Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I can't believe people do that :erm:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

You are KKKaroline Leavitt, and I claim my £10… :D

Seriously, though, Richard, you could get a job writing articles for the Telegraph/Mail/Sun, as you have just spouted sourceless fear-mongering, caveated by "suggestions", "some venues are saying", "a few saying", and last, but not least, "there are claims"…

Let’s put your writing style to the test - "There’s suggestions that Richard is making stuff up, and some forums are saying that they will ban Richard, and a few saying that he deliberately tries to scaremonger. Also, there are claims that Richard, is in fact, the offspring of Vladimir Putin and Princess Anne.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I've seen most of this on Facebook if you want to have a look.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Ah yes, Fakebook, a really reliable source of informed opinions. :erm:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Plenty of examples for the public sector for the conversion to gender-neutral toilets. Council offices, hospitals, Universities, and schools.
Link
Don't know whether it made it into actual current regulations.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Can you provide a link/quote for the "plenty examples for the public sector for the conversion to gender-neutral toilets", please?

I read through the links, and couldn’t find any - all I could find was this comment

https://www.gov.uk/government/consul...ultation-paper

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Doubt there's a single definitive list, but I did do a search.
The "reverse the rise of" is a bit of a clue.
Link
From 3 years ago
Link
It's now law.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Please, feel free to guide us to these posts on Facebook. Links will work, I'm sure.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Strange - previously you stated

Anything more than one is a rise, and the old shibboleth of "widely reported in social media"...

And if you read that article, a lot of them were just changing signs on single-user units, at a cost of very little...

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Something something something zeal of the convert … except there’s no zeal on show here, just bowing to the inevitable. The law is now crystal clear and Starmer has no choice but to respect it, no matter how hard he might want to obfuscate to keep his Loony Left happy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro

Interesting that just 3 years ago this highly qualified barrister was completely misunderstanding the law - as the Supreme Court has now ruled, a so-called ‘transwoman’ is not, and never has been, a woman in law.

Men who claim they are women, and women who claim they are men, are under certain circumstances allowed to apply for a certificate, and thereafter the State will treat them as if they are the opposite sex, under certain appropriate circumstances. That is all it is, and all it ever was.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

They were just 2 articles, one of which from 3 years ago mentioned over 740 conversions. I did make a search and came across other examples. Plenty of examples of councils, universities, and hospitals being involved. The public sector ones are more likely to be reported than private sector ones, which will just simply happen behind the scenes.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The Supreme Court ruling last week was the moment the dam was breached. The flood of consequences for public sector bodies who took advice from activists instead of lawyers is now beginning.

From the Times, non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/F1ZB7

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Swivel-eyed gender loon Maggie Chapman MSP, who thinks there is no conflict of interest in being deputy chair of the Holyrood Equalities Committee whilst publicly decrying the Supreme Court for “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” for knowing what a woman is, has survived an attempt to sack her.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1meyvpl30eo

Utterly shameless Chapman defied convention to vote in her own favour (basic decency suggested she should have abstained from a vote in which she had a personal interest). But what really saved her were the three SNP MSPs who also voted against the motion to oust her.

Honestly, nobody has very high expectations of anyone in the Scottish Greens but we used to think the SNP (Shameless for Scotland) was capable of better.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The BMA have voted to describe the Supreme Court ruling as 'Scientifically illiterate and biologically non sensical':

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2741304.html

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Who cares ?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It’s a sobering ‘they walk among us’ moment, as some of these dimwits hold our lives in their hands.

They don’t get to define what biology is, naturally, not least because the BMA is just a trade union. The BMA is a pretty good example of the phenomenon of ‘institutional capture’. You get a few highly motivated campaigners into the committee and suddenly they’re pushing through motions applauding this and condemning that and more often than not making utter fools of themselves and by extension, their entire organisation.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Oh dear God. This really is the world we live in now. When Doctors can do this.

"Doctor I identify and a sabre tooth tiger"
"You need therapy you have an personality disorder"

"Doctor I am really a woman cut off my willy"
"Ok Miss Moss I will get on to that straight away"

2025 for ya

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Not really 2025. Trans people have existed forever.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

They have power and influence. That's why it matters.

