Chris Wright
@scotssong.bsky.social
Ethnologist/Folklorist. Scots Songs & Ballads. Street literature. All views here are personal. Follows/Reposts not necessarily endorsements.
Mr Jekyll PGDip and Mr Hyde
September 8, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Mr Jekyll PGDip and Mr Hyde
This is the kind of blatant misrepresentation of the law as Stonewall-wishes-it-were rather than what it actually is. The SC judgement is the law and always has been.
August 11, 2025 at 4:11 PM
This is the kind of blatant misrepresentation of the law as Stonewall-wishes-it-were rather than what it actually is. The SC judgement is the law and always has been.
You're right that all charities should be held to the same standards. However, there's no justification for continuing on as before after the unanimous Court ruling. Failing to comply now is unlawful *right now*, regardless of whenever the EHRC gets around to updating its guidance.
July 22, 2025 at 1:26 PM
You're right that all charities should be held to the same standards. However, there's no justification for continuing on as before after the unanimous Court ruling. Failing to comply now is unlawful *right now*, regardless of whenever the EHRC gets around to updating its guidance.
If you're right that EHRC was misadvising orgs - and this is the first I've heard of it - they have a lot to answer for. I do thing there's a substantive difference in a mandated org like EHRC giving guidance and chairities like Stonewall behaving like legal advisors.
July 22, 2025 at 1:17 PM
If you're right that EHRC was misadvising orgs - and this is the first I've heard of it - they have a lot to answer for. I do thing there's a substantive difference in a mandated org like EHRC giving guidance and chairities like Stonewall behaving like legal advisors.
Thanks for the input. I'll read it when I have time. On the issue of enforcement - the Court judgement clarifies what the law has always been, so if the EHRC guidance (and guidance is not the same as law) misled orgs, then that is also to blame.
July 22, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Thanks for the input. I'll read it when I have time. On the issue of enforcement - the Court judgement clarifies what the law has always been, so if the EHRC guidance (and guidance is not the same as law) misled orgs, then that is also to blame.
And this is from 2011? Do you have a link to the full document? I'd like to see the context.
July 22, 2025 at 11:26 AM
And this is from 2011? Do you have a link to the full document? I'd like to see the context.
Does this apply to people with a GRC or any trans-identifying person, based solely on their say so?
July 22, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Does this apply to people with a GRC or any trans-identifying person, based solely on their say so?
And what does it say about permitting men in women's single sex spaces?
July 22, 2025 at 10:33 AM
And what does it say about permitting men in women's single sex spaces?
If you have evidence that the EHRC was explicitly advising orgs to admit trans people to opposite sex spaces before the Supreme Court judgement, I'd appreciate your sharing it.
July 22, 2025 at 9:42 AM
If you have evidence that the EHRC was explicitly advising orgs to admit trans people to opposite sex spaces before the Supreme Court judgement, I'd appreciate your sharing it.
'Opinion' doing all the heavy lifting in that sentence.
July 22, 2025 at 9:39 AM
'Opinion' doing all the heavy lifting in that sentence.
The EHRC hasn't been telling employers to discriminate against anyone - they've been ensuring compliance with the law *as it has always been*. Stonewall and the DEI lanyard class, on the other hand, wilfully misled orgs into unlawful behaviour.
July 21, 2025 at 4:43 PM
The EHRC hasn't been telling employers to discriminate against anyone - they've been ensuring compliance with the law *as it has always been*. Stonewall and the DEI lanyard class, on the other hand, wilfully misled orgs into unlawful behaviour.
And ultimately, the onus is on activists to produce and accurately describe proper science, not polemic masquerading as incontrovertible fact.
July 21, 2025 at 12:50 PM
And ultimately, the onus is on activists to produce and accurately describe proper science, not polemic masquerading as incontrovertible fact.
The reviews of Cass I've read which are highly negative lack sound critical appraisal - they instead double down by relying on the masses of poor quality studies Cass found in her metastudy. You can't criticise Cass for upholding scientific standards - that was the point of the study.
July 21, 2025 at 12:50 PM
The reviews of Cass I've read which are highly negative lack sound critical appraisal - they instead double down by relying on the masses of poor quality studies Cass found in her metastudy. You can't criticise Cass for upholding scientific standards - that was the point of the study.
That's who Badenoch was referring to in her tweet - the one you posted a screenshot of.
July 21, 2025 at 12:34 PM
That's who Badenoch was referring to in her tweet - the one you posted a screenshot of.
States what? That an eminently qualified and thorough doctor produced a seminal report, the conclusions of which don't fit your narrative? Do you even hear yourself?
