@novicewatcher.bsky.social
What they *actually* want is for both of them to be banned from public life and then forcibly detransitioned. So every such ”huge problem to a sane world” goes away.
November 21, 2025 at 9:51 AM
What they *actually* want is for both of them to be banned from public life and then forcibly detransitioned. So every such ”huge problem to a sane world” goes away.
Are you leaving the country?
I am, and I know many trans people doing the same. That’s what it’s like right now.
I am, and I know many trans people doing the same. That’s what it’s like right now.
November 20, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Are you leaving the country?
I am, and I know many trans people doing the same. That’s what it’s like right now.
I am, and I know many trans people doing the same. That’s what it’s like right now.
It depends on how closely someone is looking. If it’s just a casual glance, and nobody really cares enough to look closely, they are the same thing.
So how closely is a service provider *required* to look? Telescope up to the blind eye and “I see no trans” stuff …
So how closely is a service provider *required* to look? Telescope up to the blind eye and “I see no trans” stuff …
November 20, 2025 at 9:36 AM
It depends on how closely someone is looking. If it’s just a casual glance, and nobody really cares enough to look closely, they are the same thing.
So how closely is a service provider *required* to look? Telescope up to the blind eye and “I see no trans” stuff …
So how closely is a service provider *required* to look? Telescope up to the blind eye and “I see no trans” stuff …
Well indeed that’s why the original Code of Practice default treatment was based on the gender in which people present, and why services nearly always followed that (if they did any enforcement at all, which was also rare). There is a continuum here between gender presentation and perceived sex.
November 20, 2025 at 9:36 AM
Well indeed that’s why the original Code of Practice default treatment was based on the gender in which people present, and why services nearly always followed that (if they did any enforcement at all, which was also rare). There is a continuum here between gender presentation and perceived sex.
Ahhh … the much vaunted “clarity“ has vanished back into the “it all depends on how the tribunal decides it on the day” swamp. Gotta love this.
November 20, 2025 at 9:29 AM
Ahhh … the much vaunted “clarity“ has vanished back into the “it all depends on how the tribunal decides it on the day” swamp. Gotta love this.
So “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Or “hmmm you kinda look trans, but then you might just have severe PCOS, and we don’t really want to know…”
November 20, 2025 at 9:27 AM
So “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Or “hmmm you kinda look trans, but then you might just have severe PCOS, and we don’t really want to know…”
… occasionally letting in a trans woman? But only if they didn’t notice? Isn’t that going to lead to stupid “don’t ask, don’t tell” and “you’re not allowed in, but we’re not actually going to enforce anything“ (wink, wink) approaches?
November 20, 2025 at 9:25 AM
… occasionally letting in a trans woman? But only if they didn’t notice? Isn’t that going to lead to stupid “don’t ask, don’t tell” and “you’re not allowed in, but we’re not actually going to enforce anything“ (wink, wink) approaches?
The service could invoke the para 28 exemption on a case by case basis, but that was always the law before FWS anyway. But it requires the service to have successfully invoked para 26 or para 27 in the first place.
Is the EHRC now claiming that a service can be single sex (para 27) while still …
Is the EHRC now claiming that a service can be single sex (para 27) while still …
November 20, 2025 at 9:25 AM
The service could invoke the para 28 exemption on a case by case basis, but that was always the law before FWS anyway. But it requires the service to have successfully invoked para 26 or para 27 in the first place.
Is the EHRC now claiming that a service can be single sex (para 27) while still …
Is the EHRC now claiming that a service can be single sex (para 27) while still …
Ahhh but policy is about what you do, not what you say. The EA looks at unfavourable treatment. If a trans woman who doesn’t pass is treated unfavourably compared to a trans woman who does pass that’s still discrimination. Based on *perceived* gender reassignment (which is direct discriminaton).
November 20, 2025 at 9:25 AM
Ahhh but policy is about what you do, not what you say. The EA looks at unfavourable treatment. If a trans woman who doesn’t pass is treated unfavourably compared to a trans woman who does pass that’s still discrimination. Based on *perceived* gender reassignment (which is direct discriminaton).
It’s genuinely disgusting isn’t it?
November 18, 2025 at 4:30 PM
It’s genuinely disgusting isn’t it?
It’s like the men who treated women’s sports with contempt suddenly getting interested in “protecting” them; and once they’ve forced through trans and intersex bans, together with accompanying witch hunts, chromosome tests and genital inspections, losing interest again.
November 18, 2025 at 1:49 PM
It’s like the men who treated women’s sports with contempt suddenly getting interested in “protecting” them; and once they’ve forced through trans and intersex bans, together with accompanying witch hunts, chromosome tests and genital inspections, losing interest again.
Yes I noticed that one. Not sure if Stilitz nicked your argument or independently thought of it, but well done.
November 18, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Yes I noticed that one. Not sure if Stilitz nicked your argument or independently thought of it, but well done.
In principle, judge could say ”it was helpful having two days in court hearing all your arguments, but the JR fails at permission stage because the guidance it objects to no longer exists”
November 18, 2025 at 1:38 PM
In principle, judge could say ”it was helpful having two days in court hearing all your arguments, but the JR fails at permission stage because the guidance it objects to no longer exists”
Indeed the EHRC is explicitly arguing that a cis man could sue on those grounds. So much for protecting women.
November 18, 2025 at 1:31 PM
Indeed the EHRC is explicitly arguing that a cis man could sue on those grounds. So much for protecting women.