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

I think I'm fat, when they're not. Ozempic?
I think my leg doesn't belong to me. Amputation?
I think everything's dirty.
I think I'm Jesus Christ/Napoleon etc?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

A statement often made but seldom quantified. Perhaps you have some examples?

Bear in mind I’m not asking you to show that people in history sometimes liked to dress like the opposite sex, or dearly wished they were the opposite sex, but somehow believed that they could think themselves into the opposite sex and then insist everyone else go along with it.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

yet, when their bones are dug up and DNA tested, it will only advise what biological sex they were.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I mean going back to ancient Greece and Egypt there was even a recognised third gender and many civilisations and countries that had records and history of what in the modern age is considered transgender. Instead of what's considered transvestite of someone just dressing in the clothes of the opposite sex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Yeah mental illness will date back to the dawn of man

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Typical nonsense.
Wanting selected aspects of a societal role is NOT wanting to change gender.
3rd gender are non-sexual roles which can be assigned by their parents or the person chooses it, with the option to STOP. Eg Catholic Priests.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The first paragraphs of that Wikipedia article explain it perfectly:

What the above says is:

"Gender Ideology is a modern social contagion and some have tried to revise history by imposing this modern social contagion onto historical figures without any basis but our opinion."

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

User edited content? Please be serious.

Besides, the first paragraph (as Pierre already noted) admits that everything that follows is highly contested. And the following half dozen paragraphs further undermine the entire point of the article by quietly switching to a discussion of gender roles in history, which is an entirely different proposition to the moronic idea that a man *is* a woman just because he believes he is.

To be honest, lots of us, me very much included, were perfectly happy for cross-dressing men to just get on with it, as long as they actually were aspiring to a gender role, living their life as they chose, and not bothering anyone. But somehow in the last 10-15 years the discourse shifted to the thoroughly modern idea that in doing these things not only had they changed gender in a way that meant they had to all intents and purposes also changed sex, but the rest of us had to affirm that on pain of being accused of bigotry, hatred and whatever -phobia is the presently fashionable insult du jour.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

This had also been my view - but with women included too, my former Team Manager has transitioned from female to male.

But then when I speak with him and also the friend I previously mentioned my view softens. I guess as it doesn’t affect me or those around me on a day to day basis I lean towards a live and let live approach and am happy to use pronouns etc as my own choice. This will change should the Law ever compel me to do so.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Entertaining to hear Sharron Davies and Mara Yamauchi tearing the BBC’s Mark Lowen a new one discussing fairness in women’s sport on Friday. It’s about 20 minutes worth of this programme. The segment begins at 26:30 and Davies/Yamauchi are on from 31:35 - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w173067qhlkv5vw

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:tu:

Good listen. It's great that the emperor's new clothes moments are happening all over.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

What’s especially interesting is that the ‘do you sympathise with trans feelings’ question is a fairly standard one from TV news interviewers ever since the SC judgment yet the journalists asking it somehow *still* don’t understand that they are asking women to take responsibility for the hurt feelings of men who are screeching with rage because they’ve finally been told ‘no’.

I’ve watched the mounting outrage from campaigners over this line of questioning on social media (Davies and Yamauchi among them), yet somehow Lowen was completely taken aback when they both refused to put up with any more of it on his show. His voice was quavering, as if it had never occurred to him that trying to centre men’s feelings might not go down well when asking two women’s rights campaigners about the fight for women’s rights.

It’s lazy journalism, and betrays the misogyny that underpins this entire men’s rights movement, as well as Lowen’s extreme lack of preparedness (he ought to have known what sort of response that question would get - they have made no secret of their feelings on it).

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I don't understand the point of not having someone who identifies as trans to put their argument across themselves, rather than giving that job to the presenter. Especially when you have two guests who disagree.

