The Cock Womble
@thecockwomble.bsky.social
Woke Social Justice Warrior seeking refuge from X
There will be no reconciliation (and there must be a reconciliation) if neither side is willing to at least acknowledge the concerns of the other, which is what appears to be happening. You dismiss the other side's opinion as readily as they dismiss yours.
April 25, 2025 at 11:08 PM
There will be no reconciliation (and there must be a reconciliation) if neither side is willing to at least acknowledge the concerns of the other, which is what appears to be happening. You dismiss the other side's opinion as readily as they dismiss yours.
I will not accept accusations of fascism in this argument. This is not about fascism whatsoever and to suggest it is, is facile.
This is not a zero sum game. There are two equally valid arguments, which conflict at points. The challenge is to understand how to reconcile these positions.
This is not a zero sum game. There are two equally valid arguments, which conflict at points. The challenge is to understand how to reconcile these positions.
April 25, 2025 at 11:08 PM
I will not accept accusations of fascism in this argument. This is not about fascism whatsoever and to suggest it is, is facile.
This is not a zero sum game. There are two equally valid arguments, which conflict at points. The challenge is to understand how to reconcile these positions.
This is not a zero sum game. There are two equally valid arguments, which conflict at points. The challenge is to understand how to reconcile these positions.
However, I also understand the argument some feminists put forward that in order to achieve parity between men and women, i.e. recognise that in society men generally have an advantage over women and address it, we must recognise that men and women are different in some respects.
April 25, 2025 at 11:08 PM
However, I also understand the argument some feminists put forward that in order to achieve parity between men and women, i.e. recognise that in society men generally have an advantage over women and address it, we must recognise that men and women are different in some respects.
None of that reflects my opinion, which is that the SC ruling hasn't clarified anything. I believe that biological sex should be defined in law if it is to be the reference for these acts. I also understand biological sex is a spectrum and believe that psychology, not anatomy, is fundamental.
April 25, 2025 at 11:08 PM
None of that reflects my opinion, which is that the SC ruling hasn't clarified anything. I believe that biological sex should be defined in law if it is to be the reference for these acts. I also understand biological sex is a spectrum and believe that psychology, not anatomy, is fundamental.
My observation is that, contrary to some commentators' opinions, which assume the SC misread or misinterpreted the Equality Act, one of the original authors of the act seems to have confirmed that is not the case.
It's therefore possible many people simply misunderstood the 2010 Act.
It's therefore possible many people simply misunderstood the 2010 Act.
April 25, 2025 at 11:08 PM
My observation is that, contrary to some commentators' opinions, which assume the SC misread or misinterpreted the Equality Act, one of the original authors of the act seems to have confirmed that is not the case.
It's therefore possible many people simply misunderstood the 2010 Act.
It's therefore possible many people simply misunderstood the 2010 Act.
I haven't contradicted anything I've previously said. It's possible to observe something without passing judgement or coming down on one side of the argument or the other. I try to understand all sides of an argument if possible.
April 25, 2025 at 11:08 PM
I haven't contradicted anything I've previously said. It's possible to observe something without passing judgement or coming down on one side of the argument or the other. I try to understand all sides of an argument if possible.
Now, I don't agree that the ruling clarifies or solves anything. But it's hard to argue with the person who drafted the original bill about what they in fact intended for it.
I'm sure, if she felt the judges had got it fundamentally wrong, she would say so.
I'm sure, if she felt the judges had got it fundamentally wrong, she would say so.
April 25, 2025 at 12:00 PM
Now, I don't agree that the ruling clarifies or solves anything. But it's hard to argue with the person who drafted the original bill about what they in fact intended for it.
I'm sure, if she felt the judges had got it fundamentally wrong, she would say so.
I'm sure, if she felt the judges had got it fundamentally wrong, she would say so.
She is not claiming that the judges got it wrong or misinterpreted the intention of the 2010 Act. She is not deriding them for their decision. She seems to be agreeing that the clarification of the law passed down is the correct one.
April 25, 2025 at 12:00 PM
She is not claiming that the judges got it wrong or misinterpreted the intention of the 2010 Act. She is not deriding them for their decision. She seems to be agreeing that the clarification of the law passed down is the correct one.
This is an interesting response from Baroness Harman, who drafted and introduced the Equality bill (Equality Act 2010):
"What we've got to do now, is with the Supreme Court having clarified what we said all along in the 2010 act, that consensus has got to be rebuilt."
news.sky.com/story/suprem...
"What we've got to do now, is with the Supreme Court having clarified what we said all along in the 2010 act, that consensus has got to be rebuilt."
news.sky.com/story/suprem...
news.sky.com
April 25, 2025 at 12:00 PM
This is an interesting response from Baroness Harman, who drafted and introduced the Equality bill (Equality Act 2010):
"What we've got to do now, is with the Supreme Court having clarified what we said all along in the 2010 act, that consensus has got to be rebuilt."
news.sky.com/story/suprem...
"What we've got to do now, is with the Supreme Court having clarified what we said all along in the 2010 act, that consensus has got to be rebuilt."
news.sky.com/story/suprem...
But I don't think they recognise the hypocrisy of it at all, hence the cognitive dissonance. They believe everything they say. They say it therefore it's true. Alternative facts. Reality is their reality.
April 25, 2025 at 6:06 AM
But I don't think they recognise the hypocrisy of it at all, hence the cognitive dissonance. They believe everything they say. They say it therefore it's true. Alternative facts. Reality is their reality.
I'm not convinced that's entirely true. Yes, it is certainly about power. But I think they truly believe they are right, they can do no wrong, and that the only problem was having the wrong person in the group. It is about double standards - rules for them and rules for us.
