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

Yes, trans identity is indeed a belief system, since it's by definition a purely declarative state of being. I'm trans because I declare I am trans, not because there's something objectively measurably trans about me. This puts me in the recognised demographic category of "transgender", just like believing in a god would put me in the recognised demographic category of "religious believer".

The organizations I cited don’t merely acknowledge that some people believe they are trans. They recognize trans people as a real demographic group

Again: you can't measure trans, so you're making a distinction where there's none. The "real demographic group" those organisations recognise is the group of people who believe they are trans. Exactly as I said.

Their positions involve empirical claims about the existence of trans populations, the stability of trans identity over time, the effectiveness of various support approaches, and the social factors that affect trans people’s wellbeing. Those are evidence‑based conclusions, not acknowledgements of belief.

As I said: nobody here denies that people who believe they are trans exist, have always existed, that their needs have to be identified, and so on.

People seem to not want to acknowledge that they are expecting others to accept their personal ideology without question.

There was a new and I think quite telling definition of gender in the middle of the spaghetti here. Translating from what a PP has described how about:

"Gender is an individual's deeply held sense of how that individual relates to whatever sex stereotypes the individual has most strongly internalised."

I think that does represent quite well how the trans movement uses the word, though most aren't as honest as the PP has been. It also makes very clear that an individual's 'gender' if they have one is not a concept that's going to convey any useful meaning to the wider world, and should not be used to categorise anything in the real world, let alone allowed to take over the words man and woman. How could taking over the word 'women' for a concept that's so deeply tied to oppressive stereotypes not have a profound impact on women's rights? Women say no, you're not having our word.

WPATH isn’t a campaign group — it’s a professional standards body. You can disagree with its conclusions, but its role is to publish clinical guidelines, not to lobby for a belief system

Yes, Muslims are a demographic — but Islam is still a belief system. Trans people are a demographic, but trans identity is not a belief system. That’s the difference you’re trying to collapse

Even if you personally want to exclude WPATH, you still haven’t explained why every major medical and psychological body worldwide rejects your position. If your view were evidence‑based, you’d expect at least one credible institution to support it — but none do

Why do you think “gender” (identity) doesn’t show up in someone’s bones? Gender is just the social construct of sex. Gender identity ideology is the belief that a male should be thought of as female if they “feel” a certain way or vice versa (that their advocates on this feminist board never want to define, because they know how sexist it is)

Religion is a belief system because it’s defined by belief; trans is a demographic category because it’s defined by lived status. Self‑identification doesn’t turn something into a belief system.

That’s not what these organisations say. They don’t define trans identity as a belief system, and they don’t treat it like religion or doctrine. They describe trans people as a population group whose experiences and outcomes can be studied — the same way they describe groups based on sexuality, disability, or ethnicity. That’s a demographic category, not a belief category

You’re assuming that if something isn’t physically measurable, it must be a belief system — but that’s not how demographic categories work. Plenty of recognised demographic categories aren’t measurable in bones or blood, and none of them are treated as ‘beliefs’. Sexual orientation is a perfect example: you can’t measure it in a lab or a skeleton, it’s self‑described, and yet it’s universally recognized as a demographic category, not a belief system. Trans identity sits in that same space

and more importantly

You still haven’t explained why every major medical and psychological body rejects your view — you’ve avoided that entirely.

First, not every institution rejects that position.

Second, see institutional capture and fads. We've never learned the lesson of all those past medical manias from heroin in cough syrups to lobotomies. This is no different.

That WPATH publish so called ‘standards of care’, part-written by a paedophile fetishist, does not make them a professional standards body 🤦‍♀️. It makes them a campaign body with a campaign document laying out what their campaign targets are. There is no professional qualification required to be a member.

WPATH isn’t a campaign group — it’s a professional standards body.

They selfID as a professional standards body maybe.

Oh yes, what a totally respectable and neutral organisation WPATH is 😂

It is a disputed ideology that “trans women” are in any way different from other men. One I reject.

I think the vast majority of this “consensus” just leave it to the so called “professional standards body” to set the narrative without looking all that much into it.

