New trans equality civil servant at the Cabinet Office to focus on the ‘implications’ of 2025’s Supreme Court judgment

[IwantToRetire]

Well, well, well.

Talk about sending a clear message about who is more important to Labour.

Trans will get their own cheer leader to make sure they are not discriminated against.

Women have no one to stop the discriminiation of blocking the implementation of singe sex provision.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/01/19/civil-service-hire-trans-equality-chief-supreme-court/

And at https://archive.is/S57Uv

And this is PUBLIC MONEY! It’s outrageous

You’re defining “female” as the sex that produces large gametes, but that definition doesn’t actually match how you use the word. Millions of women don’t produce ova — women who’ve had hysterectomies or oophorectomies, women born without ovaries, women with ovarian failure, and all post‑menopausal women. These aren’t niche exceptions; they’re a normal part of the female population.

And this is exactly the same point you made with your own analogy about humans and bipedalism. You said someone with one leg is still human even though humans are typically bipedal. That’s precisely my point: losing or lacking a function doesn’t remove someone from the category.

So if your definition excludes huge numbers of women you still recognize as female, then the definition isn’t actually describing the category you’re trying to define. That’s the contradiction I was highlighting.

you're literally making my points for me now.

Oh my word. I haven't heard the 'some women don't produce eggs' argument for years!

I'm staying up for the 'speggs'

Lol
What aren't a normal part of the female population are men. None of them.

No matter how much they whine, how much they threaten and bully, how much they go on and bloody on .

Men are not and will never become women - not via surgery, drugs, long hair or pink lip gloss. The end.

Human beings are bipedal. Yet some human beings have only one leg. Doesn't make them any less human.

Female is the sex that produces large gametes. Yet some women don't produce large gametes. Doesn't make them any less female.

That's the GC position.

Edit: note that those women don't produce small gametes either. That's important.

Ah come on now :D you know how much us infertile women love it when ppl who are definitely really not TRA and who were definitely totally GC until they did their research, weaponise infertility to say that it means men who identify as women can have access to all women's things because something something science and it's complicated?

Sex shows up in bones. Gender doesn’t. You can tell a skeleton’s sex, but you can’t tell their gender identity, social role, or how they lived — in the same way you couldn’t dig someone up in a thousand years and know whether they were gay or straight.

Your point being?

Just seen the job ad circulating on twitter

Isn't it funny how Collat didn't include any small gamete producers in their list?

I am hoping that we are going to get a side order of 'men with cryptorchidism are female' nonsense.

Collat should read Dawkins' essay in this book... and then read the rest of the book.

Wow you really are confused. Humans with one leg are still human and women who don't ovulate are still female. We do not believe that females who do not produce eggs are not female in the same way as we do not believe humans with one leg are less human. I have never, ever heard someone with gender critical beliefs argue that you are less female if you don't produce eggs or are menopausal. I have no idea where you came up with that nonsense.

Female bodies are designed to produce large gametes just as humans are designed to have two legs. Not producing gametes or only having one leg does not change the definition of female or human.

You're making up weird arguments that no one here believes and then somehow think you're being clever in arguing against those arguments. Very odd.

Human beings are bipedal, yet some people have only one leg. That doesn’t make them any less human. Female is the sex that produces large gametes, yet some women don’t produce large gametes. That doesn’t make them any less female, we are in agreement...

That’s how biological definitions work: they describe the typical pattern while recognizing natural variation. Biology expects outliers — they don’t break the category.

And just like with gender, there’s the typical pattern and then the nuances. Trans people are part of those gender‑related nuances, because gender is about social and psychological identity, not gametes or anatomy. None of that contradicts the biology — it just shows that human categories have both norms and variation in both sex and gender.

Thing is - it's all they have. There are no ethical arguments to justify sad men having access to undressing women.
The Scottish government in their desperate attempts to insist that men must have access to unconsenting women in prison used the old trope that as women take their male babies / toddlers / young sons into women's changing rooms to keep them safe, therefore single sex spaces are fatally compromised and murderers, paedophiles, gang leaders etc who claim to be women MUST be placed in women's prisons.

There is no group that can't be used (and abused) in order to enable these men to try to get what they want from women and girls.

I’ll point out something some of you have done to me: point out the post you're not addressing.

No one has addressed the post where I listed major medical and scientific organization around the world that supports this position — unless they jump straight to conspiracy theories. If you think I’m avoiding arguments, take a look at how quickly that part of the discussion got ignored.

I’m genuinely interested in how people explain this: every major scientific and psychological organisation in the world — the same ones we all rely on for every other medical and mental‑health issue — hasn’t budged on this topic. If anything, they’ve strengthened their positions over time and continued to push forward with the same conclusions.

if someone did reply with something genuine, apologies if i missed it, dealing with a lot of posts from different angles, can be tough to keep up!

I posted a book.

We've been here before. It's a sign of the immense power that men have in the world - especially predatory men. The tactics transactivism has used to capture institutions the world over and in the UK is well documented.

WPATH with its open links to paedophiles (Eunuch files etc) has been debunked repeatedly. Yet it sells itself as the world experts while being basically a sign up organisation for self promotion by activists and clinicians selling their wares.

Women on here have been discussing these charlatans for years:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5199989-wpath-who-suppressing-the-evidence

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5026771-wpath-files-a-special-place-in-hell

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4928569-4928569-wpath-and-the-nhs-update

@Collat No one has addressed the post where I listed major medical and scientific organization around the world that supports this position

Support what position? I am still none the wiser about what it is you are trying to say.

Yep.

You don’t have any “points” we haven’t heard a million times before. Go and read the threads people have kindly linked for you.

They have addressed it, but pp handwaved it away as a “conspiracy theory”.

This. People only really do something about it or speak out when it affects them though. Most people roll their eyes and step away.

I'm getting confused about the one legged humans

-- if I cut off a leg and sew on some extra arms, does that make me less human but more octopus?

puberty blockers have been prescribed for decades in paediatric care, primarily for precocious puberty.

The bar for doing so is pretty high because the side-effects are so dire. And precocious puberty is an endocrinological condition, not a psychiatric one.

Won't let me in without a Facebook account. 🙁