Also, what's the objection to a trans only category? I saw some people suggest they may have do that previously. If you do that, then it's not going to impact biological women. It might be hard to get enough numbers to do that, but in London, I imagine you could get a few 5-a-side teams going.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It’s pretty standard TV and radio journalism to have the presenter play devil’s advocate to a certain extent, when they can’t get people with opposing views into a direct discussion. However in such circumstances they have to be fair, and in Lowen’s case, the programme centred trans feelings on Thursday, then did so again at the beginning of the segment in question on Friday by interviewing another man aggrieved that he can’t play on a women’s team any more, and then re-played part of the Thursday interview with a trans identifying male, before finally coming to Davies and Yamauchi; he then finished by reminding everyone that they did interviews with Trans people on Thursday. There was nothing remotely balanced about it, even when allowing for the BBC’s favourite get-out clause, ‘across our output’.

The trans-dentifying males were not given any push-back and were not asked to show much (if indeed any) empathy for women. And crucially Lowen attempted to present the trans-identifying males as ‘she’, uncritically, and without acknowledging that this is contentious, disputed and at the very heart of the Supreme Court judgment. In fact, Yamauchi took him to task on it at one point, insisting that he make clear in his question that he was asking about men who say they are women.

There are multiple issues with that approach. I think Davies & Yamauchi were objecting to it from an elite sports perspective. How would you create and fund something that is by its nature designed for mediocre individuals? And let’s not pretend they’re not mediocre; every single man who has ever put on womanface and stolen a woman’s medal or prize pot is no more than middling in their chosen sport as a man. None of them would be competing against women if they thought they could win in a men’s tournament (which as men they are welcome to try to do).

And as far as women who think they’re men go, well if they take any serious steps along that road at all, then they’re huffing testosterone which excludes them anyway because that’s doping.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

If someone wanted to create and fund a tournament for trans-identifying footballers, then I guess they should feel free to do that. I don't think that's the problem, though.

When we're talking about the trans people who were previously on women's teams, then this isn't an elite league but amateur level. Even as you get more professional, there isn't any money in women's football until you get to the WSL. Even then, it's poorly paid until you get to the level of an Arsenal or Chelsea.

If we were getting trans footballers in the WSL or the Women's Championship, then I could understand this is a problem. The Supreme Court decision means this won't happen.

So if it's just a friendly kick-about, then who cares if trans people make their mini-competitions and games? The only problem I can see is if trying to limit it to trans people is itself breaking the Equality Act.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Third categories have been tried - as have third changing rooms/toilets (the law permits anyone to use an accessible toilet, you don’t have to be registered disabled). Uptake is low because for trans-identifying males it isn’t an access issue. At best it’s about affirmation. At worst it’s a sexual fetish.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The great point one of them made, which I am close to, is that in youth football mixed teams are only allowed up to a certain age level.

My sons U14 football team has a girls team in his league (as there aren’t enough girls teams to support their own league) but the girls team has to be a year older so U15.

I think they allow this only up to next year, I think, and then they can’t play against each other due to the obvious differences.

Which even at this age are overwhelmingly evident. Those poor girls are getting battered 15-0 every week, which helps no one.

So when girls and boys get to certain age they’re not allowed to play against each other, but then as adults they are, or were…..?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Of course the media loves its own spin…

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

1. The London Marathon publishes rankings even way down in the thousandths. Any man who took part has distorted those rankings and unfairly disadvantaged a woman.
2. No man should have been allowed to enter the women’s race. The London Marathon is a UK Athletics officially sanctioned event and the LM organisers have breached its participation rules by allowing men into the women’s event.

Russ, what you’re offering here is a variation on the ‘but it’s only a few men, why can’t you just leave them alone’.

The point is, fairness is fairness. If you have a category whose entire reason to exist is to give fair sport to women, who as a class cannot compete fairly against men, then you cannot allow men to compete in that category under any circumstances. If you do, then you abolish the category.

Fox News can get stuffed. They have their own reasons for saying what they say and I don’t care about them in the slightest. However, any man who ran in the women’s category took a place in the entry ballot from a woman. Simply entering the race was an act of theft. Taking a place on the finishers table robs every woman who finished after him of their rightful result, however small a difference it made. And holding a women’s participation medal is a lie in service of an entitlement he did not deserve and which the rules said he should not have.

