Re: The gender ideology thread
 

That you think clarifying that a pregnant person is a woman is a “personal political comment” is … weird.

Of the roughly 100 billion humans who have ever existed, exactly how many of them do you think have started to think a woman can become a man, or vice versa? Which belief really is the personal and political one?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It's fashionable, so every soft head jumps on the bandwagon :erm:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

No, the role of newsreaders is not to comment or make their views known about items,, but to simply read the news.

---------- Post added at 16:46 ---------- Previous post was at 16:43 ----------

My salient problem with doing what she did doesn't lie with what she said, but the fact that she did it.

What if the troubles in NI were being reported on and, after one side was mentioned, she added the word "terrorists" and "Freedom fighters" to the other?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The role of people who wrote it is not to make political comments either. One corrects the other.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

So if the BBC news reel teleprompter said that “Hamas were freedom fighters, rising up against Israeli imperial oppression” and the news reader was Jewish, they should just shut up and say what’s in front of them, even if it goes against everything they believe as a person?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

To be fair, this bit wasn't written down by the BBC. She was quoting someone else.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Your analogy is false.

The ordinary meaning of the word ‘woman’ is ‘adult human female’, a definition drawn from biology. Any language that does not express that ordinary meaning is liable to cause confusion. Activists, such as those who deliberately deviate from the ordinary meaning of words, do so in pursuit of a political aim. In this case the activist language obfuscates the plain understanding of the terms being used. Newsreaders absolutely can, and regularly do, deviate from the autocue when they can see that what they’re reading is less clear than it should be. They are not actors, they are journalists, whose job is to communicate with clarity.

Your analogy fails because in the case of ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’, both are political designations. You would have been nearer the mark had you argued over the term ‘bomb’ and suggested someone else might call it a ‘freedom-bringer.’

‘Woman’ in its ordinary meaning, just isn’t a political term, no matter who says otherwise or how often they say it. To claim it is, is deeply misogynistic because you, as a man, are robbing half the population of the entire world of the word that describes the most basic category of their humanity. It’s simply not on.

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:28 ----------

Which doesn’t alter her responsibility as a senior BBC journalist to add clarity where an activist uses language that deliberately obfuscates. It makes it more important in fact. It’s worth noting that the senior editorial staff have supported her in this, against a barrage of complaints from trans activists. Clearly they think she was acting within her remit.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Activist lol. Isn't a woman also a person at the end of the day.

Lots of kerfuffle over nothing.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

… which is of course the latest activist strategy. ‘Kerfuffle over nothing’ doesn’t quite fit with the last decade of people in the public eye, particularly women, getting disciplined or having their contracts cancelled, for making these basic points. It is of course fast becoming a ‘kerfuffle over nothing’ because it’s no longer acceptable to be seen blatantly demanding #NoDebate. Trying to make out it’s just not important is the next best thing.

I very much doubt you’re ignorant as to why someone would choose to describe women who are with child with a non gender-specific term like ‘pregnant people’.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Unfortunately, our media is filled with people all too happy to put a political stance on everything. OK, we aren't as bad as America, but we are getting there..

---------- Post added at 10:50 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Personally, I don't particularly like the term "pregnant people". The fact is that biologic women get pregnant. Biological men do not have the body parts required to do so. Men who happen to be transitioning from women do unless they complete the transition. However, it should be noted that not all biological women can get pregnant.

I do support the rights of every person to be seen as the gender they feel they are, even if that is different to what they were born as, but I do not think that should be at the expense of a group of people who already sometime suffer because of their gender.

However, I do not think transitioning should be easy because if you do it properly, it involves a series of serious medical procedures, some involving surgery. Surgery should never be undertaken lightly.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The fact that some women can’t get pregnant isn’t really relevant here. I point it out mainly because some really low-grade trans-activist arguments suggest that this falsifies the biological basis of ‘woman’ as a category. In truth, if you have a road accident and require a leg amputation you’re still human even though you no longer meet the description of a mammal with two legs. In the same way a woman who has lost the ability to carry children, due to a defect or a disease, is still a woman.

