Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Most people agree with us.

151 replies

ArabellaScott · 19/05/2025 10:38

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-trans-public-opinion-b2753173.html

'[A] YouGov poll of 2,106 adults in Great Britain found that 63 per cent believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision in its April ruling.
The survey also revealed that 52 per cent of respondents now feel the law regarding women’s rights and their application to transgender people is clearer following the decision.
While 13 per cent said the ruling would have a positive impact on them and 6 per cent said it would be negative, more than three quarters of people (77 per cent) said the ruling would make no real difference to them.
The poll also addressed the issue of transgender women's participation in sports. Nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) of those surveyed agreed with the decisions made by some sporting bodies to ban transgender women from women’s competitions following the ruling.'

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/national/25172574.survey-suggests-people-think-supreme-court-gender-ruling-right/

Survey suggests most people think Supreme Court gender ruling was right

More than 2,100 adults were surveyed on their responses to the decision

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/supreme-court-trans-public-opinion-b2753173.html

OP posts:
theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 20/05/2025 21:27

MarieDeGournay · 20/05/2025 21:07

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime Well, as the Irishman said, if you want to go to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here.

Umm... how can I put this as politely as possible: would you like to withdraw that nasty worn-out old stereotype of the Irish?

Sorry! How about, as the Mancunian said, if you want to go to Oldham, I wouldn't start from here?

I didn't realise it was supposed to imply something specific about Irish people.

ArabellaScott · 20/05/2025 21:55

TwoLoonsAndASprout · 20/05/2025 20:58

Oh no! Don’t get me wrong! I completely agree with everything you’ve said.

Men cannot be women. Wearing a dress doesn’t make them women. And the women’s rights that they have been demanding are not theirs to have.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I want there to be a way for so-called effeminate men to be allowed to be effeminate and men at the same time, and not feel that there is anything wrong with that. I want that for women too - butch women shouldn’t be pressured to not be butch - but the way our society is (male=good, female=bad) it is more acceptable for women to appropriate male styles of dress and presentation than for men to appropriate women’s dress styles.

I come at this whole debacle from the point of view of an angry, feminist TERF. I have spent every day since the end of the Peggie tribunal auditing the binfire that is the NHS single-sex policy. But I also come from the point of view of an angry mother.

I am beyond angry that the trans movement told my beautiful effeminate DS that there was something wrong with him, and that the solution was to change his body. He didn’t, but I tell you I still want that ideology gone. No one should have to break their beautiful bodies because the world can’t accept some people wearing different fucking clothes from others of their sex.

So I guess if someone says hey, I feel like I’ve gone down this road and I don’t entirely know how I feel about it, and I know I’m a man, and I’d like to talk, then I will give them the time of day.

Yeah. I know where you're coming from.

But a man who has trouble with masculine stereotypes doesn't mean he is 'effeminate', or 'feminine'.

Women are not 'terra nullius'. Stereotypes have nothing intrinsically to do with 'women', they're largely arbitrary conventions that function as signifiers of sex. There's nothing in our biology that means we like pink, etc.

A man who likes pink is just a man who likes pink.

I'm sure you're aware of all of this already, I don't mean to patronise! I just respond strongly to any suggestion that sex is something that can be opted into, in any way.

We also see activists start to try and break down sex into constituent parts - claiming to be 'somatically' female, or 'socially' female, or 'hormonally' female, or 'legally' female.

No male can ever be female, in any way. Not even a tiny little bit. It's an impossibility. There is no spectrum of sex; there are no degrees.

OP posts:
Manderleyagain · 20/05/2025 23:26

A PP said that Sex Matters has been running rings around any lgbtqi organisations. I think this is because gc campaigning is sure footed. The trans rights side have been trying to build rights on foundations which are fundamentally untrue. Their starting point is sex is not binary (or is socially constructed), everyone has a gender identity, people know their own gender but you (observer) cannot know it unless the person tells you etc etc. The problem is that when you try and build legal rights for ppl, and obligations for employers, service providers, & government on that basis it doesn't work. The foundational principles are not true, and can't provide the categories and precision that you need when you are compelling other people to act in a certain way by law.