Sexual orientation is a perfect example: you can’t measure it in a lab

Well that just proves you are not engaging with PP. As has been pointed out repeatedly, sexual orientation can and has been measured in the lab. It has been studied quite extensively.

As plenty of us have said @Collat we recognise that there is a group of people who call themselves “transgender”. That’s all the demographic means IMO.

The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association.

Plenty of real, non‑belief categories don’t show up in bones. Sexual orientation doesn’t. Most neurodevelopmental conditions don’t. Even many genetic conditions — including some chromosomal variations — leave no skeletal trace. The fact that something isn’t detectable in a skeleton doesn’t make it a belief system.

We’re circling the same issues that always come up in these discussions. There’s still a fundamental confusion about what gender is, even though sex from your sides position is now better understood than it was a fair few months ago.

No one has explained why every major medical and psychological organization rejects your position. At this point, the arguments being offered rely on conjecture and unsupported assumptions — and ironically, they’re grounded far more in personal feelings than in evidence

Religion is a belief system because it’s defined by belief; trans is a demographic category because it’s defined by lived status.

No, trans is defined by a declaration. Is trans whoever declares being trans, not whoever has a "lived status" of trans. Similarly, religion is about a lot more than just belief: it's also about living in a specific way. I've been both religious and trans, and I know that if anything, being religious had a far greater affect on my life than being trans.

They describe trans people as a population group whose experiences and outcomes can be studied — the same way they describe groups based on sexuality, disability, or ethnicity

Or religion. You are aware that religion is a population group trait that is also studied, right?

Sexual orientation is a perfect example: you can’t measure it in a lab or a skeleton, it’s self‑described,

Who people have sex with is an observable trait. When someone says, "I only have sex with men," they are reporting an observable behaviour, not some unobservable belief about themselves.

You still haven’t explained why every major medical and psychological body rejects your view — you’ve avoided that entirely.

Not at all. I've expressly asked you what view those bodies support that GC people don't. Since you didn't answer me, I can't tell you why they supposedly reject my view.

Set WPATH aside if you want — you still haven’t addressed why every other major medical and psychological body rejects your position.

What is the position you think ‘every major medical and psychological organisation’ rejects?

Exactly. The TRA position is grounded in feelings and unsupported assumptions.. as you’ve just confirmed, sex and gender are different, so trans people can use the mixed gender single sex spaces relevant to their sex can’t they.?

WPATH are NOT a professional standards body, if you're wrong on that, what else are you wrong on (apart from everything you said, in every post). It promotes, which is another word for activism.

Ah I see you've set aside WPATH, why because it shows how wrong you are?

@Collat

We’re circling the same issues that always come up in these discussions. There’s still a fundamental confusion about what gender is,

Precisely. Nobody is ever able to explain what gender even is, let alone why it should matter in law.

Self‑identification doesn’t turn something into a belief system. Lots of demographic categories are self‑described — sexuality, disability status, ethnic identity, even being part of a cultural minority — and none of those are treated as ‘beliefs’. Religion is a belief system because it’s defined by doctrine; trans is a demographic category because it’s defined by how someone lives and is treated, not by metaphysical claims

Religion is studied as a population group, but it is defined as a belief system. Trans people are studied as a population group, but trans identity is not defined as a belief system

Sexual behaviour can be observable, but sexual orientation isn’t. You can’t look at someone’s bones, blood, DNA, or behaviour history and determine whether they’re gay, straight, or bi. Orientation is self‑described, internally experienced, and not directly measurable — yet nobody treats it as a belief system

This isn’t complicated: every major medical and psychological body recognises trans people as a demographic group whose existence isn’t a belief system. That’s the point you’re disagreeing with. If you think they support something else, you need to say what — because right now you’re avoiding the fact that none of these organization's share your framing

so why do none of the organizations support your feelings?

What position is being rejected?

That sex is binary?
That only women give birth?
That women must undress in front of disordered men?
Or something else?

It can be what every someone wants it to be. On another thread it's all about shopping choices, supposedly.