If he actually does hand his women’s participation medal back and get himself deleted from the table, then that goes some way to restoring fairness. Although somewhere, there is a woman who was not allowed to run in the London Marathon this year because the organisers gave her place to a man. I wonder what, if anything, he would be prepared to do about that.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Nope, you’ve read far too much in to what I posted. It was simply an example of how distorted the media (and yep it’s the yank version of The Mail) are willing to go on this subject.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Love the idea of leave them alone , fairs fair , that's fine if they leave the rest of us alone. Any islands up for sale?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:clap::clap::clap:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

When I was a competitive kickboxer I only wanted my full contact fights to be against a fair opponent. I was in mis matched fights and I took no pride in winning them. I guess that shows the difference between a real sports person and someone who is entitled and can not compete against equals

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Yes…

But it was factually accurate, regardless of the spin put upon it.

The headline Should’ve been, “man takes place away from woman” …that’s it.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:clap::clap::clap:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

There’s a petition on the go …

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/716553

Seems eminently sensible to me. As well as being downright insulting to women to reduce their status to ‘birthing person’ or ‘person with a womb’, deliberate, political obfuscation of language in healthcare carries genuine risks to safety.

There are already trans-identifying males who have convinced themselves their biology has changed and they won’t need a prostate check when they get into their 50s.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:tu:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Listened to a programme about this subject yesterday and it was said that, as the two terms mean different things, it's possible to change ones gender, but not sex.

Can anyone explain this to me?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

You cannot change sex because it is written into your DNA. You can always tell what sex someone is. In 99.9% of cases you simply have to look at them. You don’t need to remove their clothes or take a DNA sample. We all know what a man is and we all know what a woman is. Sex is binary, it is immutable, and it is important for a whole range of reasons. Sex is expressed fro your DNA via the gametes your body produces, whether or not these are healthy. This also means there is no such thing as an intersex individual. Every such individual who is born with a chromosomal irregularity compatible with life is, ultimately, either male or female (and the vast majority of these are male).

Gender, when the word is used in the sense of self-identity, is an ill-defined, untestable, unobservable claim an individual makes about their sense of self. They may claim, though they are biologically male, to be a woman, or vice-versa. Or they may claim to be any number of other genders of various kinds which are even less congruent with what we might understand as the norms of the human sex binary.

As gender is entirely in the mind of the one claiming it, they can change it as often as anyone changes their mind about anything, and as it has no rules they can change it to whatever they want. They may even ask others to refer to them by third-person pronouns other than the ones commonly used in the English language, even though these are binary and connected to sex, not self-identified gender.

There was a time when for the sake of politeness I would probably have referred to a man as ‘she’ if he was making what seemed to be a genuine stab at living as a woman. I now consider that to be a position derived from a profound ignorance of just how malign this movement has become, as it has demanded ever more accommodations and sought to hoover up the rights and protections that rightfully belong to actual women.

I will no longer use the term ‘trans woman’ to refer to such a man (or vice versa). I endeavour only to use the term ‘trans-identifying male’, which accurately and succinctly describes both their sex and their interest in gender-identity ideology.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Biological sex cannot be changed. 'Gender', for lack of a better word, is more akin to being an opinion.

Within reason (for exactly the kind of reason Chris gives above), there is no harm in using a descriptive word that someone would like you to use when describing them.

Today I found out that one of the people on my team, who has all the outward looks, mannerisms, speech nuances, etc of a woman, identifies as non-binary and prefers (not asks or demands) to be referred to as they/them. I'm happy to accommodate that, I even went as far as offering an apology-of-sorts for previously saying her, she etc. I was, of course, told no such apology was necessary as it wasn't something I previously knew about. They aren't any type of activist, doesn't get pissy if people continue to use she/her and is pretty much a laid-back and well-liked member of the team.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

While there's claimed to be over 70 genders, "gender dysphoria" is binary. Another in the ever growing list of words that have been hijacked.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

If gender is an opinion, does that mean others hold the right to disagree and not conform or humour the opinion on the holder?

