Violins ready, independent article

[storminabuttercup]

Didn’t spot another thread on this, apologies if I missed it

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trans-people-women-supreme-court-judgment-b2876522.html?fbclid=IwdGRleAO6Y9xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEe56qoZcRdbDqi36-PZWkCNiPH16I-3YJWbeNJiuE5wKqklApVXsUq9rCZ108_aem_VJsqSP9QToVms8o846jdFg

as I scrolled I thought it was about non British nationals who are getting some awful hatred at the min, (which is frankly sickening) but it’s just people who have had biology explained to them, poor loves

Well, Bonnie Blue has just endorsed Reform as well.
Maybe there's some sort of ying/yang thing going on with the likes of Andrew Tate.

He's a capitalist, so he won't say it's wrong. That would involve criticising capitalism. But there are capitalists who consider it the career versus children dilemma to be a necessary evil and then there are capitalists who consider it very much a feature not a bug and think that women being underemployed homemakers is the natural order of things. I don't know which type he is.

TBH, I'm not sure that less-capitalist models would help all that much. Academia is generally not-for-profit, but the expectation that early career researchers will travel, ideally internationally, to work in different institutions makes not only kids, but marriage and even just serious dating, extremely hard. They call it "the two body problem".

Yeah, going to be tricky, that.

It would take a decade to get any case to the ECtHR, & they can't just run to Strasbourg whimpering about FWS, no matter what BS they're pumping out to the fanbase. They must first mount a specific case with a specific complainant, & somehow take it through all the courts, despite the SC ruling meaning they'd get knocked back at the first attempt. The SC ruling is easily within the margin of appreciation accorded to member States when implementing ECtHR rulings & if, by some magic, they ever got to the ECtHR, they would essentially be re-opening Goodwin, their great triumph & a ruling that did not at any point consider the impact on women, LGB people or children. Personally, I'd rather like to see it put back under scrutiny & doubt that the bloviating ninnies of "trans rights" would enjoy that at all.

Edited for dyslexia, some may remain.

As a life long Labour voter this is a topic that might well mean I can't vote Labour.

But that doesn't mean I'd ever begin to consider voting Reform. Because I'm not insane.

Marlo, who did not want to share their surname, identifies as transmasculine, a term used to describe someone who was assigned female at birth but identifies with masculinity. They had already experienced being thrown out of both male and female toilets since April.

Fox Fisher, who is non-binary transmasculine – meaning they have masculine traits but do not identify as a man or woman – said they have stopped going to the gym after they experienced transphobia while using the sauna there.

Their problem is with single sex facilities, and so they should be arguing for more mixed sex provision.

I can't quite work out how anyone could think 'single sex facilities for people of both sexes' is a viable option that should be taken seriously.

Agree with all of this, but I think their tactic is to suggest that the possibility of a case means that the SC ruling is in doubt. In this scenario, the fact that it would take years for a case to get to the ECtHR is an advantage.

Marlo may or may not have been telling the truth.

As a lawyer, I would be interested to see Goodwin re-examined by the ECtHR. It is very much a decision of its time. The essential problem, as it was in FWS, are definitions. If the TRAs cannot come up with a more cogent legal definition of "woman" than we already have, any challenge is dead in the water. If the extremely permissive GRC is insufficient, it is hard to see what else will be.

Dunno, the David Allen Greens of this world have a limit on how long they'll ignore Lies For A Good Cause, Jolyon's warchest being spaffed on scattergun trifles like the cockamamie fantasies of poor, puddled Sparkles, instead of the Noble Fight to the ECtHR, will eventually trickle through to donors. They can no longer rely on the BBC to retail their propaganda unexamined so the legal clowncar may find itself finally having to answer awkward questions where it might once have expected unstinting sympathy & indulgence. Maybe the new Head of News will even see the utility of specialist legal journalists again - getting a LGBTQWTAF desk was a v poor exchange for Joshua Rozenberg. The ground beneath their feet is shifting. Bash Back's policy of "More threats! More violence! More histrionics! More lies! More cowbell!" helps no-one but their opponents. People don't like being lied to & they weary of drama. If nothing else, the drip, drip, drip of fact is getting through to people who once sighed to me, "why can't you just live & let live?".