I support the rights of every person to claim they’re visitors from Alpha Centauri, if they happen to believe that’s the case. But I don’t believe that comes at the expense of my right to tell them that’s arrant nonsense, and to refuse to address them as Your Excellency.

The problem with trans activism is that it is not satisfied with establishing rights to a set of beliefs. It is committed to acquiring the right to impose those beliefs on others, thereby diminishing the safety, dignity and free expression of everyone else.

Indeed.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I think we actually agree.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Agreed!

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

We can expect to see more of this in the coming months and years, as law and hard reality catches up with the cod-philosophy of genderism. Emma Watson, sensing the beginnings of a mood shift, starts ever-so-gently to roll back her condemnation for J K Rowling’s opposition to genderwoo. Rowling, meanwhile, is having none of it. The longer tweet Rowling re-tweeted yesterday, which is linked near the bottom of the story, is worth reading in full as an excellent summary of the state academia, and certain sections of our arts and political class, have been in since the Supreme Court judgment earlier this year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gvp18xe17o

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It’s embarrassing watching them wilt In the sunlight of popular opinion.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Fads come and go, there's always been something going on that people want to hang onto the coat tails of until it gets forgotten about for the latest 'new' thing to get involved with.

The trouble is that nowadays there's an electronic/digital trail that leads back to all those bandwagons you now wish you'd never bothered to jump on.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

If it was a "Fad" perhaps hunderds of childeren would not have been mutilated, young girls having their breasts removed boys their bells etc etc.

It was pure child abuse.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Actually, it's all the people that once wrote something on Twatter, Farcebook etc trying to be with the 'in crowd' that then try to retract it when the wind blows in a different direction.

@ pip08456 - people who think that's a good thing to do to kids want shooting.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Avarda kedavra….

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr7012ryvyyo

Seriously, it’s well worth reading a take-down written by a world-renowned author. It’s coldly beautiful: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1972600904185483427

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I read that earlier and wondered if comments would appear here.

This line probably sums up my previous post about 'fads' coming and going.

;)

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

She certainly put her in her place, as nicely as she probably could.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I'm pleased at the outcome for those (including myself) who made a formal complaint about this. Croxall had no right to alter her script and make a facial expression to put her own views across.

Whist she is entitled to her own opinion, she should not be making it known on the BBC as it's irrelevant.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo.amp

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

yeah the BBC has no credibility on anything full stop. Only women can give birth and the latest court ruling on that bares it out. The BBC could be breaking the law if they push this too far due to the court ruling

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I’m pleased that you helped expose the lack of credibility in the BBC’s internal complaints process.

Croxall was ambushed on-air with a script that used the ludicrous phrase ‘pregnant people’. Self-evidently, only women can become pregnant. This is not a personal opinion, it is science. She quite correctly substituted the scientifically correct term. The term ‘pregnant people’ is so bone-jarringly, brain-achingly stupid, her very brief eye-roll was really rather restrained. Certainly not worth the time and money of an internal investigation. Definitely not worth your time to report, though complaining about people does seem to be a hobby of yours.

Given that her conviction for facecrime comes less than 24 hours after a damning internal memo was leaked, laying bare the extent to which the BBC has developed a nasty habit of censoring coverage of issues like transgenderism and Palestine unless they conform to activist-approved lines, one has to wonder whether the BBC has gone looking for a squirrel to misdirect critical attention from its failings.

Telegraph, paywall-free link:

https://archive.ph/wWdMS

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

With the blatant editing of the Trump video over the capital building BBC news is now no longer fit for purpose full stop and should not be taken seriously by anyone

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Typical.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Well, seeing as we’re complaining, why not complain about the complaint. It might not change this particular decision but it might just make them pause and realise there is an administrative cost to this sort of politicking.

