Hobbycraft employee badge - no terfs, no Tories

[ItsCoolForCats]

Another example of why bringing your whole self to work is a terrible idea.

Hobbycraft seems to be busy trying to mitigate the fallout, presumably because they know which demographic spends the most money there.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/politics/5359520/dundee-hobbycraft-trans-row/

Quite.

Women! I'm here to destroy your privacy, dignity, homosexuality, words, rights in law, consent and safety - why are you finding this threatening?

Reading a book lately about the build up to the American Civil War and ran across some horrible publications and letters from those frantically trying to argue that slavery was lovely, the slaves loved it, it was better for them and everyone else, it was the right way, here's a lot of evidence and wangled research - it was horribly, horribly familiar.

I'm delighted for men to be as transgender as they like, so long as they don't remove needed sex based spaces and language from women for their own incredibly self centred purposes. Stop that and the issue ends. And it's a man issue, not a trans issue.

The irony is that it's Stonewall and the ACLU who have campaigned to make it impossible to define 'trans', not feminists.

That is one place where the author of the article got it mostly right.

I’m only reading for the badger

How may I help you?

It was meant to be offensive

Here she is, in her properly inclusive and welcoming shop

Badgers may look cute, and they may prefer to avoid trouble, but they are fierce, intelligent, resilient fighters when they need to be.

So GC people are ‘removing the language that represents the feelings trans people have’? The utter hypocrisy! Remind me, which group is trying to take away and redefine the words woman, girl, lesbian, female?

ArabellaSaurus · 28/10/2025 13:46

'[Verse 3: Ginger Johnson]

Terfs and Tories make me spew
There's no hate on my menu
Tolerance and self-respect
Loosen up my gag reflex'

Translation:

Hey, hey we're the trans squad!
In toilets we love to leer,
We revel in upsetting ladies,
And pushing queer, queer, queer!

We're just trying be femly
Gonna watch girls in the nude
We're the trans generation
Don't care, our behaviour is crude

We're definitely in agreement on that, then. I think the difficulty I have with how well many working class people did under Thatcher was that a lot of it was at the expense of other working class people. Things didn't level up in a way that was anywhere near equitable.

That blew up in their faces in the recent Skrmetti case at the US Supreme Court - their own handwavey submissions to the effect; "trans is this and that & not this or that & fluidly sometimes something and not something successively & concurrently. Also, rainbows!" were precisely what prevented them being declared a "Suspect Class" - a definable, bounded group known to be subject to discrimination. A second reason for denial was that they are not politically powerless - nice to have that recognised by the Court.

I see that swiftashumptydumpty has redefined most to mean, "a small number."

Oooh, have you a link for that? I'm struggling to search for it in the reams of transcribed oral testimony, amicus curia submissions, and other papers.

It's most clearly stated in Alito's concurring opinion:

"Furthermore, there is no evidence that transgender individuals, like racial minorities and women, have been excluded from participation in the political process"

"[D]espite the small size of the transgender population, the members of this group have had notable success in convincing many lawmakers to address their problems."

For others searching: https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/united-states-v-skrmetti/ has all, and I mean all, the files.

In the table, under "Opinion", you get all the justices' opinions in a huge, over 100 page file. Justice Alito's opinion starts on page 64. In page 83 he writes "The parties in this case also admit that transgender status is not an immutable characteristic. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 97-98. Instead, a person’s gender identity may "shif[t]," and a person who is transgender now may not be transgender later." The bolding is mine because my next paragraph follows that reference.

In the Scotusblog table, under "Argument", there's a link to an audio recording of the argument in court and a transcript of the audio recording. The transcript pages 97-98 feature Justice Alito getting activist barrister Chase Strangio to admit in court that "trans" includes gender fluidity and that detransitioners exist, therefore being trans isn't immutable and so laws that might vary in their effect based on whether someone is trans shouldn't be subject to the level of scrutiny[1] that laws disproportionately affecting Black people should be.

JUSTICE ALITO: Are there individuals who are born male, assigned male at birth, who at one point identify as female but then later come to identify as male, and, likewise, for individuals who are assigned female at birth, at some point identify as male - as female - I'm sorry - identify as male but later come to identify as female? Are there not such people?
MR. [sic] STRANGIO:There are such people. I agree with that, Justice Alito.
JUSTICE ALITO: So it's not an immutable characteristic, is it?

Back to Justice Alito's opinion:
Moreover, transgender status, unlike race and sex, is often not accompanied by visibly identifiable characteristics. A person's "gender identity" is an "internal sense," Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, at 520, and transgender persons as a class do not uniformly "exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group," Lyng, 477 U. S., at 638. Nor do they necessarily tend to "carry an obvious badge" of their membership in the class that might serve to exacerbate discrimination. Mathews, 427 U. S., at 506. Bolding mine.

How's "you can't tell if someone's trans" working out for you, TRAs?

Justice Alito's dismantling of the very idea that an internal identity can grant membership of an oppressed class is truly masterful.

[1] This refers to a very approximate US equivalent to an English law being subject to judicial review because it breaches the Equality Act 2010.

Well said and the responses serve to confirm that statement.

In the Opinion of the Court the response is at 16:2 but the real meat is in Barret's concurrence.I'll try posting the link; www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf

@selffellatingouroborosofhate Sorry, it's late & I'm tired - you wanted the plaintiffs refs. All the main daftnesses are cited by Barrett so you should be able to cross-reference them easily.

Dear US Supreme Court Justices, it's really easy to add tables of contents to PDFs these days.

Why do you ‘get’ that it’s ok to tell a person to leave a shop because they are Tory?

edited for typo

Zombie thread much like Hobbycraft is heading towards being a zombie name on the High Street.

This week, they’ve had to issue a massive recall because some of their children’s craft kits contained sand possibly contaminated with asbestos. Apparently a parent spotted the kits in store looked similar to ones that were the subject of a similar recall in New Zealand and had to get them sent away for testing (asbestos was found). Safeguarding kids at hobbycraft means about as much as you’d expect: https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/the-latest-product-recalls-from-which-a3wvq1N4wOPE