Now we know that the EA does not bare the meanings which trans people (or organisations) had been reading into it. If the trans rights side was to start building their political demands from the bottom up again- but this time built on an understanding of the world which is actually true - they might end up with pragmatic solutions. I guess third spaces would have to be mandated in building regs. While at the moment polling shows the electorate is not keen on trans ppl in opp sex spaces, it might be that the population would be willing to shift on toilet access and maybe some other areas if it was a specific carve out for trans ppl who are/have medically transitioned or who 'pass'. So it's possible we will eventually see campaigning or lobbying for smaller scale changes like this from trans orgs. I can't see it happening soon though.

GwenEdinburgh · 21/05/2025 00:12

I agree with what you say - there is talk among some trans people of the need to start over in communicating to the public what trans means, the loss of public support feels so comprehensive. The ambitions of trans-advocacy orgs will need to become more modest and in line with where the public stands, which is a moderate gender-critical position, I think.

A lot will depend on whether the EHRC successfully roll out their statutory guidance, if there's a lot of successful push back then I can imagine the trans community having a sense of fresh initiative. I can't honestly imagine that happening, at this point.

At the same time, I think legal and technological changes in favour of gender-critical beliefs and women's sex-based rights are likely to dictate a lot of changes over the coming years to affect trans policies and even trans self-perception. Something I haven't mentioned here is the Digital ID bill. I'm aware that Sex Matters is lobbying Parliament for our Digital IDs to have a mandatory 'sex-at-birth' component. If Sex Matters were to succeed with that (though so far they've received push back), we would be talking about another huge game-changer. It would be devastating, I'm sure, for most trans people, at least in the short term.

Not only would it make trans people's sex-at-birth a mandatory part of their public and administrative identity on their smartphones (with a knock on effect on passports, bank details, work personal information, and by accompaniment, your travel plans), but if public spaces like gendered toilets at bus stations, shopping malls, etc (all the unpoliced women-only spaces, in other words) were updated for digital scanners, you would effectively have all women-only spaces accessible only to women. I've thought about that recently at a central bus station, where there were no gender-neutral toilets so I used the Women's. Had the access been based on Digital ID and a scanner system, I would have had no choice but to use the Men's. I think that kind of change would mean trans women very quickly having to get used to using Men's toilets until it became the new norm. When those kinds of enforced changes become integrated into your daily routine, I think a degree of self-perception also changes. At so many points during your day or week or year, you're getting the reminder that you belong to male spaces (or gender-neutral), and women's spaces are denied to you, permanently, to the degree that it becomes second nature. From there, it's difficult to imagine how slogans like 'trans women are women' have a place in such a society, or even within the trans community. I could be wrong, gender dysphoria is awful, it might lead to an expansion of spaces for women and trans women, but still, there's a division of a kind not present at the moment.

So I think the combination of digital technologies and legal changes, aligned with the prevalence of gender-critical beliefs across the media and the main political parties for the foreseeable future, will influence trans activism and its goals at a practical level as much as anything.

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 06:31

GwenEdinburgh · 21/05/2025 00:12

I agree with what you say - there is talk among some trans people of the need to start over in communicating to the public what trans means, the loss of public support feels so comprehensive. The ambitions of trans-advocacy orgs will need to become more modest and in line with where the public stands, which is a moderate gender-critical position, I think.

A lot will depend on whether the EHRC successfully roll out their statutory guidance, if there's a lot of successful push back then I can imagine the trans community having a sense of fresh initiative. I can't honestly imagine that happening, at this point.

At the same time, I think legal and technological changes in favour of gender-critical beliefs and women's sex-based rights are likely to dictate a lot of changes over the coming years to affect trans policies and even trans self-perception. Something I haven't mentioned here is the Digital ID bill. I'm aware that Sex Matters is lobbying Parliament for our Digital IDs to have a mandatory 'sex-at-birth' component. If Sex Matters were to succeed with that (though so far they've received push back), we would be talking about another huge game-changer. It would be devastating, I'm sure, for most trans people, at least in the short term.