The web page with the judgment is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/ecu/ne...l-21-june-2025

And you can complain about it here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/commen...Your%20comment

If you’re so motivated, you could suggest that the BBC has no remit to write contentious social theory into its newsroom scripts, that Croxall was quite correct to make an instant correction to use scientifically correct terminology, and that given what we all know about the BBC’s internal struggles with trans activism, the momentary eye-roll was really very restrained.

Whether or not anyone here complains, I bet the decision gets way more complaints than Croxall did. FYI the original issue was raised off the back of 20 complaints. That’s all. That’s basically our Richard plus a dozen or more members of the BBC’s own internal ‘Pride’ staff network. Hardly anyone at all outside of the BBC had any problem with this.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

You complained that someone stated a fact ? :dozey:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

My salient complaint was about a newsreaders taking it upon herself to change the script that she had been given to read and making her views known on the news. You all seem to be focusing on what she said/did, whilst it's the fact that she did it, regardless of the subject matter, that is the issue.

It would have been the same if the script had of said 'women' and she had changed it to 'pregnant people' and rolled her eyes.

Even typists are trained not to change things, but to type what's put in front of them. If you wrote a piece for a newspaper, I don't think you'd be happy if what you had written had been changed because the inputter wanted to put forward their own viewpoint.

BBC impartiality is extremely important, and yes, the Trump incident was wrong too.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I think he complained as she changed the script to voice her own opinion. That is not what news readers do. They simply read what they are told to leaving their personal feelings at home.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Again, ‘pregnant women’ is not an opinion. It is settled scientific fact.

‘Pregnant people’, on the other hand, is the language of highly contentious social theory. The unwelcome opinion in this case has come from the activist scriptwriter who put ‘people’ into the script, when even the report being referred to did not use that term.

Top-level news anchors like Martine Croxall are paid to notice factual errors even on the fly and manage them appropriately. This is what she did. The fact that her face betrayed exasperation at having to do so is understandable given the unnecessary, fish-brained use of the term in her script.

It’s also worth adding that at no point was Jeremy Paxman reprimanded for eye-rolling whilst famously making a career out of it for years whilst hosting Newsnight. Apparently it’s only women standing up against genderwoo that get persecuted.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

She reads the autocue she doesn't write it. Her personal opinion doesnt come in to it. If she doesn't read what is scripted then she is voicing her own thoughts and the BBC have to be impartial.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

So if a newsreader spots a mistake, they can't correct it?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Again, not an opinion, a factual inaccuracy which she is paid to spot and correct. It absolutely is part of a news anchor’s job to deviate from the script on the autocue when it is apparent that reading it as written would be misleading or obviously unclear. It doesn’t happen often because these are professional operations and the scripts are usually watertight. This one was not. The document that was subject of this report did not use the activist term ‘pregnant people’ and the term is not in the BBC style guide. Its use was inaccurate and unnecessary. She was well within her professional remit to correct it on the fly.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:55 ----------

They can.
They should.
They do.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Activist term lol.

Simply saying pregnant people is not an activist term. Simply covering that women who transition to be identified as male. At the end of the day it causes no harm using that term. People after all we are all people.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

If a woman self identifies (or whatever crap it's called) as a male, then falls pregnant, she/he is hardly going to get away with being called a pregnant bloke, she's a pregnant woman. If a woman has the op (transition ? ) to a male, pregnancy is highly doubtful . . . no matter how many wise men bring gifts to the stable.

Using the words 'pregnant people' and believing it's somehow the correct terminology implies you're* probably one of the brainwashed loons causing all the 'politically correct' mischief going around.

*you're as in 3rd person, not aimed specifically at Stephen

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Of course it is. :rolleyes:
"People" do not get pregnant, women do, simple fact.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Can't help thinking that this is a pointless discussion/argument..

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

You’ve just demonstrated why it causes immense harm.

