Callie-cat
@calliencd.bsky.social
Middle aged woman trying to work out where she stands in this ‘sane’ world.
🏳️⚧️🇪🇺🐈⬛🦀🏳️🌈
Am I ever wrong? Yes, just like everyone else.
Do I have doubts? Yes of course, I wouldn’t trust anyone who didn’t.
🏳️⚧️🇪🇺🐈⬛🦀🏳️🌈
Am I ever wrong? Yes, just like everyone else.
Do I have doubts? Yes of course, I wouldn’t trust anyone who didn’t.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the sheer self-importance and arrogance that SM are showing here might actually frustrate the minister so much for her to start to kick back at them - even as someone as transphobic as BP is. . .
November 15, 2025 at 11:11 PM
I wouldn’t be surprised if the sheer self-importance and arrogance that SM are showing here might actually frustrate the minister so much for her to start to kick back at them - even as someone as transphobic as BP is. . .
But this was settled by Croft wasn’t it???
November 15, 2025 at 11:06 PM
But this was settled by Croft wasn’t it???
Though as has pointed out everyone has convention rights regardless. . . 🙄
November 15, 2025 at 11:03 PM
Though as has pointed out everyone has convention rights regardless. . . 🙄
But I thought that the-hate-group-SM didn’t care whether people had a GRC or not. Why would they be suggesting that there would be potential convention rights as per Goodwin if they believe that it is irrelevant anyway?
November 15, 2025 at 11:03 PM
But I thought that the-hate-group-SM didn’t care whether people had a GRC or not. Why would they be suggesting that there would be potential convention rights as per Goodwin if they believe that it is irrelevant anyway?
Do you think this bullying and hectoring tone towards the claimants might backfire a bit? It is one thing to be unpleasant to a hypothetical group another thing to do it in plain sight in front of a judge. . .
November 15, 2025 at 10:58 PM
Do you think this bullying and hectoring tone towards the claimants might backfire a bit? It is one thing to be unpleasant to a hypothetical group another thing to do it in plain sight in front of a judge. . .
Is it redundant because it is basically the same argument or is it redundant because the EGRC’s argument undermines theirs?
November 15, 2025 at 9:38 PM
Is it redundant because it is basically the same argument or is it redundant because the EGRC’s argument undermines theirs?
Amazingly comprehensive Ashleeee, thanks so much for this effort!
November 15, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Amazingly comprehensive Ashleeee, thanks so much for this effort!
Again, I appreciate these are notes and it is difficult to give the full nuance, but in the face of a reasonable concern the judge seems to suggest something inflammatory. I don’t see how it is a rewriting if except of course to point out the original ruling’s inconsistencies. . .
November 15, 2025 at 9:29 PM
Again, I appreciate these are notes and it is difficult to give the full nuance, but in the face of a reasonable concern the judge seems to suggest something inflammatory. I don’t see how it is a rewriting if except of course to point out the original ruling’s inconsistencies. . .
Hmm, you hinted at this yesterday and it seems concerning. Even with the loopy arguments from the EHRC, the judge seems to be indifferent to actual harms because he can’t imagine what they are. . .
November 15, 2025 at 9:26 PM
Hmm, you hinted at this yesterday and it seems concerning. Even with the loopy arguments from the EHRC, the judge seems to be indifferent to actual harms because he can’t imagine what they are. . .
This is a parody account surely. . ? No one could be this crass for real . . . could they?
November 15, 2025 at 1:56 PM
This is a parody account surely. . ? No one could be this crass for real . . . could they?
Oh I see, even though the EHRC disagree that there is an incompatibility they can agree on the locations where the claimants’ suggest there is an incompatibility. Got it.
November 15, 2025 at 8:46 AM
Oh I see, even though the EHRC disagree that there is an incompatibility they can agree on the locations where the claimants’ suggest there is an incompatibility. Got it.
The requirement of which was ruled unacceptable by Croft. . .
But yes I gathered that is where he was going, but I don’t think the claimants did ignore this, in fact it is a large part of their case. .
But yes I gathered that is where he was going, but I don’t think the claimants did ignore this, in fact it is a large part of their case. .
November 15, 2025 at 12:30 AM
The requirement of which was ruled unacceptable by Croft. . .
