Page 3 | Excellent from Trevor Phillips

Theeyeballsinthesky · 2026-05-22T12:31:37+00:00

Oh he gets it https://x.com/trevorptweets/status/2057780825148490016?s=46

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 23/05/2026 14:15

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/05/2026 10:18

Having read (as much as I can comprehend of) the new guidance, I am concerned that a lot of the examples seem to be conflating the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" with anyone who feels that they have a "gender identity.". Thereby, in practice, stretching the category of "gender reassignment."

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I seeing things that aren't there (entirely possible with this guidance)?

Show quote history

Yes I agree, maybe an attempt at normalising GR and GI as being one and the same. Slippery slope. 😤

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/05/2026 13:53

Manxexile · 23/05/2026 13:37

I think the problem is what I would consider to be the unnecessarily wide definition of "gender reassignment" in the EA itself.

s7(1) says: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." [My bold for emphasis]

What exactly does "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process)" actually mean?

Could self-IDing as a gender opposite to one's biological sex be argued to be the first step in, or part of, the process of gender reassignment?

Parliament should have set a higher bar for what qualified as gender reassignment.

Show quote history

Good point, more foresight would have saved everyone a lot of angst later on, but I'm sure that those who cared didn't realize, and those who realized didn't care, if that makes sense?

1984Now · 23/05/2026 13:48

Other than Glinner, Richard Dawkins, Billboard Chris, Charlie Kirk and Ricky Gervais, I really can't think of any high profile male commentators who've pitched overt and unrepentant GC views.
This I'm sure is maddening to GC women out there, but as a GC male myself, I view this as a major failure by my clan.
Men allowed this to happen, ramped up the institutional capture, and have been near non existent in cleaning up the mess.
Women have totally shouldered the burden, most visibly JKR, but also the fantastically feisty female journalists and activists out there, and the canaries in the coalmine (Forstater, Peggie, Darlington nurses etc).
Men have crapped themselves over this, which is why Trevor's words are so important.

Manxexile · 23/05/2026 13:42

Shortshriftandlethal · 22/05/2026 16:55

Surely we just need for people to understand the issue. This is the most important thing. We don't require them to politically correct as well

Show quote history

This ^

I'm truly amazed at the number of posters who seem to have completely missed the point and are quibbling about whether it's politically correct to refer to women as mothers, wives, sisters and daughters,

Knee-jerk "Whoooosh!"

Madness

Manxexile · 23/05/2026 13:37

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/05/2026 10:18

Having read (as much as I can comprehend of) the new guidance, I am concerned that a lot of the examples seem to be conflating the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" with anyone who feels that they have a "gender identity.". Thereby, in practice, stretching the category of "gender reassignment."

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I seeing things that aren't there (entirely possible with this guidance)?

Show quote history

I think the problem is what I would consider to be the unnecessarily wide definition of "gender reassignment" in the EA itself.

s7(1) says: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." [My bold for emphasis]

What exactly does "proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process)" actually mean?

Could self-IDing as a gender opposite to one's biological sex be argued to be the first step in, or part of, the process of gender reassignment?

Parliament should have set a higher bar for what qualified as gender reassignment.

TempestTost · 23/05/2026 13:37

I don't think I've ever seen a flat only for one sex, unless it was a flat share. IN which case I think you are allowed to refuse someone for any reason you like, even if it's a nasty reason.

TempestTost · 23/05/2026 13:35

TriesNotToBeCynical · 23/05/2026 13:15

The idea being you can't refuse to consider him for the job or flat because you know he's not really a woman.

@TempestTost I don't think that is quite right; if the flat is only for women you must refuse to consider him. However if the flat is for men, or if the flat is for men or women, then you can't refuse to consider him because of his transgender characteristic.

Ah, yes, I was thinking in the normal run of a person renting a flat.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 23/05/2026 13:20

TriesNotToBeCynical · 23/05/2026 13:15

The idea being you can't refuse to consider him for the job or flat because you know he's not really a woman.

@TempestTost I don't think that is quite right; if the flat is only for women you must refuse to consider him. However if the flat is for men, or if the flat is for men or women, then you can't refuse to consider him because of his transgender characteristic.