See how easily you use ‘man’ and ‘male’ as synonyms? You do so, of course, because in our everyday speech we assume they are, which is fair enough as far as it goes. However, because you’ve swallowed activist lines about trans ‘women’ being actual women (and vice versa), you have quickly arrived at a point where you no longer have the language necessary to easily express the basic truth that no matter what identity someone thinks they have, there is still a basic, binary, biological division in the human race, which is male-female. Minimising the importance of, and then destroying understanding of, the importance of biology to embodied human existence is a primary aim of gender ideology. Going along with it is not ‘kind’;* it allows downstream consequences like men in dresses running rape crisis centres and re-traumatising women. It allows men to steal women’s prizes in sports. It causes outrages against the dignity of women in single-sex spaces. It allows male sex offenders to be locked up in women’s prisons. All of these things have happened, around the world. They’ve all happened recently, publicly, here in Scotland, population under 6 million. The ideologically lobotomized Scottish Government is still trying to get legal approval to let men into women’s prisons as long as they use the magic words ‘I identify as a woman’.

‘Man’ and ‘woman’ are common terms used in reference to humans, while ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not exactly synonymous - they are biological and not species specific. Even if you absolutely insist on using ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in gender ideologue approved ways you ought to be able to maintain the linguistic distinction with regards to male and female. But you’ve proven how hard that is, and of course that is the entire point. The distinction is important if we are to maintain the truth that someone’s personal sense of identity does not override their immutable biological sex. It is a distinction gender ideology cannot tolerate, because it continues to permit conditions in which males and females are treated differently and therefore undermines their whole ridiculous idea that a so-called ‘transwoman’ is actually a woman.

You can identify as a TV cabinet for all I care - it’s your life. But you don’t have the right to insist I believe you and you don’t have the right to insist we modify language to accommodate you. ‘Pregnant people’ is absolutely activist language and goodness only knows why you’re denying it because even activists say so - its an example of what they call ‘inclusive’* language. it is deliberately chosen to minimise the inconvenient and immutable biological truth of human existence which is that only females - women - get pregnant, and any pregnant human is immutably, undeniably, a woman.

* terms like ‘kind’ and ‘inclusive’ are also activist tactics - they rely on the weaponisation of empathy, as nobody wants to be seen to be unkind or exclusive. The necessary trick here is to refuse to accept a gender ideologue’s claims around what constitutes kindness and inclusion. The destruction of provisions intended to preserve the safety and dignity of women is not kind. The erosion of female sport is not inclusive, because the female category is in its very foundation and inclusive measure, allowing women to compete without being overrun by men. Permitting men to enter their category is the antithesis of inclusion. No trans-identifying individual is barred from sports - they must simply compete in the class created for them.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It's not the first time this has happened, she also breached impartiality rules three years ago:

Martine Croxall: BBC News presenter breached impartiality rules, corporation says - BBC News https://share.google/WSV4JyH6T7jEmGa0Z

Going on to joke about breaching due impartiality rules shows what scant regard she has for them.

Someone has said that she might be a union rep, I wonder if this has afforded her greater protection than other staff?

When I worked in local government I was asked to consider becoming a union rep and it was said to me that, unless I did something like murder a colleague, I would be unofficially exempt from any form of disciplinary action. I assumed that this was because the council wouldn't want to risk any industrial unrest because the union would view this as an inflammatory act by council management.

Perhaps it's the same with the BBC and Croxall is fully aware of this??

The first time I would have expected her to receive a verbal warning, the second time a written warning and, if she does it again, she should be dismissed.

As we come up to charter renewal and the BBC is under unprecedented attack for accusations of bias and the TVL method of funding, they need someone like her like a hole in the head.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

At the moment, the way the BBC is shutting down culturally inconvenient topics and persecuting those who don’t toe the ideological line is the best argument for aboloishing the TV licence. Croxall is doing all of us an immense service in exposing the BBC’s institutional rot.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

... And there lies the flaw in your argument. The accusations of bias are valid and factually provable. So, of course they don't need someone standing up to them "like a hole in the head". But we. the people, do.

