institutional signage, prior guidance, interpersonal dynamics, and—most vitally—the reaction of the individual affected. The presumption of malfeasance based solely on natal sex edges dangerously close to prejudicial reasoning.

Or it is not so hypothetical, maybe on the boundary part, but if you look at the whole thing, doesn't it sound strange this leads to such an escalation? Maybe Mrs Upton when still Mr Upton had an history of being inappropriate without crossing the boundaries? or at least wasn't reported either with remarks or otherwise? Maybe Upton is just an terrible person, transitioning doesn't change personality.

This rhetorical trajectory culminates in an analogy involving covert surveillance—a webcam in a female changing room. Voyeurism, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is a criminal offence with explicit mens rea. It invokes an act of egregious privacy violation. But introducing this scenario in proximity to real-world conduct by Dr Upton, who acted under institutional direction, constitutes a false equivalence. The analogy is not merely inapposite; it risks functioning as a veiled imputation against a known trans professional. The legal fault lies in misclassification—assigning the contours of criminality to administrative compliance.

It goes on with a (to long) list in my view of behavior that might be looked different upon if a male entering an female space would do it. I understand why they where trying to ''unprove'' gender discrimination. I think this case was much more revealing if it would concentrate on underlying causes as it sounds a lot like there is much more to this story. which is more contributing that Upton's gender.

The hypothetical collapses entirely when tested against the facts. Dr Upton had informed colleagues of her transition, sought guidance on where to change, and followed protocol. The misdirection in NC’s framing conflates institutional navigation with predatory behaviour—a distortion both morally and legally indefensible.

They ''won'' already but i think the Peter example was to oddly specific on places to be created out of thin air, i think there is more to this Upton character that has not and now probably will not have been disclosed, not saying the person broke the law or something but i can imagine especially in an hospital setting where there are lots of rooms with camera's that the webcam remark is not randomly chosen either. All speculation but i think that's sadly also how this case ended, the grounds for gender discriminations where not met, but it leaves many open ends.

 

[monkers]

Or it is not so hypothetical, maybe on the boundary part, but if you look at the whole thing, doesn't it sound strange this leads to such an escalation? Maybe Mrs Upton when still Mr Upton had an history of being inappropriate without crossing the boundaries? or at least wasn't reported either with remarks or otherwise? Maybe Upton is just an terrible person, transitioning doesn't change personality.

The law in terms of justice is not beauty pageant, likeability or personality test. Rights are universal by necessity whatever the lens, be that moral, ethical, legislative or judicial. The scales are more than symbolic.

 

[monkers]

It goes on with a (to long) list in my view of behavior that might be looked different upon if a male entering an female space would do it. I understand why they where trying to ''unprove'' gender discrimination. I think this case was much more revealing if it would concentrate on underlying causes as it sounds a lot like there is much more to this story. which is more contributing that Upton's gender.

Essentially the work of a criminal court is to establish wrong doing. This is all the more difficult when each party claims discriminative discourse against the other, or indeed makes more serious allegations. In such a case, the judge may be tempted to give greater credence to who they believe sounds the more credible - you might reasonably argue that is not a certain method.

However, it's important to remember this is a tribunal, not the criminal court, therefore the evidentiary standard is always presumed to be lower. The hearing is not to establish criminal culpability, but to address apportionment of reasonable costs.

 

[monkers]

They ''won'' already but i think the Peter example was to oddly specific on places to be created out of thin air, i think there is more to this Upton character that has not and now probably will not have been disclosed, not saying the person broke the law or something but i can imagine especially in an hospital setting where there are lots of rooms with camera's that the webcam remark is not randomly chosen either. All speculation but i think that's sadly also how this case ended, the grounds for gender discriminations where not met, but it leaves many open ends.

That is not an admissible opinion, any judge would filter that as bias and disallow it. To be legally objective you need to reframe that thinking.

Final point, with the benefit of experience, and my current role giving me greater access to a larger number of judges, I can say this - while courtroom antics can be entertaining, judges while in the setting of the courtroom tend to be very serious people, they don't value entertainment to the point that it can irritate them. Some barristers / advocates try to adopt their style to the character of the judge - but that can be a risky strategy. Reliance on performance indicates either lack of preparation or knowledge that the case is otherwise hard to win.

 

[monkers]

After the demise of Monkers we now have someone who uses the same AI for replies.

I'm wondering 🤔

I'm not seeking to embarrass you Andy - but you know - with just a modicum of critical thought, you might have realised the fact that we had that thing in common gave more indication that we were related than we were not. Incredible that your troll tag partner didn't pick up on that.

 

[CXRAndy]

I'm guessing some sort of
Dissociative Identity Disorder

 

[monkers]

I'm guessing some sort of
Dissociative Identity Disorder

What you mean like a man on a cycling forum wildly boasting about being ''uber rich'' perhaps? Or perhaps a man on a cycling forum boasting about driving not one but two cars with a reputation for incinerating the occupants? Good to know that you've been looking up psychiatric disorders motivated by your failure to spar with another.

What you need are some facts or at least some razor-sharp wit.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm guessing some sort of
Dissociative Identity Disorder

More likely that having had a public unravelling over a number of weeks, culminating in every other post saying 'dickhead.. c*nt ... or trans genocide', it was an easier out to adopt the imaginary niece persona full time. How fitting that all the posts are now also artifical creations, intended to impress with their verbosity but looking increasingly ridiculous.