April 25, 2025 at 6:06 AM
I'm not convinced that's entirely true. Yes, it is certainly about power. But I think they truly believe they are right, they can do no wrong, and that the only problem was having the wrong person in the group. It is about double standards - rules for them and rules for us.
This is the kind of measured response I would expect. Jardin has challenged the minister responsible - not the Prime Minister - to look at and improve the legislation. Again, this is exactly what I would expect.
This is an example of respectful politics, something that was missing from the Tories.
This is an example of respectful politics, something that was missing from the Tories.
April 24, 2025 at 10:03 PM
This is the kind of measured response I would expect. Jardin has challenged the minister responsible - not the Prime Minister - to look at and improve the legislation. Again, this is exactly what I would expect.
This is an example of respectful politics, something that was missing from the Tories.
This is an example of respectful politics, something that was missing from the Tories.
Jardin doesn't come out and contradict the court's ruling, she hasn't shouted down the idea that only biological women are women. She hasn't questioned what a biological woman is. In fact, in tone and general sentiment her response isn't so different from Starmer's.
April 24, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Jardin doesn't come out and contradict the court's ruling, she hasn't shouted down the idea that only biological women are women. She hasn't questioned what a biological woman is. In fact, in tone and general sentiment her response isn't so different from Starmer's.
Interestingly the response does not question the ruling itself. Just as Starmer did, there was no direct criticism of the judgement or questioning of the integrity of the court. There was no explicit opinion about whether the decision was right or wrong, just concern about the implications.
April 24, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Interestingly the response does not question the ruling itself. Just as Starmer did, there was no direct criticism of the judgement or questioning of the integrity of the court. There was no explicit opinion about whether the decision was right or wrong, just concern about the implications.
The government can't do anything, only parliament can. Sure, Labour could draft and bring forward legislation but only parliament can accept that legislation and vote it into law. Like I said before, this issue has no mandate at this time.
April 24, 2025 at 4:37 PM
The government can't do anything, only parliament can. Sure, Labour could draft and bring forward legislation but only parliament can accept that legislation and vote it into law. Like I said before, this issue has no mandate at this time.
No. It's not about Starmer. I was arguing a point of principle about the office of the Prime Minister. It doesn't matter who holds that office, I would expect them to uphold and respect the judgements of the courts in the first instance; not to reactively undermine the judiciary.
April 24, 2025 at 4:37 PM
No. It's not about Starmer. I was arguing a point of principle about the office of the Prime Minister. It doesn't matter who holds that office, I would expect them to uphold and respect the judgements of the courts in the first instance; not to reactively undermine the judiciary.
I'm not a Labour voter. I have never voted Labour. What's interesting is I'm not hearing dissenting views from the other progressive parties either. I don't expect the Tories or Reform to be sympathetic but the silence from the Lib Dems is interesting for example.
April 24, 2025 at 4:19 PM
I'm not a Labour voter. I have never voted Labour. What's interesting is I'm not hearing dissenting views from the other progressive parties either. I don't expect the Tories or Reform to be sympathetic but the silence from the Lib Dems is interesting for example.
Yes, it matters. But I can't do very much about it. I can argue with people on these platforms, and believe me I have, but my reach is limited and my influence is narrow.
April 24, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Yes, it matters. But I can't do very much about it. I can argue with people on these platforms, and believe me I have, but my reach is limited and my influence is narrow.
Therefore, we attempt to level the playing field with positive discrimination, e.g. Labour's women only short lists. That brings us right back to the question of what a woman is. And round and round we go.
April 24, 2025 at 4:08 PM
Therefore, we attempt to level the playing field with positive discrimination, e.g. Labour's women only short lists. That brings us right back to the question of what a woman is. And round and round we go.
The fundamental issue is then how to ensure equality. Clearly, many women believe men will cheat to retain a position of supremacy. What you're describing relies on men playing fair and recognising women as validly equal. Unfortunately many men simply don't.
April 24, 2025 at 4:08 PM
The fundamental issue is then how to ensure equality. Clearly, many women believe men will cheat to retain a position of supremacy. What you're describing relies on men playing fair and recognising women as validly equal. Unfortunately many men simply don't.
I assume that many feminists might argue that sex, men vs women, is the only reason why women have generally suffered at the hands of men forever. And that only by recognising that women are different from men can we truly elevate them to a position of equality. Different but equal.
April 24, 2025 at 4:08 PM
I assume that many feminists might argue that sex, men vs women, is the only reason why women have generally suffered at the hands of men forever. And that only by recognising that women are different from men can we truly elevate them to a position of equality. Different but equal.
I understand what you're getting at. But I just don't think most people, including politicians and judges, would agree.
Most people, I'd imagine, believe sex is simply male and female. That's what we're taught at school, that's what most of us experience
Anything else is 'woke nonsense'.
Most people, I'd imagine, believe sex is simply male and female. That's what we're taught at school, that's what most of us experience
Anything else is 'woke nonsense'.
April 24, 2025 at 3:53 PM
I understand what you're getting at. But I just don't think most people, including politicians and judges, would agree.
Most people, I'd imagine, believe sex is simply male and female. That's what we're taught at school, that's what most of us experience
Anything else is 'woke nonsense'.
Most people, I'd imagine, believe sex is simply male and female. That's what we're taught at school, that's what most of us experience
Anything else is 'woke nonsense'.
I don't believe there'd be widespread support for the idea of generally ignoring sex/gender as a differentiating characteristic. Many women, I believe, would baulk at the idea that their identity as women might be irrelevant. Men are often threatened when their masculinity is questioned.
April 24, 2025 at 3:39 PM
I don't believe there'd be widespread support for the idea of generally ignoring sex/gender as a differentiating characteristic. Many women, I believe, would baulk at the idea that their identity as women might be irrelevant. Men are often threatened when their masculinity is questioned.