Not only would it make trans people's sex-at-birth a mandatory part of their public and administrative identity on their smartphones (with a knock on effect on passports, bank details, work personal information, and by accompaniment, your travel plans), but if public spaces like gendered toilets at bus stations, shopping malls, etc (all the unpoliced women-only spaces, in other words) were updated for digital scanners, you would effectively have all women-only spaces accessible only to women. I've thought about that recently at a central bus station, where there were no gender-neutral toilets so I used the Women's. Had the access been based on Digital ID and a scanner system, I would have had no choice but to use the Men's. I think that kind of change would mean trans women very quickly having to get used to using Men's toilets until it became the new norm. When those kinds of enforced changes become integrated into your daily routine, I think a degree of self-perception also changes. At so many points during your day or week or year, you're getting the reminder that you belong to male spaces (or gender-neutral), and women's spaces are denied to you, permanently, to the degree that it becomes second nature. From there, it's difficult to imagine how slogans like 'trans women are women' have a place in such a society, or even within the trans community. I could be wrong, gender dysphoria is awful, it might lead to an expansion of spaces for women and trans women, but still, there's a division of a kind not present at the moment.

So I think the combination of digital technologies and legal changes, aligned with the prevalence of gender-critical beliefs across the media and the main political parties for the foreseeable future, will influence trans activism and its goals at a practical level as much as anything.

Why are you using female public toilets knowing that it is likely that you will cause female people distress by being there? Even if no one says anything or shows it.

Why do you use spaces meant for female people knowing that female people need those spaces to exclude you?

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 06:39

there's a division of a kind not present at the moment

The division is ever present. It's not something that can be altered.

OP posts:
MagpiePi · 21/05/2025 07:36

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 20/05/2025 21:27

Sorry! How about, as the Mancunian said, if you want to go to Oldham, I wouldn't start from here?

I didn't realise it was supposed to imply something specific about Irish people.

I've only heard this with reference to being in Norfolk.

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 21/05/2025 07:40

@GwenEdinburgh please see my post at 17.30 yesterday.

Gender dysphoria may be terrible but so is my mother's trauma (and that of 1000s of other women) so what justification do you have for your 'fear' trumping hers? Why is not being able to access female only spaces 'devastating' for trans women but OK for actual biological women?

theilltemperedqueenofspacetime · 21/05/2025 07:44

MagpiePi · 21/05/2025 07:36

I've only heard this with reference to being in Norfolk.

Oh, now, that's interesting. Where I worked, it was corporate-speak for 'we've got ourselves in a pickle', although it wasn't always Dublin - Arkansas, Aberdeen and Paris were also firm favourites.

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 07:46

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 06:39

there's a division of a kind not present at the moment

The division is ever present. It's not something that can be altered.

Indeed. The division was always there despite the attempts of Stonewall and the like to emotionally manipulate society into accepting a situation that was harmful to others.

When male people access provisions that they understand to be for female people only, it is that male person showing disrespect for female people. Intentionally or not. They are crossing the boundaries that female people need to function on an equal footing to male people in society (eg in having spaces that provide privacy, usability and safety. and having provisions that support equal opportunity, in accessing opportunities meant for progressing the needs for female people ).

Any male person who ignores those boundaries, who accesses spaces and provisions for female people, is doing it purely for their own benefit.

There has been a false argument used in the past that it was somehow of benefit to female people to have this group of male people in our spaces and provisions. That always remained an amorphous suggestion, because there is no benefit to female people to have this group of male people accessing spaces. The benefit only goes one way as far as I can see.

So therefore we now have a situation also where simply the act of entering a female only single sex space gives some male people positive feedback internally. Even if it is only the positive feeling of ‘I was not questioned’ or the feeling ‘I was not at harm there compared to in the male single sex toilet’. Entering a female single sex sports event has obvious positive benefits.

The act may give a range of other benefits depending on that individual. Obviously, those benefits could be financial, some benefit could be sexual. They could be founded in extreme misogyny such as ‘you don’t have the power to remove me even though I know it causes harm!’ The list is endless.

We also have reached the point in society, that if the male people accessing those provisions are questioned or even noticeably perceived, there is a high chance that this will feed into a initially negative feedback that society has turned into a positive with the mantra of ‘most vulnerable and most marginalised’. Any negative reaction from a female person in that female single sex provision can be said to be hateful and adds to that persecution. For some people, that is also part of the attraction.