Persons who bring the BBC's bias into the open (and who correct editorial bias when reading the news) are not to be criticised, especially in the context of the BBC Charter Renewal.

Why should the Charter be renewed for such a biased, rotten organisation? There needs to be a clear-out of the bias elements, the LGBTQ+ desk, the top management who have done nothing about this; the prosecution on public office grounds of those bustards who falsified the Trump footage. The BBC is institutionally rotten as it stands

As a footnote, it doesn't help that Boris, Mr Honesty himself (!), should be a torch leader in fighting the BBC.



---------- Post added at 11:29 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Quite right. I couldn't find mention of this huge story on the BBC News web site. Kuenssberg sort of mentioned it in her programme today when interviewing Lisa Nandy - who said she had complete confidence in the BBC Chairman and the BBC DG in getting this matter sorted.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Quite agree Maggy, however the incident that started it is a reminder that there are still (in this day and age) people out there who's purpose in life is to point a finger and shout 'witch' and then dance around the flames of the burning

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

She has a brain, and the BBC were not being impartial, so she corrected it.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Imagine the person programming the autocue having a hissy fit and writing:

"in other news, King Charles, the jug eared wazzok, today visited the .. blah blah"

. . and a news reader having the stupidity to read that out live . . because that's their job :D

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Her employer disagreed.

---------- Post added at 07:48 ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 ----------

This incident was mentioned on the BBC 10pm news last night as one of several issues that led Tim Davies to resign (Huw Edwards, the Gaza boy commentary and the various Linekar incidents being the others).

It was said that he had "no fight in him left" and that the Trump speech editing was what broke the camels back.

Trump has, as expected, been gloating over these resignations.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Her employer is ideologically compromised, as even a blind man could tell you.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Yup - getting rid of an ex-Tory candidate and a Director of News who wanted to change News Reporting output to gain the trust of Reform voters should definitely make the BBC more right-wing…

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

. . . . to gain the trust of Reform voters? :confused:

:shrug:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I guess it depends on who the replacements are.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Is Boris Johnson job-hunting?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Whomever it is, there will be someone, somewhere, making accusations of bias towards - or against - <insert minority faction here>

;)

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The autocue script broke the BBC's own style guide and misquoted the individual that the words were being attributed to. It was therefore appropriate for the presenter to correct that. Suggesting that a highly paid, experienced journalist should not change, correct or acknowledge an incorrect pre-written script is a ridiculous assertion to make - this is not Korean Central Television. It's telling that the BBC upheld the complaint because of the eye-roll, and not because she deviated from the script.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I don’t know what you want but I want neither a right-wing BBC nor a left-wing one. I do want a BBC that doesn’t think it’s its mission to treat highly contentious, niche social movements as simple expressions of diversity to be taught, embraced and complied with and doesn’t allow the political views of its newsroom staff to leak into its processes so that editing errors are not only made but unnoticed and then, eventually, covered up and, finally, defensively explained away rather than simply corrected and apologised for. None of those things are either left or right wing, they are the bare minimum standard we ought to be able to expect from a state broadcaster paid for by everyone. I don’t care about the new DG’s politics, I do care that they understand what the BBC is for, what it is not for, and has the balls to lay that law down in the Panorama office, to the LGBTWTF network and wherever else it needs telt.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The news story in question concerned matters of people taking health precautions. Bad enough if she was inserting her own opinion on a matter of party politics, but it’s really not up to her to decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Oh for the love of Nancy will you give it a rest, at least until you’ve bothered to understand what you’re talking about.

In what way does obfuscating biological reality with so-called ‘inclusive’ language improve the delivery of health advice?

The *medical people* who wrote the document that was the subject of the BBC news item used the medically correct term, ‘pregnant women.’ It was a BBC scriptwriter who chose instead to say ‘pregnant people’, which Croxall then correctly altered live on air, as she should have done.

Are you saying that an unnamed autocue script writer knows better than a medical researcher?