Thsi isn't aimed solely at Russ by ther way - this is open to everyone to answer. I'm interested to see what others think here.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It’s more than an opinion. It is an entire belief system. That means it must be taken seriously, but it also means in a free, open, democratic society, we must be free to say we simply do not share that belief system and exercise our freedom to decline to speak its creeds and confessions.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I did say for lack of a better word - as Chris says some see it as far more than a belief, to them it’s reality, a fact. I see it as an opinion and I’m happy to respect that opinion until should a day come when it becomes forced on me.

Nobody should be forced to have any opinion imposed on them and I think the recent legal ruling puts up a very strong barrier. The trouble there though is often if you state that you don’t share the opinion, there’s no debate, there’s no open dialogue, pull down the shutters - you’re a bigot.

And that is wrong.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I just want everyone's decision about their sexuality or leanings to be respected by everyone else and for them to be left alone about their choice. Basically just mind your OWN business.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I can accept they feel how they feel but I refuse to "respect" their mental illness sorry

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

If I can accept how they all feel anyone else should accept how I feel too . I do not need my views to be respected. I do not like how being offended has become such a big deal. People should grow a pair (see what I did there)

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

However I realise as a normal heterosexual male and white my opinion matters least in 2025

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The problem is many of them dont mind their *own* business, they try and force it on the rest of us.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

:tu:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

[img]Download_Failed_Error_2[/img]

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Not said it for sympathy or that it effects me in any way in real life just stating I know the score nowadays . Do you think I am wrong?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

This is a very welcomed change to the Russ of yester-year, who argued the opposite side of this debate when I tried to make the above point. Yes, it was regarding a different topic, but the principle remains the same, which is not forcing one's opinion on another.

Moving back to the topic...

Yes, but with important distinctions. Respecting a person doesn;t require agreeing with every belief they hold. It means treating them with dignity, listening without contempt, and engaging honestly.

That said, respect for people is not the same as submission to all ideas or compelled agreement.

Where should the boundaries be?

I believe respect is appropriate when:

• The individual shares their views without forcing them on others.
• There’s room for open discussion, including disagreement.
• They advocate for rights without infringing on others’ freedoms.

I also believe respect becomes problematic when:

• Disagreement is labelled as hate or as Russ quite rightly pointed out, bigotry.
• People are pressured into affirming beliefs they don’t share.
• Institutions enforce compelled speech or identity-based conformity.
• Questioning ideology is treated as moral failure.

That’s when respectful dialogue morphs into ideological enforcement and that’s not respect, that;s compliance under pressure or fear.

To go a step further, when does opinion cross into militant demand?

It crosses the line when it shifts from:

• “Please understand my expereince”

to:

• “You must affirm my belief or you’re morally wrong.”

This kind of demand uses guilt, shame, or power to extract agreement. It undermines open conversation and creates an environment of fear and silence rather than understanding.

We can (and should ) acknowledge people’s right to identify how they wish. But mutual respect means others have a right to disagree, to ask questions, and to draw reasonable lines, especially in law, medicine, education, and policy.

To sum it up:

• Respect the person by listening and treating them with dignity.
• Evaluate the belief like any other... on its merits.
• Reject the demand for forced agreement if it compromises truth, fairness, or free expression.

Disagreement is not harm. And respectful boundaries protect everyone’s right to be heard on all sides.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Be nice if it worked here.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

No, no, as a white heterosexual male, as indeed, I am, it's not that your opinion matters less, it matters the same as everyone else's. No more, and no less.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

What makes you think it doesn't?

From what I have seen, it appears that all posts are (mostly) treated with respect, yes they can be disagreed with, be argued with; but that's not wrong, that's fine.

Yes disagree with someone else's viewpoint or feeling, or how they see themselves; that's OK; argue it but do it with respect for them and respect for their viewpoint.

There is a post further up this thread which refers to 'mental illness'. Now OK, I sort of get what the poster is referring to, but 'illness', implies something 'wrong' which presumably could be 'cured'. No, no. they are not ill, their biology is slightly different to the rest of us, fine, they are perfectly normal human beings. Maybe we just need to accommodate the reality that not everyone nicely fits into a binary set.