When you strip it down to basics, any positive feedback reinforces the action. But there is never any acknowledgement that this access harms female people. Or it is acknowledged, but the person accessing the space or provision demonstrates that in reality, they will simply continue to disrespect female people by continued access.

For this to have reached as far as it did has meant the collective lowering of boundaries of society. It meant that behaviour that should not have been tolerated, was tolerated. There were times that behaviour was celebrated.

It is going to take a huge amount of work to build those boundaries back up again in younger generations. For now, it is important to understand that every time a male person accesses a female only provision they are doing it because being there benefits them .

And it is right to question why any male person would confine to show such disrespect for female people knowing that their actions harm us.

CassOle · 21/05/2025 07:50

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 06:31

Why are you using female public toilets knowing that it is likely that you will cause female people distress by being there? Even if no one says anything or shows it.

Why do you use spaces meant for female people knowing that female people need those spaces to exclude you?

It really does just boil down to male entitlement IMO.

MagpiePi · 21/05/2025 07:51

CassOle · 21/05/2025 07:50

It really does just boil down to male entitlement IMO.

I was just about to say this.

EminentSqueezes · 21/05/2025 08:53

"there were no gender-neutral toilets so I used the Women's"

GwenEdinburgh attempting to sound reasonable and polite (well, compared to what women are used to from some trans identifying men) but also showing a serious lack of respect for women's boundaries.

Please use the Men's. They don't care!

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 09:08

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 21/05/2025 07:40

@GwenEdinburgh please see my post at 17.30 yesterday.

Gender dysphoria may be terrible but so is my mother's trauma (and that of 1000s of other women) so what justification do you have for your 'fear' trumping hers? Why is not being able to access female only spaces 'devastating' for trans women but OK for actual biological women?

Hear, hear.

You can't say you are accessing women's spaces, against the explicit and very clear law and women's wishes and expect us to still consider you 'reasonable'.

OP posts:
GailBlancheViola · 21/05/2025 09:09

EminentSqueezes · 21/05/2025 08:53

"there were no gender-neutral toilets so I used the Women's"

GwenEdinburgh attempting to sound reasonable and polite (well, compared to what women are used to from some trans identifying men) but also showing a serious lack of respect for women's boundaries.

Please use the Men's. They don't care!

Yes, the I'm so nice and reasonable but I'm going to do what I want and over-ride your boundaries anyway.

You are male, use the spaces for your sex. Women's spaces are not yours to use.

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 09:24

"I'm so nice and reasonable but I'm going to do what I want and over-ride your boundaries anyway."

And yet, we have had posters do this time and time again over years and years. It is very easy to recognise the pattern.

Male poster posts on a feminist board and appears reasonable, then the 'I will continue to use female toilets even though you have all exposed your trauma, your humiliating experiences and why the toilets are needed to be single sex. But I don't do it to cause you harm, it is just better for me.' And still some people will try to politely explain why this harms women, and it will just be ignored.

Then sadly comes the accusations to women to only use moderate language, to not 'rip into' the male poster. And if women use moderate language, and are reasonable, then the message will be appreciated and acted on.

Once you see it, you cannot unsee the pattern.

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 21/05/2025 09:29

I also think that a claim that it would 'just' be toilets is ridiculous. It's too scary/outing/reality confronting to use male toilets, but male changing rooms will be fine, hmmm. Any tiny concession would be used to leverage more. Stay out of women's spaces. Use the men's or campaign for separate provision but don't expect women to give up their privacy, dignity and safety for you.

GailBlancheViola · 21/05/2025 09:36

Then sadly comes the accusations to women to only use moderate language, to not 'rip into' the male poster. And if women use moderate language, and are reasonable, then the message will be appreciated and acted on.

More likely ignored as GwenEdinburgh has done.