You and the, what, 19 other people (most of whom are politically-motivated members of the BBCs transgender staff agitator network)?

Do you have no self-awareness at all?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

What utter drivel. :dozey:

She did not insert "her own opinion on a matter of party politics", the auto cue writer did that, she simply corrected it.

How on earth does that "decide that vital health advice should or shouldn’t be given to people based on their gender identity."

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Correct it should be based on their sex.

Would you advise a Trans-Man (i.e. a woman) to get their prostate checked?

Would you advise a Trans-woman (i.e a man) to get a cervical smear?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Just thought I’d leave this here. :D

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Only just got around to watching that, very good. :D

Came into the topic to post this ;

High Court dismisses challenge to single-sex toilet guidance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lrd0ey074o

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I think so many places have unisex disabled toilets these days that this should become a non-issue.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Are you suggesting they are all disabled, or they should just break rules and use disabled toilets, which are not provided for them ? (the clue is in the name).

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

not surprised in the least about how much time and money is wasted by the courts trying to decide who can and can't use a damn toilet labeled as 'disabled'

:rolleyes:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I’m not sure (more than happy to be corrected), that there are any rules about their usage. I suspect that the term ‘Disabled Toilet’ refers to the fact that they have been set up specifically to cater for people with various disabilities, but that doesn’t preclude anyone else using them.

I’n fact I’ve seen quite a few which doubles as ‘Baby Changing’ as well.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

You might as well argue there are no rules for any Toilets, have you ever seen any ?
It should be obvious to anyone that "Disabled" toilets are there for disabled people, that members here argue otherwise is of course no surprise.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I suspect Andrew meant toilets that are both unisex and accessible without being intended as specifically disabled-only toilets. It depends on the location. I know in London you often see unisex toilets that are also set up for disabled people. It's usually in smaller places where they only have a couple, so they just make them unisex.

The oddest one I have seen is the National Theatre, where it's a unisex set of cubicles in a shared area. Think of a normal bathroom, but the common area is shared, and all the cubicles are unisex. It's kind of annoying, as there are no urinals and people piss all over the seats. :erm:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It will never be a non-issue, because a vast number of places don’t have space for single lockable unisex toilets, and many others don’t have the budget to convert them.

We will always have single sex toilets and it is therefore (sadly) necessary to have a clear, unambiguous legal ruling that men aren’t allowed in the ladies at all. Even if they put on a dress. Especially if that’s their kink, I’d argue.

It is beyond absurd that it is even necessary to assert the above paragraph. Truly, we live in the stupidest timeline.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

That's because they tend to be effectively closed single occupancy rooms. Completely private, so no issues of other people also being in there.
Not really practical for providing to many people at the same time.


Not just about toilets. There are other single-sex spaces such as changing rooms.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

And women’s prisons and rape crisis centres, two issues of prominence in Scotland recently.

Incredibly, having had its collective arse handed to it by the supreme court, the Scottish government is *still* trying to argue it is a breach of a man’s human rights to deny him a place in a women’s prison if he says he’s a woman. MSPs noted in a debate this week that at no point in its submissions to the high court did the Scottish government mention women’s rights. Not even once.

Trans is one massive incel men’s rights movement, with trauma-affected women and neurodiverse children as collateral damage. It’s a stain on western culture which future generations will look back on in disgust.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

So women aren't there for allowed in men's toilets even if they dress up to look like a man?As you never really mention the female to male trans people.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I rarely mention women who believe they are men because the problems caused by gender ideology are asymmetrical. Women are at risk from men, as a class, much more than men are at risk from women. This movement is being driven by men; it is overwhelmingly a mysoginist project and I tend to view trans-identifying females as victims of the movement even if they’re campaigning for it.

That said, your assessment of the law is correct. A woman who thinks she’s a man is still a woman, and the law states that where single sex spaces are provided, then sex is to be construed in its ordinary meaning as biological sex. To label toilets as ‘men’ and ‘women’ and then operate a gender-identity access policy is likely to result in indirect discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex. The Good Law project has just tried, and failed, to muddy that eloquently simple fact in court this week. It stands.