 

[icowden]

More likely that having had a public unravelling over a number of weeks, culminating in every other post saying 'dickhead.. c*nt ... or trans genocide', it was an easier out to adopt the imaginary niece persona full time. How fitting that all the posts are now also artifical creations, intended to impress with their verbosity but looking increasingly ridiculous.

Or you could be kind and go with the most likely option which is that @monkers was a regular poster here, she was a lesbian and also rescued her nephew, now niece from a very difficult home situation and actually benefit from N's presence here as an actual transwoman, given that that is what this thread is about.

N has told you she uses copilot, just as Monkers did. That doesn't invalidate what she is presenting or her arguments. They seem to be cogent, and looking at the information about courts I have no problem believing that N is legally trained where Monkers was not.

For me, the tribunal is interesting - I think there is more to the altercation between Sandy Peggie and the Doctor. What I don't think we have had in the tribunal is any evidence from other nurses - what were there feelings about the Doctor using the Female Nurses changing area. It's clear that Peggie thought it was wrong, and she has a great deal of support for this.

That then leads to the question, when is it that a transwomen should use a female changing area if at all. Is it after hormone treatment, surgery? One of the major difficulties is that before Dr Upton became a transwoman he was a heterosexual male. As a woman, they would now be classed as a lesbian. It isn't clear what stage of treatment Upton was at, but women were clearly uncomfortable with a former heterosexual male using their changing areas.

Question for N (if they are willing to answer - fine if they don't want to). Where do you stand on the use of female facilities - and by that I really mean things like changing areas, not toilets. Please don't lets go off on toilets again. It's a cubicle - anyone can use it without upsetting anyone else.

 

[monkers]

More likely that having had a public unravelling over a number of weeks, culminating in every other post saying 'dickhead.. c*nt ... or trans genocide', it was an easier out to adopt the imaginary niece persona full time. How fitting that all the posts are now also artifical creations, intended to impress with their verbosity but looking increasingly ridiculous.

Pardon me, I've never used those words, and not only on here. Neither are all of the posts AI creations - neither have I sought to deny that for some purposes I use AI.

There is a pattern with you Aurora, when your arguments are shown not to stack up, you resort to personal snipes against the people you see as opponents. The truth is your arguments do not pass the evidential tests because at best they are careless misconstructions and at worse fabrications.

There was a period when monker's medical distress led to some outbreaks. That is undeniable.

Perhaps if you checked your work with AI, you'd manage to spell the word ''artificial'' correctly. You might also get it to check your so-called facts. The forum would be a better place for it!

 

[monkers]

Question for N (if they are willing to answer - fine if they don't want to). Where do you stand on the use of female facilities - and by that I really mean things like changing areas, not toilets. Please don't lets go off on toilets again. It's a cubicle - anyone can use it without upsetting anyone else.

I will answer your question Ian. Firstly I need to know if you are asking a legal question or asking for personal opinion as a trans woman?

 

[AuroraSaab]

What I don't think we have had in the tribunal is any evidence from other nurses - what were there feelings about the Doctor using the Female Nurses changing area. It's clear that Peggie thought it was wrong, and she has a great deal of support for this.

It's your perogative to swallow whatever is posted on here hook, line, and sinker if you wish. I'm sure someone else will eventually enlighten you in full.

No nurses were asked if they minded Upton sharing the changing rooms. After he complained about Peggie no nurses were asked for their opinion. He could have changed in the female doctors changing room. He chose to use the female nurses changing rooms. There are class issues here - doctors considered superior to nurses - as well as sex issues.

Upton has been called 'he' by several of NHS Fife's own witnesses. Even his side don't really think he's a woman.

Ian, what do you think to Upton's statement that if a woman or girl asked for a female doctor and was given him, he wouldn't tell her and wouldn't excuse himself unless she specifically complained? Even if she was a rape victim or had heavy bleeding that required intimate examination. I think it shows what kind of man he is.

It's up to a sick and traumatised woman/girl to speak up apparently.

 

[monkers]

More likely that having had a public unravelling over a number of weeks, culminating in every other post saying 'dickhead.. c*nt ... or trans genocide', it was an easier out to adopt the imaginary niece persona full time. How fitting that all the posts are now also artifical creations, intended to impress with their verbosity but looking increasingly ridiculous.

''The public unravelling'' as you call it was a very sorry episode of you bullying a woman rapidly approaching the end of her life. You actually boasted that you had been active in trying to jigsaw her identity, to the point where you claimed to maintain a library of her past avatar pictures. That was a pretty shocking admission, and perfectly tells the thread the kind of person you are.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's only because I'm against doxxing in principle that I don't put the evidence on here.

I didn't actively seek you out. You posted a nasty comment about lesbians on Twitter several years ago and, because of your role at the time, it still pops up on there occasionally even though you deleted your account. It was also a bit daft to use the same avatar photo on CC as on so much other material in the public domain. It was also daft to link to a blog from here where you've put a comment in your own name.

The arguments stand on their own merits so I don't care under which identity you make them. It must be exhausting being you.