Respect and reasonableness demanded but none given, I've had enough of it. It is clear and simple - Women's spaces, ANY of them, are not for the use of men, ANY men. I care not if that makes men sad those feelings are irrelevant to me.

borntobequiet · 21/05/2025 09:40

GwenEdinburgh · 21/05/2025 00:12

I agree with what you say - there is talk among some trans people of the need to start over in communicating to the public what trans means, the loss of public support feels so comprehensive. The ambitions of trans-advocacy orgs will need to become more modest and in line with where the public stands, which is a moderate gender-critical position, I think.

A lot will depend on whether the EHRC successfully roll out their statutory guidance, if there's a lot of successful push back then I can imagine the trans community having a sense of fresh initiative. I can't honestly imagine that happening, at this point.

At the same time, I think legal and technological changes in favour of gender-critical beliefs and women's sex-based rights are likely to dictate a lot of changes over the coming years to affect trans policies and even trans self-perception. Something I haven't mentioned here is the Digital ID bill. I'm aware that Sex Matters is lobbying Parliament for our Digital IDs to have a mandatory 'sex-at-birth' component. If Sex Matters were to succeed with that (though so far they've received push back), we would be talking about another huge game-changer. It would be devastating, I'm sure, for most trans people, at least in the short term.

Not only would it make trans people's sex-at-birth a mandatory part of their public and administrative identity on their smartphones (with a knock on effect on passports, bank details, work personal information, and by accompaniment, your travel plans), but if public spaces like gendered toilets at bus stations, shopping malls, etc (all the unpoliced women-only spaces, in other words) were updated for digital scanners, you would effectively have all women-only spaces accessible only to women. I've thought about that recently at a central bus station, where there were no gender-neutral toilets so I used the Women's. Had the access been based on Digital ID and a scanner system, I would have had no choice but to use the Men's. I think that kind of change would mean trans women very quickly having to get used to using Men's toilets until it became the new norm. When those kinds of enforced changes become integrated into your daily routine, I think a degree of self-perception also changes. At so many points during your day or week or year, you're getting the reminder that you belong to male spaces (or gender-neutral), and women's spaces are denied to you, permanently, to the degree that it becomes second nature. From there, it's difficult to imagine how slogans like 'trans women are women' have a place in such a society, or even within the trans community. I could be wrong, gender dysphoria is awful, it might lead to an expansion of spaces for women and trans women, but still, there's a division of a kind not present at the moment.

So I think the combination of digital technologies and legal changes, aligned with the prevalence of gender-critical beliefs across the media and the main political parties for the foreseeable future, will influence trans activism and its goals at a practical level as much as anything.

there is talk among some trans people of the need to start over in communicating to the public what trans means, the loss of public support feels so comprehensive

Too late, they’ve communicated quite enough for everyone to see how self-centred, deluded and mendacious they are, in both their everyday actions and entanglement with the legal system. The jig is up.

TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 09:40

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 21/05/2025 07:40

@GwenEdinburgh please see my post at 17.30 yesterday.

Gender dysphoria may be terrible but so is my mother's trauma (and that of 1000s of other women) so what justification do you have for your 'fear' trumping hers? Why is not being able to access female only spaces 'devastating' for trans women but OK for actual biological women?

This would be why sex based data is necessary regardless of feelings, because otherwise males will always put their wishes and priorities and dominance ahead of female need.

How they identify is always irrelevant to the behaviour: the binary sexed basis is always stark.

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 09:50

Why were organisations and society in general convinced enough to allow some people to change their identification documentation?

I could never understand this. From the first time I heard in Australia that someone celebrated their win to have an 'x' used for sex in their passport, I had deep concerns about this.

Why should the sex category of a person be treated as unimportant when it is important for so many purposes? Usually around safeguarding for female people and children. Yet, a group of decision makers decided that those safeguarding principles should be ignored for one group of people. No one else. Just that one group of people got exempt from the same robust safeguarding measures as the rest of society.

It never made sense.

And this digital ID will be worthless if they don't state the sex of the person. How are they going to record all the 140+ genders on that digital ID? Or, will it only register a special group of transgender people's gender identities? Thereby continuing the discrimination, only this time to other transgender people as well?

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 09:56

Helleofabore · 21/05/2025 07:46

Indeed. The division was always there despite the attempts of Stonewall and the like to emotionally manipulate society into accepting a situation that was harmful to others.

