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

I hope so but I think that is very optimistic under a Labour government.

What really irks me is that the Equality Act was written under a previous Labour government and they know full well that sex, being a separate protected characteristic from gender meant biologic sex.

Someone towards the top has skin in the game in my opinion, either a family member or too scared of pissing off wealthy donors.

What is clear is that it is not difficult to produce this guidance based on laws which are crystal clear but they are making a right dogs dinner of it. It is also clear that they care less about women who need the benefit of the pc of sex than they do about the men who want to invade spaces.

When an argument doesn't come from a place of rationality I guess you can't expect rationality.

I did provide evidence. I pointed to the conclusions of multiple independent professional bodies — the organisations whose job is to review all the research and state where the evidence leads. In practice, when independent professional bodies across countries agree, that’s considered strong evidence of where the weight of credible research lies, and the burden of proof shifts to those disputing it.

So if you have a recognised professional body that supports your communities claims, name it.

I’ll save you some time: it doesn’t exist.

Which means the sources you’re relying on aren’t coming from the scientific consensus — they’re coming from fringe studies and pseudoscience. (the same kind of stuff flat‑earthers rely on :D)

I didn’t bring that analogy into this discussion — your community did. It just doesn’t work in your favour. funny though :)

A whole new post and a salary to go with it ( tax payer funded ) purely to replicate what the Supreme Court has already examined and found...in dealing with the consequences of the judgement that 'Sex' is a biological category, and that the protected category of 'Gender -re-assignment' neither over-rides nor supplants it.

I've got to admit this is an interesting tactic! Keep saying I've provided evidence without actually providing any. I guess Collat identifies as having given evidence, which is the same thing in their brain.

All we are getting is repetition and mantras and a desperate attempt to save face.

You've gone too far with this, you are clearly on a wind up.

'Your community' being the vast majority of human beings who understand that sex is real and that gender is a man made construct are not the people who's views are akin to flat earthers, but you know that of course.

Good one! You nearly had me...

I think they are bored and on a wind up.

You’ve misunderstood what I said. I wasn’t calling people flat‑earthers — I was talking about the type of evidence you’ve been relying on. When someone can’t name a single recognised professional body that supports their claim, that’s the same evidentiary problem flat‑earthers have. It’s about the sources, not the community.

The claim is simple. Sex is real and gender is made up construct.

If you don't believe that then there is no helping you.

That troll must be morbidly obese by now

Sex is a biological cetegory and also a provable fact, and on that there is a plentiful consensus.

'Gender' is a concept that has been stretched to its very limits with the concept of a 'gender identity', and there is absolutely no credible consensus that it is other than a post modernistic peccdillo; but one, unfortunately that has taken hold of lots of vulnerable people and led them to believe things that are not factual and never can be.

It has also made fools of the faithful. Crazy times.

When someone can’t name a single recognised professional body that supports their claim,
'Claim' in the singular again, I see.
What claim would that be?

I explained this above, but in case you missed it — things are moving fast.

I did provide evidence.

I pointed to the conclusions of multiple independent professional bodies, i.e., the organisations whose entire job is to review all the research and state where the evidence leads.

When independent professional bodies across countries agree, that’s considered strong evidence of where the weight of credible research lies. At that point, the burden of proof shifts to the people disputing it — which is all of you.

All I’ve asked for is one credible professional body that supports your claims. No one has been able to provide one.

And the reason is simple: the claims being made on your side don’t hold up under scrutiny, which is why no recognised scientific or medical organisation endorses them

I'm guessing the claim is that there is no reputable consensus (apart from those who subscribe to WPATH - a discredited organisation) on the long term prognosis, or even meaning, of the concept of 'gender identity'.

so just so we are clear as i got this wrong with you last time, the communities claims to list a few.

the claims coming from the communities side include things like ‘there’s no scientific consensus,’ ‘gender identity isn’t real,’ ‘transition doesn’t help,’ and even that every major medical organisation is wrong.

Not one of those claims has been backed by a recognised professional body — which is why I keep asking for one. And why no one can provide one.

I mean gender has ALWAYS been a tool to oppress women. And some blokes think we would fall for an argument that if they claim to BE women on the basis of their 'gender' we would say OK mate you're good to go in single sex spaces?

What a load of bollocks.

They must think we're really stupid. Perhaps that is the problem. Either way this thread is evidence that they don't care about what women feel or want so long as we do and think what they want and give them unfettered access to women in a state of undress.

As you must know the studies are ongoing because until relatively recently everyone had been following WPATH guidelines, and they, by their own admmission have no evidence of any worth for their guidelines or claims - at all.

For the sake of argument even if you're right and gender is real rather than an ideology men who claim to have women gender are NOT female so should not have the right to be in single sex spaces for women because sex and gender are different.

That is what this thread is about.

Sex and gender are different.

Men have no right to see women in a state of undress even if they identify as transwomen.

Anyone with half a brain can see through the 'evidence' that flat earthers say supports their claims. Likewise anyone with half a brain can see that sex is binary, that it's impossible to change sex, and that 'gender affirming care' is physically damaging and that its claimed benefits are unproven, in other words anyone with half a brain can see through the claims of transactivists. But even someone with half a brain needs to actually think through the logic.

That’s not how credibility works. Professional organisations don’t ‘follow WPATH’

They review the same body of research and reach their own conclusions. If multiple independent organisations across different countries look at the evidence and arrive at similar positions, that’s convergence, not copying.

Agreement doesn’t mean they’re following each other — it means the evidence points in the same direction.

Anyone with half a brain can see…’ isn’t an argument, it’s a slogan.

Flat‑earthers say the same thing about their ‘evidence’—and they’re wrong for the same reason: they ignore what expert evidence‑reviewing bodies actually conclude.

you all should be able to point to at least one recognised medical, psychological, or psychiatric organisation that endorses any claim made.

So far, no one has been able to do that. That’s the difference between ‘thinking through the logic’ and just asserting you’re right

Guys, honestly, at this point you could just say it: you don’t have a single recognised professional body backing your claims, and the sources you’re relying on are fringe studies and pseudoscience. That’s not an insult — it’s just the reality of what’s been presented so far.

You seem fixated on 'professional bodies'. Hilary Cass didn't do her Review on her own; she was backed by the resources of scientists at York University who worked to check the credibility of the various research studies that support gender affirmation. The majority of those studies were shown to be virtually worthless because they were poorly designed or badly executed. Those professional bodies that you are happy to trust are backed up by very little robust evidence.

It is also the case that whistleblowers and leaked documents and videos demonstrate that various gender clinics and surgeons and endocrinologists and psychiatrists involved in the treatment of distressed children and adults have not been acting professionally. GIDS is one example of an organisation which abandoned good practice – please read Time To Think by Hannah Barnes which documented enough examples of malpractice to result in the closure of GIDS.

What Claims?

And why does it make a difference to the post that the civil service is advertising which is the subject of this thread unless YOU are claiming that having a gender identity makes a person the opposite sex (in which case please back it up?) or you are claiming that having a gender identity should supersede sex when it comes to laws regarding single sex spaces (in which case also back it up?)

Please provide peer reviewed studies to support your claims which do not involve lobby and / or activist groups.