July 21, 2025 at 12:24 PM
States what? That an eminently qualified and thorough doctor produced a seminal report, the conclusions of which don't fit your narrative? Do you even hear yourself?
The spate of employment tribunals brought by women against their employers for sanctioning their staff who believe in biological sex would seem to contradict your assertion.
July 18, 2025 at 12:31 AM
The spate of employment tribunals brought by women against their employers for sanctioning their staff who believe in biological sex would seem to contradict your assertion.
Those hyperspecific AIs should be orders of magnitude more reliable and accurate than general purpose LLMs.
June 6, 2025 at 7:53 PM
Those hyperspecific AIs should be orders of magnitude more reliable and accurate than general purpose LLMs.
As I understand it that's precisely what's being proposed - different companies train their own base AIs on specific sets of data, e.g. particular areas of medicine, or types/jurisdictions of law, etc, using a large body of training data. Then the company leases the AI API to law firms etc...
June 6, 2025 at 7:52 PM
As I understand it that's precisely what's being proposed - different companies train their own base AIs on specific sets of data, e.g. particular areas of medicine, or types/jurisdictions of law, etc, using a large body of training data. Then the company leases the AI API to law firms etc...
You'll have to point to where I said anything of the sort. And by 'assigned female', what do you mean exactly? If you mean you're a woman, then I have to say you speak for precisely one more woman than I do, since I don't speak for any. I care about the women in my life and women I general.
May 2, 2025 at 8:51 PM
You'll have to point to where I said anything of the sort. And by 'assigned female', what do you mean exactly? If you mean you're a woman, then I have to say you speak for precisely one more woman than I do, since I don't speak for any. I care about the women in my life and women I general.
What is this if not an attempt to dismiss someone based on aspects of their identity you've selected as somehow unworthy?
May 2, 2025 at 8:37 PM
What is this if not an attempt to dismiss someone based on aspects of their identity you've selected as somehow unworthy?
I have no idea who you are. And despite your attempt to categorise me in order to dismiss me, neither do you have any idea who I am or what motivates me. All I'm interested in is
your substantiating your claims - a universal expectation. Whether you're up to the task is for you to demonstrate.
your substantiating your claims - a universal expectation. Whether you're up to the task is for you to demonstrate.
May 2, 2025 at 7:26 PM
I have no idea who you are. And despite your attempt to categorise me in order to dismiss me, neither do you have any idea who I am or what motivates me. All I'm interested in is
your substantiating your claims - a universal expectation. Whether you're up to the task is for you to demonstrate.
your substantiating your claims - a universal expectation. Whether you're up to the task is for you to demonstrate.
You behave as if I should think my identity is the most important thing about me. I do not. Your eagerness to ascribe motivations to me based on what you perceive as my sex, colour, origin, etc is hugely regressive, and dare I say, bigoted. Ideas and arguments are far more important to me. To you?
May 2, 2025 at 7:23 PM
You behave as if I should think my identity is the most important thing about me. I do not. Your eagerness to ascribe motivations to me based on what you perceive as my sex, colour, origin, etc is hugely regressive, and dare I say, bigoted. Ideas and arguments are far more important to me. To you?
Again, you'll have to present evidence to back up such an assertion. Biology is pretty clear that sex is binary. And I know a thing or two about anthropology. And science. I'll be able to understand any substance you choose to offer. But assertions and articles of faith are not sufficient.
May 2, 2025 at 7:19 PM
Again, you'll have to present evidence to back up such an assertion. Biology is pretty clear that sex is binary. And I know a thing or two about anthropology. And science. I'll be able to understand any substance you choose to offer. But assertions and articles of faith are not sufficient.
You'll have to present evidence to back up your claim, because as far as I'm aware, nothing of the kind is 'standard' in any of those cultures. You seem very concerned about ascribing an identity to me: cis-, male, British, you're missing a few others tropes... Why is that?
May 2, 2025 at 6:56 PM
You'll have to present evidence to back up your claim, because as far as I'm aware, nothing of the kind is 'standard' in any of those cultures. You seem very concerned about ascribing an identity to me: cis-, male, British, you're missing a few others tropes... Why is that?
Is there any slur you won't throw around to avoid having to substantiate your points? It's easy to cast baseless accusations, isn't it? Quite difficult to develop internally coherent arguments, isn't it? You're digging yourself deeper, and deeper, and only you can save yourself.
May 2, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Is there any slur you won't throw around to avoid having to substantiate your points? It's easy to cast baseless accusations, isn't it? Quite difficult to develop internally coherent arguments, isn't it? You're digging yourself deeper, and deeper, and only you can save yourself.