Now having said that, we have an obvious issue one person's rights might well collide with another's. I have to agree with the recent Supreme Court's ruling, 'can a trans woman, have the absolute right to access a women-only space'? And I have to come down on the side of no.

And I'm sorry, I'm sure there are many, many trans-women who feel they have been marginalised, they genuinely see themselves as women and feel discriminated against (which, I suppose technically they are), but still!

There's not an easy, obvious solution, and if anyone has any ideas, I'm more than happy to see them.

---------- Post added at 20:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------


---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

OK yes I see what you mean, but by 'here' I meant on this forum; which I still maintain is fairly neutral and open to entertain a wide range of opinions.

But yes there have been a few, somewhat alarming incidences reported as late And this is wrong, absolutely wrong and the police absolutely have to be held to account for some, not all, of their actions.

Incidentally, totally off topic, are you the same Seph as posts on the Virgin Media forums?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Quote:

Woman who lost job after tweeting view on biological sex awarded £100,000

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...00-by-tribunal

I'm keeping this to opinion rather than a shift from opinion to discrimination.



---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Might of!

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

2 years ago :confused:

That’s Maya Forstater, and she is now a leading voice in the gender critical movement in the UK because of the stand she took. It is routinely cited as ‘the Forstater ruling’.

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

In not unrelated news, J K Rowling has set up a legal action fund which women can apply to for help chasing wrongdoing employers and other organisations who abuse their sex-based rights. The reality is that rather too many bodies are digging their heels in post FWS v Scot Gov, which leaves them wide open to litigation because the SC has made it very, very clear what failure to comply with the Equality Act looks like.

https://jkrwf.org/

Sandie Peggie, presently pursuing NHS Fife and Dr Theodore “Beth” Upton at an employment tribunal, is now suing the Royal College of Nursing because it refused to support her case, which it arguably was contractually obliged to do, but did not - for reasons seemingly to do with their ideological commitment to genderwoo.

It’s unclear whether JKR is helping fund that action or not.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

But she lost the original case in 2019, and the final decision was in 2022.
This about the original hearing.
81 page decision to summarise this amount of info:-

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

So what? The higher court decision overturns the lower one. FWS lost at a lower court on their way to the Supreme Court. But the decision of the highest court is the definitive one.

Didn’t you understand that’s how it works?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Shows the mentality in the Tribunals. Is it ok for Tribunal Judges to have the opinion that her views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”?
Not always possible to have grounds for appeal, no matter how wrong the decision was.
Still took 3 years, a large amount of documentation, a QC and counsel all for 15 days(On: 7 - 11, 14-18, 21-23 March 2022. In Chambers 5 & 7 April 2022) of the hearing. Not everyone could afford all that.
That would imply that no other Employment Tribunal or higher authority had ruled that way before. Only a reported Tribunal decision carries any weight.
If some other business or organisation lost a similar appeal, they might be prepared financially to appeal further up the chain, which could mean the principles would be overturned yet again.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

All very good points (though I wish you’d actually make your points first time instead of farting links and assuming people know what you’re saying ;) )

I agree, there is an imbalance in the system, especially when the wrongdoing is coming from a public body like an NHS trust or even the Scottish Government. They have in-house legal counsel and effectively unlimited funds to fight cases on even fairly spurious grounds because the people who take the decisions to go to court aren’t the ones who have to pay. And they can always argue that best use of public funds is always to fight as long as possible to avoid a public body being left with legal liability for something.

It is this very situation that JK Rowling seems to be trying to address by offering to fund women who have a case to pursue but lack the unlimited resources of their opponent.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It's been said elsewhere that a similar case taken to the Supreme Court could well result in a different decision.

If correct, how would this fit in with the decision that we're talking about here :confused:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

That’s not correct.