So the idea would be that Schedule 3 para 27 say protects a women’s refuge from a cis man alleging sex discrimination because he’s denied entry? And the risk now is that the cis man says “But you let in my ex with her baby son; and a trans woman stayed last month without you even noticing. Lawsuit!”
November 18, 2025 at 1:30 PM
So the idea would be that Schedule 3 para 27 say protects a women’s refuge from a cis man alleging sex discrimination because he’s denied entry? And the risk now is that the cis man says “But you let in my ex with her baby son; and a trans woman stayed last month without you even noticing. Lawsuit!”
Unless one of them Is trans. Then it is “well established” to ignore standard practice and prattle on about retained male advantage instead.
November 17, 2025 at 8:23 AM
Unless one of them Is trans. Then it is “well established” to ignore standard practice and prattle on about retained male advantage instead.
Ahhh … but “clarity”, we must have “clarity”. That’s what got us into this mess.
There are indeed good reasons *not* to make it clear when discrimination is allowed, and how much is allowed.
There are indeed good reasons *not* to make it clear when discrimination is allowed, and how much is allowed.
November 17, 2025 at 2:23 AM
Ahhh … but “clarity”, we must have “clarity”. That’s what got us into this mess.
There are indeed good reasons *not* to make it clear when discrimination is allowed, and how much is allowed.
There are indeed good reasons *not* to make it clear when discrimination is allowed, and how much is allowed.
I’m aware the judge didn’t want to turn the hearing into a “symposium” but there is enough awkwardness and ambiguity here (and scope for future legal challenges) that it needs a proper resolution.
November 17, 2025 at 1:43 AM
I’m aware the judge didn’t want to turn the hearing into a “symposium” but there is enough awkwardness and ambiguity here (and scope for future legal challenges) that it needs a proper resolution.
It’s also an interpretive nightmare. Does a service that admits in a male cleaner or baby boy *temporarily* stop being a para 27 service for the duration, then flip back when they leave? Does that mean that while the baby or cleaner’s there, any cis man can use it too? That doesn’t seem reasonable.
November 16, 2025 at 11:23 PM
It’s also an interpretive nightmare. Does a service that admits in a male cleaner or baby boy *temporarily* stop being a para 27 service for the duration, then flip back when they leave? Does that mean that while the baby or cleaner’s there, any cis man can use it too? That doesn’t seem reasonable.
It seems this is exactly the sort of mechanism that could allow the service provider to admit young boys, cleaners, maintenance men etc as part of the definition of the service (without any derogations needed) … and allow them to admit trans women too.
November 16, 2025 at 11:08 PM
It seems this is exactly the sort of mechanism that could allow the service provider to admit young boys, cleaners, maintenance men etc as part of the definition of the service (without any derogations needed) … and allow them to admit trans women too.
Both of these seem perfectly well worded to allow a service to be provided *mostly* to one birth sex but to a few members of the other birth sex too … especially if there is different need viz para 26 (2). While still allowing the service provider to exempt itself from Section 13.
November 16, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Both of these seem perfectly well worded to allow a service to be provided *mostly* to one birth sex but to a few members of the other birth sex too … especially if there is different need viz para 26 (2). While still allowing the service provider to exempt itself from Section 13.
A major problem is that Schedule 3, para 27 doesn’t appear (on a plain reading of “only”) to allow derogations *at all*. So the plain reading doesn’t permit baby boys, cleaners etc.
What is also frustrating here is the persistent focus on para 27 rather than the para 26 and para 30 exemptions.
What is also frustrating here is the persistent focus on para 27 rather than the para 26 and para 30 exemptions.
November 16, 2025 at 11:04 PM
A major problem is that Schedule 3, para 27 doesn’t appear (on a plain reading of “only”) to allow derogations *at all*. So the plain reading doesn’t permit baby boys, cleaners etc.
What is also frustrating here is the persistent focus on para 27 rather than the para 26 and para 30 exemptions.
What is also frustrating here is the persistent focus on para 27 rather than the para 26 and para 30 exemptions.
I honestly don‘t get this point. A service that permits women to bring in young boys does so “persistently” doesn’t it? So that’s a persistent derogation too.
Or if it’s an “intermittent” derogation (active only when a boy is present) why isn’t the derogation for a trans woman intermittent?
Or if it’s an “intermittent” derogation (active only when a boy is present) why isn’t the derogation for a trans woman intermittent?
November 16, 2025 at 11:04 PM
I honestly don‘t get this point. A service that permits women to bring in young boys does so “persistently” doesn’t it? So that’s a persistent derogation too.
Or if it’s an “intermittent” derogation (active only when a boy is present) why isn’t the derogation for a trans woman intermittent?
Or if it’s an “intermittent” derogation (active only when a boy is present) why isn’t the derogation for a trans woman intermittent?
The “protect women and girls” crew, led by Rowling, are of course making a huge fuss about the de facto decriminalisation of rape.
Aren’t they? Hello?
Seems they only care about rape when they can accuse trans people of doing it. Odd that.
Aren’t they? Hello?
Seems they only care about rape when they can accuse trans people of doing it. Odd that.
November 16, 2025 at 10:26 PM
The “protect women and girls” crew, led by Rowling, are of course making a huge fuss about the de facto decriminalisation of rape.
Aren’t they? Hello?
Seems they only care about rape when they can accuse trans people of doing it. Odd that.
Aren’t they? Hello?
Seems they only care about rape when they can accuse trans people of doing it. Odd that.
This may be a protected philosophical belief fairly soon “Semitic critical”.
November 16, 2025 at 10:16 PM
This may be a protected philosophical belief fairly soon “Semitic critical”.