Stevo 666
Regular
I could suggest an easy way to make the thread easier for you to follow. Unfortunately it would mean you reading views that are different from your own.
I enjoy reading your posts 🙂
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I could suggest an easy way to make the thread easier for you to follow. Unfortunately it would mean you reading views that are different from your own.
I enjoy reading your posts 🙂
monkers
Squire
They haven't won yet. They've lost 2, won 1. One to go.
CXRAndy
Veteran
Women pretty much have. It clarifies the law around sex. You can have a piece of paper, but it is in practical terms worthless in trying to achieve the aims of access to women's safe spaces and sports.
The interview on the spectator beautifully lays out the clarity of this judgement.
View: https://youtu.be/9TPehe2DoPs?si=wusXtIhBn5Z3B-Jk
As the lawyer says, its not an attack on the rights of the trans person, but this judgement is the defence of the rights of woman.
Self ID is dead, it achieves nothing- men will not be allowed to go into women's spaces
As it turns out you don't need a degree in gender studies to say in the pub, those are the men's toilets and those are the women's.
All those companies, government bodies invested in trans are going to have to redesign toilet spaces, signage, documents after this judgement.
With this judgement in hand a second front will move to correct the data collection and document issuing for driving licence, passports, police reports for criminals and victims, forms for medical services. It even throws physical search and intimate examinations by police and medics with those claiming trans positions in grave doubt.
Many people, companies, bodies have been waiting in the wings for this judgement, expect lots and lots of announcements in the coming weeks and months
So stupid illogical situations like this never ever arise again
View: https://x.com/iAnonPatriot/status/1907519900295610722?t=svVjiu5TrHr8s-j8LYj1eQ&s=19
The interview on the spectator beautifully lays out the clarity of this judgement.
View: https://youtu.be/9TPehe2DoPs?si=wusXtIhBn5Z3B-Jk
As the lawyer says, its not an attack on the rights of the trans person, but this judgement is the defence of the rights of woman.
Self ID is dead, it achieves nothing- men will not be allowed to go into women's spaces
As it turns out you don't need a degree in gender studies to say in the pub, those are the men's toilets and those are the women's.
All those companies, government bodies invested in trans are going to have to redesign toilet spaces, signage, documents after this judgement.
With this judgement in hand a second front will move to correct the data collection and document issuing for driving licence, passports, police reports for criminals and victims, forms for medical services. It even throws physical search and intimate examinations by police and medics with those claiming trans positions in grave doubt.
Many people, companies, bodies have been waiting in the wings for this judgement, expect lots and lots of announcements in the coming weeks and months
So stupid illogical situations like this never ever arise again
View: https://x.com/iAnonPatriot/status/1907519900295610722?t=svVjiu5TrHr8s-j8LYj1eQ&s=19
Last edited:
AndyRM
Elder Goth
See this bit?
"All those companies, government bodies invested in trans are going to have to redesign toilet spaces, signage, documents after this judgement."
They won't, it'll take about ten minutes, as will that.
About as long as it takes you to pretend to care about the rights of anyone else.
"All those companies, government bodies invested in trans are going to have to redesign toilet spaces, signage, documents after this judgement."
They won't, it'll take about ten minutes, as will that.
About as long as it takes you to pretend to care about the rights of anyone else.
CXRAndy
Veteran
People who raised concerns have been hounded, attacked, cancelled by many in positions of power. They have lost work, jobs, careers.
This judgement is monumental.
I expect huge compensatory payments to those effected by those who have been ideologically captured .
Many will be held to account over this judgement
Last edited:
AndyRM
Elder Goth
You're seriously weird man, you know that, right?
CXRAndy
Veteran
I very much doubt it, 🤔
Even I, have been confirmed as knowing basic biology, knowing what a woman is
Others on here are literally away with the fairies in beliefs which are frankly off your head.
Look at yourselves for what you believed, wake up and recognise, accept your errors
Just to help you
View: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1912710351629468021?t=9vVpa1SIGawaJ4H9JsvsYQ&s=19
Oh and 👍
AuroraSaab
Shaman
It clarifies the law and removes confusion in terms of the Equality Act. It puts a stop to groups like Stonewall using their training courses as a way of pursuing their law reform agenda, ie wrongly advising companies of what they think the law should be, not what it is. It should give service providers confidence to enforce the law without fear of being sued.
Funny how the gender critical women responded when the judgement was announced. They cheered, they hugged, they sang Auld Lane Syne. They weren't dressed in black, wearing balaclavas. They didn't threaten violence or wave flares. Nobody suggested punching anybody.
People have lost jobs and been villified for saying men can't be women. They've received physical and verbal abuse and legal threats.
I'm very happy that these women have been successful in clarifying the law and if there's some unseemly gloating going on .... I really don't fecking care right now because some of these women have been put through hell and they deserve to enjoy their moment.
Funny how the gender critical women responded when the judgement was announced. They cheered, they hugged, they sang Auld Lane Syne. They weren't dressed in black, wearing balaclavas. They didn't threaten violence or wave flares. Nobody suggested punching anybody.
People have lost jobs and been villified for saying men can't be women. They've received physical and verbal abuse and legal threats.
I'm very happy that these women have been successful in clarifying the law and if there's some unseemly gloating going on .... I really don't fecking care right now because some of these women have been put through hell and they deserve to enjoy their moment.
Last edited:
matticus
Guru
There was a lovely couple on last night's E4 First Date. Anyone see it?
Actually a repeat from last year:
Episode 3 - First Dates 21x03
16 Jan 2024 — Self-described maximalist Aayziat meets astro-chemist Zac
Zac is also a power-lifter!
Aayziat was adorable, they were both really funny, and google has found them, so I may dig up more later
Actually a repeat from last year:
Episode 3 - First Dates 21x03
16 Jan 2024 — Self-described maximalist Aayziat meets astro-chemist Zac
Zac is also a power-lifter!
Aayziat was adorable, they were both really funny, and google has found them, so I may dig up more later
Stevo 666
Regular
The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in this case. But as usual, those who think they have the moral high ground are trying to ignore that.
icowden
Squire
He hasn't figured out that instead of pictures of a man and a woman you can just use the word "Toilet".
You could even go as far as "Toilet Cubicles" and "Toilet Urinals".
I never understand the obsession with toilets. The only reason for having different cubicles for men and women is (I understand from the women in my family) because the women's are usually less disgusting than the mens.
One question regarding the Supreme Court ruling: Is it the case that the Supreme Court has done no more than interpreted what the law states, stated the legal interpretation of the meaning of words (like a dictionary might but in legalese)?
I always thought that courts interpret laws made by politicians and the Supreme Court has said that the law, as written by politicians, means x, y & z.
Thus, if the legal interpretation of what politicians have written does not meet what the politicians intended then it's up to the politicians to ammend or rewrite their laws such that it does mean what they intended.
Ian
I always thought that courts interpret laws made by politicians and the Supreme Court has said that the law, as written by politicians, means x, y & z.
Thus, if the legal interpretation of what politicians have written does not meet what the politicians intended then it's up to the politicians to ammend or rewrite their laws such that it does mean what they intended.
Ian