The Supreme Court is in the business of stating definitively what the laws passed by parliament actually mean. They have established that in the Equality Act 2010 the term ‘woman’ means, and has always meant, biologically female, as observed at birth, because that is consistent with the broader aims of the Act (which protects gender reassignment as a separate category) and previous anti-discrimination legislation, in which the modern faux-confusion over what a woman is simply wasn’t an issue at all.

The Supreme Court just will not make a ruling in any similar case that in any way contradicts what it has just ruled here. Why on earth would it do so?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Thanks for explaining. This clarifies that it's not just a precedent for any similar cases brought before the Supreme Court.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The Supreme Court’s job is to be the final arbiter of what the law means. It uses certain basic principles in doing so, amongst which is to assume that words carry their natural meaning.

Nicola Sturgeon is in the Sunday Times this morning bleating that the judgment has been ‘over interpreted’ - this is an emerging attack line from genderists, who are increasingly trying to claim that because For Women Scotland v Scottish Government was really only about the meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010, it’s not on to try to impose their definition that a woman is a biological female anywhere else.

The reality is, the SC judgment is a crystal clear case study in how that court defaults to the natural meaning of words in resolving any supposed ambiguity. Those who opposed For Women Scotland seem to have thought they could convince the court that parliament meant to include so-called transwomen in their women’s protections, but the court rejected this because there is a rich history of anti-discrimination law on our statute books which uses the word ‘woman’ often and it is therefore very obvious what the natural meaning of the word is. If Parliament had meant to indicate that ‘woman’ meant something else in the EA2010, it would have to have said so explicitly. It did not.

So, there may be other areas of law, and other acts of parliament, where the SC has not explicitly defined ‘woman’ yet, and some fantasists in the gender cult may have convinced themselves that one day they can get one of these laws in front of the SC and get it to hand down a different definition of ‘woman’, but the reality is that because the SC has very clearly ruled based on the natural, historically proven definition of ‘woman’ as biological female, it just isn’t going to reach any different conclusion about any other Act of Parliament unless that Act is very explicit in its intention to give the word a different definition for the purposes of that Act.

I am not a lawyer, but I am not aware of anywhere in our body of law where the definition of ‘woman’ is handled in that way at all - not even in the gender recognition legislation.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

World Boxing’s new eligibility testing regime is to include sex testing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/a...s/cq54ylnz8eyo

The announcement takes time to state that Imane Khelif will not be permitted to compete in the women’s division without taking a sex test first.

Those with long memories may recall this became a cause celebre last summer at the Paris Olympics with rather too many people determined to conflate DSDs (disorders of sexual development) with the broader trans-rights cult and to insist that Khelif is actually woman on the basis of what’s printed in a passport, despite there being credible evidence not only that Khelif is a biological male but also precisely which DSD he suffers from that would have led to an incorrect observation of sex as female at birth that may have gone unnoticed until puberty.

The whole thing is a bit of a mess because those with DSDs are deserving of compassion and understanding and ought not to become human shields for autogynaephiliac men who want to dress up and play women’s sports. Though my sympathy in this case is tempered by the very obvious state of affairs here - Khelif might have been recorded as female and brought up as a girl, but he and his team undoubtedly knew he was male, with male advantage, when they sent him into the boxing ring to beat up young women in Paris last summer.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

I think it’s well worth re-quoting this post, which is post #2 from this thread.

I said at the time that this assertion was unsupported by the available facts. Given that until 24 hours ago both Khelif’s team and the Eindhoven competition organisers were insisting he was going to take part, I assume Khelif will now simply take the sex test and carry right on, seeing as ‘she is a female boxer and always has been female.’

:scratch:

I think Martine Croxall was right
 

Her correcting the autocue is, hopefully, the beginning of the end for political correctness. The term 'pregnant people' is grammatical nonsense - the term 'people' is generic, covering men, women and children. But men can't be pregnant (without drastic surgery), nor (without premature puberty) can young girls, and boys can't, either. There is one, and only one, kind of person who can be pregnant: A WOMAN.

It seems Martine is of the 'call a spade a spade' crowd. Good. We need more like her.

Not that I watch TV, of course; I found out about this via random surfing. :p:

Political correctness is garbage and does need to go away!!!