But yes I gathered that is where he was going, but I don’t think the claimants did ignore this, in fact it is a large part of their case. .
But yes I gathered that is where he was going, but I don’t think the claimants did ignore this, in fact it is a large part of their case. .
Why would the judge be asking the defendant’s counsel to point out where the incompatibility arises - isn’t their stance that there is no incompatibility. . . ? (Despite doing an amazing job earlier of demonstrating exactly how incompatible the guidance is), . .
November 15, 2025 at 12:07 AM
Why would the judge be asking the defendant’s counsel to point out where the incompatibility arises - isn’t their stance that there is no incompatibility. . . ? (Despite doing an amazing job earlier of demonstrating exactly how incompatible the guidance is), . .
I’m also fascinated of which bullet points were ‘mindful’ of the specific needs of trans people. . . Apart from their usual meaningless refrain that trans people are protected from discrimination - as if that was some kind of munificent gift from our betters.
November 15, 2025 at 12:02 AM
I’m also fascinated of which bullet points were ‘mindful’ of the specific needs of trans people. . . Apart from their usual meaningless refrain that trans people are protected from discrimination - as if that was some kind of munificent gift from our betters.
Is it normal in these situations to effectively dismiss what someone says is their experience as not actual reality?
November 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Is it normal in these situations to effectively dismiss what someone says is their experience as not actual reality?
Sooo, the claimants’ actual experience bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation. . . So does that mean that are wrong about their experiences or that what they experienced shouldn’t have happened under the guidance.
November 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Sooo, the claimants’ actual experience bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation. . . So does that mean that are wrong about their experiences or that what they experienced shouldn’t have happened under the guidance.
So hang on, the interim update was under consideration for a long time, but 'apparently' right up to the SC ruling they had been all in favour of the certified sex interpretation. . . How do they say these things with a straight face . . .?
November 14, 2025 at 10:15 PM
So hang on, the interim update was under consideration for a long time, but 'apparently' right up to the SC ruling they had been all in favour of the certified sex interpretation. . . How do they say these things with a straight face . . .?
And it still doesn't explain why they think that one is mutually exclusive of the other. . . I can't see any reason given by them as to why the can't work in conjunction. . .
November 14, 2025 at 9:37 PM
And it still doesn't explain why they think that one is mutually exclusive of the other. . . I can't see any reason given by them as to why the can't work in conjunction. . .
Also presumably the opposite argument can be made that section 158 makes Schedule 3 meaningless too - who determines what clause takes precedent - which again makes a mockery of the point of drafting the act.
November 14, 2025 at 9:37 PM
Also presumably the opposite argument can be made that section 158 makes Schedule 3 meaningless too - who determines what clause takes precedent - which again makes a mockery of the point of drafting the act.
It is still a peculiar argument as it wouldn't explain why the drafters of the act chose to put it in if it had no function? Given the SC was so keen in trying to divine what the drafters were intending (without looking very deeply) its mere presence would suggest it was meant to serve a purpose.
November 14, 2025 at 9:37 PM
It is still a peculiar argument as it wouldn't explain why the drafters of the act chose to put it in if it had no function? Given the SC was so keen in trying to divine what the drafters were intending (without looking very deeply) its mere presence would suggest it was meant to serve a purpose.
(Or at least section 158 is meaningless). . ?
November 14, 2025 at 9:22 PM
(Or at least section 158 is meaningless). . ?
Even if you took trans people out of the equation and it was a situation for any protected characteristic the nub of their argument seems to be section 158 can't be used as it invalidates schedule 3; but wouldn't that mean that the whole EA contradicts itself already and is unworkable . . ?
November 14, 2025 at 9:22 PM
Even if you took trans people out of the equation and it was a situation for any protected characteristic the nub of their argument seems to be section 158 can't be used as it invalidates schedule 3; but wouldn't that mean that the whole EA contradicts itself already and is unworkable . . ?
I don't get this point, surely a service provider can choose to do either. They can use section 158 and allow inclusion under a general rule and/or they can deny inclusion under schedule 3 in special circumstances. I don't see why they are incompatible. . .
November 14, 2025 at 9:22 PM
I don't get this point, surely a service provider can choose to do either. They can use section 158 and allow inclusion under a general rule and/or they can deny inclusion under schedule 3 in special circumstances. I don't see why they are incompatible. . .