In my experience, the women of my acquaintance almost invariably recognise a man and a woman regardless of their dress or facial hair. Women need to know when they’re in potentially risky company. It’s an evolved threat response.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

We have those at one of our new offices.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Oh look, that thing which never happens, has happened again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4glne43101o

For the avoidance of doubt, ‘Alexandra Stewart’ is a man housed in a women’s prison because he claims he’s a woman and civic Scotland has so lost its collective spine it felt it had no choice but to believe him.

This sort of activism is in our prisons because we’re meant to think its victims - women prisoners - aren’t worth the tears, being as they’re criminals so they probably derserve it.

Nobody, absolutely nobody, least of all someone incarcerated and unable to run, deserves to be sexually assaulted. Not by anyone and especially not by a violent killer with a cross-dressing fetish, whose actual name is Alan Baker.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

gender fluid ! ?
They are seriously taking the pee, utter nonsense thats got out of control.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

That I guess would be the they/them people. They may feel like a woman one day and a bloke the next or go between the two.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e2rj3zj02o

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Watching this on sky news , some spokesperson from sex matters said…

A trans person who is male to female should not be using the female toilets

However

A trans person who is female to male should not be using the female toilets also

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Use the disabled toilets. Equality at its best. :LOL:

---------- Post added at 20:33 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------

I mean they must be disabled after binning their gonads :shrug:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Unclear if you read it, but it does actually suggest that.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Don't see what all the fuss is about. All worked fine for many decades.
Don't think there's a law banning biological males from biological female areas. Just that organisations and individuals can put up signs, object to, and take action if it happens.
It's the Equality Act we're talking about, which doesn't have any criminal aspect to it. Just about whether something counts as discrimination.
Doesn't have to be "policed" or anything new.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

That’s not quite what Sex Matters has been saying.

If it was Helen Joyce you were watching (it may have been, as she was very much doing the media round) she will have objected to the premise of the question, first of all, by pointing out that almost nowhere these days has separate male and female toilets but no ‘third space’ - what we still, erroneously, call the ‘disabled toilet’ but is in law performing a more general function as an accessible space, including baby change if there’s no room for another separate area. Overwhelmingly, smaller venues have self-contained lockable facilities that are for all users. In the *tiny* number of places where this is an issue, the primary concern is the safety and dignity of women, who have a greater need of segregated facilities.

Addressing the ‘but what about the sad transvestites’ question (which large swathes of the media seems to have decided to use as its framing), she pointed out that very, very few women undergo such radical transformation that another woman can’t tell she’s a woman. There may be a tiny number of cases where a woman has so radically transformed her appearance that she looks like a man, that she causes distress to women in the women’s toilet. In such cases it might be simpler for her to use the men’s, again, in the tiny number of cases where there’s a separate men and women toilet but no third space.

But once more, I’d draw your attention to the way the issue has been framed here. You are talking about a vanishingly small number of situations where a woman has genuinely made herself look like a man (far less frequent than you think) and there is no third space (a.k.a. ‘Disabled toilet’). And in focusing on this question you ignore a couple of important points.

Overwhelmingly, the middle aged cross dressers are not women cosplaying as men, they are men cosplaying as women. Be in no doubt that it is male entitlement that is driving this - trans activism is, overwhelmingly, turbo-charged misogyny, which exploits neurodiverse children, people with DSDs (disorders of sexual development, erroneously also called ‘intersex’) and trauma-surviving women as human shields. It is by far the most pernicious social contagion of the modern age and sociologists and others will spill gallons of ink over it in the decades to come.