Though the GRA creates some paradoxes and it may depend why the flat is only for one sex.

TriesNotToBeCynical · 23/05/2026 13:15

The idea being you can't refuse to consider him for the job or flat because you know he's not really a woman.

@TempestTost I don't think that is quite right; if the flat is only for women you must refuse to consider him. However if the flat is for men, or if the flat is for men or women, then you can't refuse to consider him because of his transgender characteristic.

TempestTost · 23/05/2026 12:20

NecessaryScene · 23/05/2026 06:57

The general understanding was that "gender reassignment" in the EA was to cover people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery, or were planning to or had applied for a GRC. (Which in turn was generally assumed to apply to people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery.)

This obviously wasn't very well thought out, but it was thought of as a clear subset of people, with there being a clear process, much like a citizenship or residence application, not just a man saying "I'm a woman now".

Obviously many of those actually pushing for the laws were seeing them as a mechanism that could be twisted into men being able to just say "I'm a woman now", but that wasn't what lawmakers generally thought they were doing, and many were actively trying to make sure they didn't create that situation.

Yes this.

I think it was intended for the guy who shows up at an inter iew or flat showing, and he's medically transitioned and using female coded clothes, name, etc.

The idea being you can't refuse to consider him for the job or flat because you know he's not really a woman.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 23/05/2026 11:26

By Norman Tebbit, of all people!

OldCrone · 23/05/2026 11:26

NecessaryScene · 23/05/2026 06:57

The general understanding was that "gender reassignment" in the EA was to cover people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery, or were planning to or had applied for a GRC. (Which in turn was generally assumed to apply to people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery.)

This obviously wasn't very well thought out, but it was thought of as a clear subset of people, with there being a clear process, much like a citizenship or residence application, not just a man saying "I'm a woman now".

Obviously many of those actually pushing for the laws were seeing them as a mechanism that could be twisted into men being able to just say "I'm a woman now", but that wasn't what lawmakers generally thought they were doing, and many were actively trying to make sure they didn't create that situation.

If you read the debates in Hansard, the pitfalls were all pointed out at the time, but were ignored by a Labour government determined to push this through.

And yes, organisations like Press for Change definitely wanted crossdressers to be covered by this law, but managed to convince the government otherwise in order to get it passed.

ScrollingLeaves · 23/05/2026 11:06

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

1984Now · 23/05/2026 10:57

nicepotoftea · 23/05/2026 06:54

2004 “These poor chaps have lopped off their whatsits, which puts them in a frightful pickle if they can’t pretend to be women. We should do the decent thing and give them some papers to make things easier”.

2015 “What even is a woman?”

"Thin end of wedge, meet thick end"

BridgetPhillipsonIsACowardlyJobsworth · 23/05/2026 10:18

NecessaryScene · 23/05/2026 06:57

The general understanding was that "gender reassignment" in the EA was to cover people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery, or were planning to or had applied for a GRC. (Which in turn was generally assumed to apply to people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery.)

This obviously wasn't very well thought out, but it was thought of as a clear subset of people, with there being a clear process, much like a citizenship or residence application, not just a man saying "I'm a woman now".

Obviously many of those actually pushing for the laws were seeing them as a mechanism that could be twisted into men being able to just say "I'm a woman now", but that wasn't what lawmakers generally thought they were doing, and many were actively trying to make sure they didn't create that situation.

Having read (as much as I can comprehend of) the new guidance, I am concerned that a lot of the examples seem to be conflating the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" with anyone who feels that they have a "gender identity.". Thereby, in practice, stretching the category of "gender reassignment."

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I seeing things that aren't there (entirely possible with this guidance)?

MMGA · 23/05/2026 08:00

spannasaurus · 22/05/2026 15:46

We men need to hear their voices.

He was talking to men and saying these aren't random women they're your mothers, daughters, wives and sisters.

My mum's dead but I'm still her daughter

Exactly this. It’s a point to the men in the room who haven’t worked out that if it doesn’t affect them it does affect some people they care about…

endofthelinefinally · 23/05/2026 07:50

Foodgloriousfoodie · 22/05/2026 14:58

only one thing bothers me about this article - the identification of woman as being mothers wives sisters or daughters - did he need to say that?

