Jenni Liz
@wrennijen.bsky.social
Scientist turned data scientist, lefty feminist, disabled, loves statistics, hates grapefruit, ambivalent about marmite. She/her.
PROTECT OUR WOMEN BRING BACK JACK THE RIPPER
August 13, 2025 at 7:06 PM
PROTECT OUR WOMEN BRING BACK JACK THE RIPPER
I always find this (his) argument weird anyway, and confusing. Why the English/British distinction? What about people who live in England, but in a part of England that was Scotland not that long ago? Or are Scottish people English, per this definition?
June 30, 2025 at 9:15 PM
I always find this (his) argument weird anyway, and confusing. Why the English/British distinction? What about people who live in England, but in a part of England that was Scotland not that long ago? Or are Scottish people English, per this definition?
Why is it upside down? I don't know much about jam
June 4, 2025 at 5:56 AM
Why is it upside down? I don't know much about jam
This chart isn't incomes, it's earnings
May 21, 2025 at 6:16 PM
This chart isn't incomes, it's earnings
It's so good. The Taylors one is really good, better than Twinings I think.
May 21, 2025 at 12:18 PM
It's so good. The Taylors one is really good, better than Twinings I think.
Apart from all the other obvious issues with this, it surely amounts to sex discrimination if women can't access toilets/healthcare/public spaces without bringing their birth certificate, but men are free to do what they like? Or are they also going to ban men from the men's loos?
May 21, 2025 at 7:04 AM
Apart from all the other obvious issues with this, it surely amounts to sex discrimination if women can't access toilets/healthcare/public spaces without bringing their birth certificate, but men are free to do what they like? Or are they also going to ban men from the men's loos?
How is it unambiguous, if different people are assuming it to mean different things?
April 16, 2025 at 9:36 PM
How is it unambiguous, if different people are assuming it to mean different things?
So it's based on chromosomes, is that what you're saying?
And is this what you think the law means, or what you personally think it should be?
And is this what you think the law means, or what you personally think it should be?
April 16, 2025 at 7:28 PM
So it's based on chromosomes, is that what you're saying?
And is this what you think the law means, or what you personally think it should be?
And is this what you think the law means, or what you personally think it should be?
Yes, I'm serious. How will people know whether I should be allowed to eg enter a women's chess competition?
April 16, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Yes, I'm serious. How will people know whether I should be allowed to eg enter a women's chess competition?
And how will that be recognised? How will you know which gamete someone would have the capacity to produce?
April 16, 2025 at 6:33 PM
And how will that be recognised? How will you know which gamete someone would have the capacity to produce?
We don't have any trouble now
April 16, 2025 at 6:25 PM
We don't have any trouble now
I look forward to the installation of functioning-SRY-gene detectors on toilet doors.
April 16, 2025 at 4:33 PM
I look forward to the installation of functioning-SRY-gene detectors on toilet doors.
And how is my sex defined?
April 16, 2025 at 4:20 PM
And how is my sex defined?
Everyone is saying it's easy, but I genuinely want to know the answer and nobody can tell me. If I get taken to hospital tonight, which ward do they put me on?
April 16, 2025 at 4:18 PM
Everyone is saying it's easy, but I genuinely want to know the answer and nobody can tell me. If I get taken to hospital tonight, which ward do they put me on?
What the fuck?? If it's not ambiguous, why do I not know what it means???
April 16, 2025 at 4:04 PM
What the fuck?? If it's not ambiguous, why do I not know what it means???
Is that what it's saying? I genuinely don't understand it. Is it saying GRCs don't count? It's still possible that a trans woman could be biologically female, dependent on the definition?
I hope I haven't implied I think these exclusions are necessary. I don't believe trans women pose a threat.
I hope I haven't implied I think these exclusions are necessary. I don't believe trans women pose a threat.
April 16, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Is that what it's saying? I genuinely don't understand it. Is it saying GRCs don't count? It's still possible that a trans woman could be biologically female, dependent on the definition?
I hope I haven't implied I think these exclusions are necessary. I don't believe trans women pose a threat.
I hope I haven't implied I think these exclusions are necessary. I don't believe trans women pose a threat.
So how do you decide who fits in each category?
April 16, 2025 at 3:38 PM
So how do you decide who fits in each category?
And if it wasn't, then single sex spaces wouldn't exist.
Women-only spaces discriminate against men. Biological-women-only spaces (parking for now the difficulties with that definition) discriminate against trans women. Is this a judgement on a specific case where this was deemed proportionate?
Women-only spaces discriminate against men. Biological-women-only spaces (parking for now the difficulties with that definition) discriminate against trans women. Is this a judgement on a specific case where this was deemed proportionate?
April 16, 2025 at 3:32 PM
And if it wasn't, then single sex spaces wouldn't exist.
Women-only spaces discriminate against men. Biological-women-only spaces (parking for now the difficulties with that definition) discriminate against trans women. Is this a judgement on a specific case where this was deemed proportionate?
Women-only spaces discriminate against men. Biological-women-only spaces (parking for now the difficulties with that definition) discriminate against trans women. Is this a judgement on a specific case where this was deemed proportionate?
Im so confused by it all.
It seems like the judgement is saying that it's OK to exclude e.g. trans women from women's spaces if proportionate. But then that wouldn't be necessary as a ruling, because it was already ok to discriminate against people *if proportionate*.
It seems like the judgement is saying that it's OK to exclude e.g. trans women from women's spaces if proportionate. But then that wouldn't be necessary as a ruling, because it was already ok to discriminate against people *if proportionate*.
April 16, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Im so confused by it all.
It seems like the judgement is saying that it's OK to exclude e.g. trans women from women's spaces if proportionate. But then that wouldn't be necessary as a ruling, because it was already ok to discriminate against people *if proportionate*.
It seems like the judgement is saying that it's OK to exclude e.g. trans women from women's spaces if proportionate. But then that wouldn't be necessary as a ruling, because it was already ok to discriminate against people *if proportionate*.
"Simply put, the Court has unanimously adjudged that trans men and trans women are not included in the sex based protections of the Equality Act 2010"
This can't be right, can it? *Everyone* is protected by the Equality Act, not just women.
This can't be right, can it? *Everyone* is protected by the Equality Act, not just women.
April 16, 2025 at 3:28 PM
"Simply put, the Court has unanimously adjudged that trans men and trans women are not included in the sex based protections of the Equality Act 2010"
This can't be right, can it? *Everyone* is protected by the Equality Act, not just women.
This can't be right, can it? *Everyone* is protected by the Equality Act, not just women.
I was quoting you. You said those conditions are abnormalities. I'm asking what the relevance is.
April 16, 2025 at 3:23 PM
I was quoting you. You said those conditions are abnormalities. I'm asking what the relevance is.
Seems to me that everyone is going to get screwed here. How biologically female do we have to be? What are the checks?
April 16, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Seems to me that everyone is going to get screwed here. How biologically female do we have to be? What are the checks?
But what relevance is it whether or not it's a syndrome? Even if you want to class all intersex people and trans people as 'abnormalities', where does that leave us? How do you put these 'abnormalities' into the binary that the judge declared?
April 16, 2025 at 3:10 PM
But what relevance is it whether or not it's a syndrome? Even if you want to class all intersex people and trans people as 'abnormalities', where does that leave us? How do you put these 'abnormalities' into the binary that the judge declared?