Re: I think Martine Croxall was right
 

I bet the BBC Lefties would love to replace all the Newsreaders with AI characters that couldn't go off-script.

Re: I think Martine Croxall was right
 

I agree, but this doesn’t raise sufficiently different issues to those already under discussion here in the gender ideology thread, hence thread merged

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Lots of newspapers have covered this; notably the BBC news website is ignoring it completely. Here’s one without a paywall that includes the relevant clip of Croxall rolling her eyes and saying women after visibly stuttering when she encountered the term ‘pregnant people’ on her autocue.

https://www.ladbible.com/entertainme...13377-20250624

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

My concern is that a newsreader should be reading the prepared script and not inputting their own opinion into a news bulletin. What next, a remark about who is right/wrong when the Government & their opposition are at loggerheads or an opinion on who is right/wrong in the conflict between Israel/Iran??

This unprofessional behaviour calls into question the impartiality of the BBC.

I would feel the same if the script had of said 'women' and she had changed it to "people".

Re: I think Martine Croxall was right
 

That site pops up a paywall for me.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Weird … it offered me free with ads or paid without … I chose the former.

Here it is in student rag, “The Tab”. It’s a straight report but their newsdesk will be seething.

https://thetab.com/2025/06/24/bbc-ba...o-women-on-air

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

If you’re a news reader in North Korea, Iran or Russia, absolutely

She was correcting an editorial mistake, explain what bit she got wrong?

That last sentence doesn’t make sense, in your opinion in what part was she incorrect?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Only women can give birth - whilst ‘women’ are a sub-group of ‘people’, it’s a bit silly to use the two as interchangeable in this scenario…

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The incident does call the BBC’s impartiality into question, but not in the way you think.

“Pregnant people” is activist language. Only women get pregnant. The use of “people” is intended to prioritise women who think they are something else (so-called trans men, or non-binary). Prioritising questionable social theories by using highly contested language without making clear that’s what you’re doing represents a loss of impartiality, and in discussion of medical issues where biology is of primary importance it is also reckless.

Croxall correctly addressed that lapse in editorial judgment by making an important clarification when she realised the script she had been given was sub-standard.

N.B. “Only women get pregnant” is not a matter of opinion. If you think it is, you need to give your head a wobble.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I think the point being made is the scripts are written to be read as is.

By using the term people they are also covering those women who transitioned become trans men and those not wishing to conform to typical gender roles ie non binary or gender fluid etc.

Nothing to do with trans women.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

(Emphasis mine - do please make your mind up :confused: )

I’m well aware of why they say “pregnant person”. I object - strongly - to activist language that minimises “woman” as an essential, immutable, important binary category of human existence. In medical issues, biology is paramount, not one’s ineffable sense of self.

I don’t care if as a woman you* think you’re a man, or some other entirely internal, unfalsifiable sense of otherness. That’s your business. However, the thoughts inside your head don’t give you the right to re-write language and expect the rest of us to go along with it. And in discussion of biological issues, most particularly sex-specific issues like pregnancy, it is of primary importance that you acknowledge the essential fact that you are, always were and always will be, a woman.

*Not you personally obvs

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Sorry stupid auto correction stuff. Fixed it

I could read it.. There was a spam ad but it didnt show.........

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Thanks, that does make sense now :D

I agree, it is nothing to do with making so-called “trans women” (i.e. men) feel included. The language is intended to acknowledge that women who think they’re not women also get pregnant. It attempts to avoid hurting their feelings by avoiding calling them “women”. And in doing so it disrespects women everywhere, queering language so that it becomes ever more difficult to discuss issues in the terms male/female categories that genderists have decided are undesirable.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I agree. It's not for a newsreader to change a prepared script quoting a comment from a health professional in order to put across a personal political comment. IMO it's irrelevant as to whether one agrees or disagrees with said point of view.

I've spent this evening watching an excellent series that (based on a true story) humanises the experience of what it was like to grow up trans in a working class area of Nottingham:

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a64933...ke-for-a-girl/

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It is, if it is to correct an ideological political comment.