I think he did. IME of trying to explain this to men, they start from the pov of it not affecting them at all, its a tiny minority, women get raped anyway what does it matter if a few women get raped in prison etc etc. (A man actually said this to me!)
When they actually consider the impact on their mum, their wife, their daughter, in changing rooms, toilets, sports, often the penny will drop.

NecessaryScene · 23/05/2026 07:36

JellySaurus · 23/05/2026 07:20

Basing law upon what a person says they might do is ridiculous.

Show quote history

It's worse than that - it's based on a person saying they might do something ridiculous.

Needapadlockonmyfridge · 23/05/2026 07:32

Articulate and clear. Thank you, Trevor.

JellySaurus · 23/05/2026 07:27

OldCrone · 23/05/2026 05:16

But I am confused about the idea that a PC cannot be self id into. How else can someone have the PC of GR?

I think that's his point. That a PC shouldn't be something you can self ID into. It's an argument against the existence of the PC of GR.

I would love to know what the intention of the PC of GR was. Was it ever to be allowed to change sex on documents, preferred pronouns?

Changing sex on documents is due to the GRA not the EA. Although sex can be changed on some documents without a GRC, it's still nothing to do with the EA.

The EA is about discrimination and about equal and fair treatment of people with different PCs. If someone thinks they have been treated unfairly because of a PC, they can make a claim against the organisation.

Certainly a person can self-identify into a PC - the PC that covers religion. Gender reassignment should not be in a category of its own. It should, at best, come under the PC of belief. Though whether GR is a BWORIADS is a critically important.

JellySaurus · 23/05/2026 07:20

NecessaryScene · 23/05/2026 06:57

The general understanding was that "gender reassignment" in the EA was to cover people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery, or were planning to or had applied for a GRC. (Which in turn was generally assumed to apply to people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery.)

This obviously wasn't very well thought out, but it was thought of as a clear subset of people, with there being a clear process, much like a citizenship or residence application, not just a man saying "I'm a woman now".

Obviously many of those actually pushing for the laws were seeing them as a mechanism that could be twisted into men being able to just say "I'm a woman now", but that wasn't what lawmakers generally thought they were doing, and many were actively trying to make sure they didn't create that situation.

Basing law upon what a person says they might do is ridiculous.

Igmum · 23/05/2026 07:11

Well said Sir Trevor. I’m happy with men speaking out on this - I’d like to see more of them doing it - and women, and children. Dammit I’d like to see everyone supporting women’s rights.

NecessaryScene · 23/05/2026 06:57

The general understanding was that "gender reassignment" in the EA was to cover people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery, or were planning to or had applied for a GRC. (Which in turn was generally assumed to apply to people who had or who were planning to undergo surgery.)

This obviously wasn't very well thought out, but it was thought of as a clear subset of people, with there being a clear process, much like a citizenship or residence application, not just a man saying "I'm a woman now".

Obviously many of those actually pushing for the laws were seeing them as a mechanism that could be twisted into men being able to just say "I'm a woman now", but that wasn't what lawmakers generally thought they were doing, and many were actively trying to make sure they didn't create that situation.

nicepotoftea · 23/05/2026 06:54

2004 “These poor chaps have lopped off their whatsits, which puts them in a frightful pickle if they can’t pretend to be women. We should do the decent thing and give them some papers to make things easier”.

2015 “What even is a woman?”

nicepotoftea · 23/05/2026 06:41

Pingponghavoc · 23/05/2026 00:54

I really rate Trevor. And I have no problem with him referring to mothers and sisters and daughters.

But I am confused about the idea that a PC cannot be self id into. How else can someone have the PC of GR?

I would love to know what the intention of the PC of GR was. Was it ever to be allowed to change sex on documents, preferred pronouns?

I think the understanding has changed over the years. In 2004 it was assumed that it was for people who had had extensive surgery and hormone treatment whose true sex would only be revealed by government records. The GRA was introduced to protect the right to privacy.

By 2015 and the campaign for self ID there was more of an emphasis on the right to insist that the state should recognise and affirm one’s personal understanding of one’s own identity.