More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

None of us here support MAGA. We simply want a return to reality, truth based politics. We want an end to the hegemony of the American campus formulated politics that created Queer Theory and the politics of Identity that then pushed itself into all of our institutions.

Men are not women and no child is born in 'the wrong body'. We didn't require the media to inform us of that. In fact, it is this site that helped to drive the grassroots campaign that encourgaed the media to cover the issue in the first place.

"Right wing media" blah, blah blah! Self righteous progressives with no ability to self reflect need to take some responsibility for the situation we are now in. Though I won't hold my breath. The Left have been blaming " the right wing media" for time immemorial. It is all a conspiracy you know. And didn't you also know it is all really a Jewish conspiracy to boot.

I read the first couple of paragraphs and thought, what a pile of hyperbolic horseshit.

Sex wasn’t defined until 2025

Wasn't sex defined for legal purposes in 1970 in corbett vs corbett ?

Food production must have rocketed!
Also I knew my trusty Roberts Biology textbooks were good, but damn they were seeing decades into the future.
And Darwin - how did he know?
Austen even sussed didn’t she?
What about the Bible?
Was it Dr Who?

It could so easily have been Emperor Matilda who invaded England in the 12th century, or King Mary Tudor who ruled after Henry VIII.

Why wasn’t it?

#SadTimes for farmers and midwives.

Thing is though when you've got a lady dick you can just more or less pull it out and piss without fuss.

It's one of the benefits of being male.

Good questions, though I doubt @Baileyonice could answer even if he/she/they wanted to.

Which they clearly don’t.

I’d also like to know where the “right wing media push” was when the various laws that were rolled up into the Equality Act 2010 were passed: the Equality Act 2006, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Disability Discrimination Act 1994, The Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) & (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, The Employment Equality (Age) regulations 2006, etc

(Almost all by Labour governments, as it happens).

But suddenly it’s “right wing” to defend it… how odd…

i

No one outside of TRAs think that the ordinary meaning of men and women is based on anything other than biology. HTH

Sex wasn’t defined until 2025

Because before that nobody had any idea, & if babies happened or animals were bred it happened purely at random.

Thanks very much for engaging. That’s much more helpful. Your view then is that the Supreme Court left the law in a confusing mess, but who knows why they did.

If the definition of sex only became an issue in recent years, after 2010, your claim must be that the traditional dominant meaning of sex was a self-identified sense of gender?

That doesn’t tally with my own memory of how the word was ever used, defined or taught until relatively recently.

Was that how you were taught it at school? And when did you go to school? Do you think most 2010 lawmakers would have used it in that way?

Sex wasn't defined until 2025 so 2010 is irrelevant particularly since its only in past few years that the definition became an issue.

SC's deferred to “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman” which is highly debatable so they certainly weren't compelled to make the decision they did. Were they 'pressured' or bias who knows.

The SC judgment can't make the impossible possible. Their ruling has impractical consequences but rather than risk political blow back from Reform in drafting amending legislation the government settled for the easy way out with the confusing & impractical dogs breakfast that is the new EHRC.

Pretending any of this wouldn't be influenced by the media is just ludicrous.

The “well it’s too easy for me to explain to you” is obvious a bit of bluster anyone will recognise from their own schooldays.

But I do believe Bailey is posting in good faith in the sense of believing what they claim to believe about it being a right wing plot. I just don’t think they feel confident to publicly reason through their own belief in case it doesn’t work out well.

I think the reason you can’t help is that you are afraid to engage in proper careful debate.

I see that media can pressure govt.

1. what was such pressure in 2010 when the act was passed?
2. how did such pressure affect the SC justices? Their judgment is not govt policy.
3. in what ways do you see the EHRC departing from the SC judgment?
4. the motivation you posited for Philipson to have published ‘right wing’ guidance was to help the govt electorally. If that is the case do you think it’s odd that she published it just after an important set of elections but many years before the general election? Do the facts fit your theory?

No point in persisting, @GeneralPeter . As much good faith as an atheists' convention.

If you can't comprehend the connection between media campaigns pressuring government policy I can't help you. In case you have been living under a rock EHRC are government guidelines that thanks to media pressure have made the impractical & confusing reality.

Are you talking about the UK or the US? Becuase you’ve said it about both but you don’t seem to have much confidence in your own ability to explain your points.

If it’s as easy as you say then why are you struggling?

I’m also not pretending anything. I’m genuinely not sure why you think the current state of the EHRC guidance is down to right-wing media. I’ve explained the reasons why I’m not convinced point by point, and asked you to explain why you see it differently.

That’s all pretty bread-and-butter stuff in a good discussion. Why retreat?

You’ll see that my points don’t deny this is now a big media issue, but rather I don’t think that self-evidently explains EA 2010 or the SC judgment or the EHRC guidance. Why do you?

The details are major right wing media outlets with huge reach manufacturing a moral panic. If you are going to pretend this issue hasn't been dominating the right wing media space I think we are done here.

Are you sure you haven’t just got hold of a comforting simple answer to complex issues (‘it’s the right wing media’).

Because you make this claim a lot but seem to struggle to engage on detail.

Oooh, I sincerely apologise for my fellow Americans in not asking your permission before actually trying to solve our problems.

We promise to do better, next time. Pinky swear!

Yes yes the right wing media did a sterling job again with their diversionary manufactured culture war scare campaigns as an 'existential threat'. But its immigration & the 'horror' of a black woman ruling that made the difference in the US. The UK was purely economics that Reform will no doubt blame immigrants for.

MAGA voters seem to now be demanding a refund. Reform voters take note?

And you think for this reason she released the guidance three weeks after the local
elections that Labour was fighting so hard for survival in?

I’m genuinely trying to understand your claim. If you could address the points in my 3:12pm message that would help me a lot. Thank you in advance.

It has been the madness of identity politics...with boys competing in girl's sporting events; drag queen story time for infants; mandatory 'pronouns'; open borders policy; 'sanctuary cities'; Defund the Police; BLM; DEI policies; 'privilege and oppression' and so on...... that created the backlash and caused large sections of the population to swing towards populist parties.