When male people access provisions that they understand to be for female people only, it is that male person showing disrespect for female people. Intentionally or not. They are crossing the boundaries that female people need to function on an equal footing to male people in society (eg in having spaces that provide privacy, usability and safety. and having provisions that support equal opportunity, in accessing opportunities meant for progressing the needs for female people ).

Any male person who ignores those boundaries, who accesses spaces and provisions for female people, is doing it purely for their own benefit.

There has been a false argument used in the past that it was somehow of benefit to female people to have this group of male people in our spaces and provisions. That always remained an amorphous suggestion, because there is no benefit to female people to have this group of male people accessing spaces. The benefit only goes one way as far as I can see.

So therefore we now have a situation also where simply the act of entering a female only single sex space gives some male people positive feedback internally. Even if it is only the positive feeling of ‘I was not questioned’ or the feeling ‘I was not at harm there compared to in the male single sex toilet’. Entering a female single sex sports event has obvious positive benefits.

The act may give a range of other benefits depending on that individual. Obviously, those benefits could be financial, some benefit could be sexual. They could be founded in extreme misogyny such as ‘you don’t have the power to remove me even though I know it causes harm!’ The list is endless.

We also have reached the point in society, that if the male people accessing those provisions are questioned or even noticeably perceived, there is a high chance that this will feed into a initially negative feedback that society has turned into a positive with the mantra of ‘most vulnerable and most marginalised’. Any negative reaction from a female person in that female single sex provision can be said to be hateful and adds to that persecution. For some people, that is also part of the attraction.

When you strip it down to basics, any positive feedback reinforces the action. But there is never any acknowledgement that this access harms female people. Or it is acknowledged, but the person accessing the space or provision demonstrates that in reality, they will simply continue to disrespect female people by continued access.

For this to have reached as far as it did has meant the collective lowering of boundaries of society. It meant that behaviour that should not have been tolerated, was tolerated. There were times that behaviour was celebrated.

It is going to take a huge amount of work to build those boundaries back up again in younger generations. For now, it is important to understand that every time a male person accesses a female only provision they are doing it because being there benefits them .

And it is right to question why any male person would confine to show such disrespect for female people knowing that their actions harm us.

And it is right to question why any male person would confine to show such disrespect for female people knowing that their actions harm us.

Continue. Not confine. Apologies.

ArabellaScott · 21/05/2025 09:58

GetDressedYouMerryGentlemen · 21/05/2025 09:29

I also think that a claim that it would 'just' be toilets is ridiculous. It's too scary/outing/reality confronting to use male toilets, but male changing rooms will be fine, hmmm. Any tiny concession would be used to leverage more. Stay out of women's spaces. Use the men's or campaign for separate provision but don't expect women to give up their privacy, dignity and safety for you.

Yep.

We have been all around the houses and up and down with males trying to find loopholes, exceptions, get-out clauses, and the reasons why they should be allowed to use women's spaces, even if those other horrible men shouldn't be. And why in this particular little tiny instance surely it can't hurt? Best intentions, plea about feeling really sad, scared of other men, minimisation, rationalisation, deflection, whataboutery, etc.

Let's be clear.

Using women's spaces, as a male, is wrong.

There is no excuse or reason to do so.

Every time you do so you are breaching women's boundaries.

OP posts:
TheOtherRaven · 21/05/2025 09:59

And demonstrating a belief in a birthright of greater power and dominance, and of women's birthright as subordinate.

On a binary, sexed basis.

WithSilverBells · 21/05/2025 10:01

@Manderleyagain While at the moment polling shows the electorate is not keen on trans ppl in opp sex spaces, it might be that the population would be willing to shift on toilet access and maybe some other areas if it was a specific carve out for trans ppl who are/have medically transitioned or who 'pass'.

This is vanishingly unlikely to happen. It would be an infringement of the human rights of trans-identifying males to set some arbitrary standard of 'passing' or to insist on medical transition to gain access to women's toilets. Trans-identifying males who haven't medically transitioned would be able to take that to the ECtHR and stand a chance of winning (as opposed to all the current threats to go to the ECtHR which are confidently expected to fail). (For the record IANAL)

Swipe left for the next trending thread