The much greater problem here, and the one that led to the Scottish Government getting rinsed by the Supreme Court last year, is the issue of women’s rights to safety and dignity, segregated toilets being one of the most visible provisions in pursuit of that aim. Whataboutery is how trans activism has gaslit society for the past 15 years, and it has to stop. Women are deserving of their protections and their rights must not be subordinated.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

What i posted above is exactly what the spokesperson said on sky news

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Assuming it’s this clip (seems it was Maya Forstater rather than Helen Joyce) …



… that’s not what she said at all. She said that a woman who has gone to extreme lengths to look like a man can legitimately be excluded from a female toilet, according to the EHRC guidance published this week. The interviewer’s question is at 2:20 and Forstater’s answer follows immediately after.

The reverse would not be the case because a man presenting very convincingly as a woman (and there are way fewer of those than you think) is not nearly as likely to cause distress to men he encounters in a men’s toilet.

It’s worth pointing out that Maya Forstater is in the vanguard here, as she was the one who won (on appeal) her case against the Centre for Global Development in Europe, successfully arguing that knowing what a man and a woman are, and saying so on Twitter (euphemistically known as ‘gender critical beliefs’) are not grounds for employers engaging in direct workplace discrimination. She is a subject matter expert.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

They may equally qualify as disabled under mental health grounds.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Of course having gone through hard times. ;)

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I'm wondering if I could identify as a sparrow and shit in the street :shrug:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I'd prefer it if you identified as a bear so as to keep the streets clean. ;)

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

But not, necessarily, the woods!

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Worth pointing out that those who actually have a GRC are a very tiny minority of our so-called ‘transgender’ population. Most people who say they’re transgender are just crossdressers, a few are body-modders (mainly hormone treatment, sometimes surgery), and a very few go the whole hog and apply to get their documents changed. In these cases the State has to pretend it doesn’t know that a man is a man (or vice versa) and treat him as a woman, and that involves as few public sector workers as possible getting access to any official record that might give the game away.

You can put this down to the law of unintended consequences behaving as normal rather than any deliberate attempt to plate favourites.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Any confidentiality issues are limited to tax, nothing else. Not sure the media would be that interested, so what's the issue?

---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:35 ----------

The system for VIPs is to avoid all and sundry looking up their details. How could that happen where all and sundry don't even know a persons name, never mind that they exist. No valid purpose to this.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Further bad news for the cult of gender woo woo:

For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers
Judicial Review of the Scottish Prison Service Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody Operational Guidance.
scotcourts.gov.uk/judgments/#/
https://x.com/i/status/2067926338590134334

Essentially Scottish prison guidance which has sought to conflate trans rights with women's rights to same sex spaces is unlawful. Something that was glaringly obvious to anyone with even a loose awareness of the Supreme Court ruling last year.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

They only need to send 1 or 2 trans "women" to mens prison to weed out those who really believe they are female

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

“Waiting for guidance” has been the standard excuse ever since FWS, despite the fact that the law is the law with or without guidance notes. Any number of other service providers still trying to go ‘further’ than the law, to be ‘inclusive’ in line with their ‘values’ ought to be reading today’s judgment and then having a serious chat with their in-house legal department rather than letting the blue-haired millennial in HR walk them off a cliff.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Not attempting to excuse the SNP - who have blazed a trail in this regard with taxpayer money - similarly MPs at Westminster proposing to reject the EHRC guidance. As you rightly say - it's not creating law which is already there, and ruled on by the SC.

MPs who disagree with it should push to change the primary legislation rather than be (often wilfully) ignorant about the status of guidance. Or better, put it in a manifesto, have people vote on it, then see where they go from there. (I suspect we both know, but that is the process).

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

I quite agree, EDM240 is the most egregious piece of performative student union politics to disgrace the Commons in many years. We’re lucky in that Westminster has so many more members that it’s functionally very much more difficult for this sort of groupthink to become endemic. Holyrood has an awful lot of power which can be marshalled on the votes of just 65 people.

Nadia Witless and co are of course signalling their progressive virtues with an early day motion precisely because they know there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of them ever successfully campaigning to change EA2010.