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

Very familiar - no specific claim, just an assertion of 'I'm right', to try to reverse the burden of proof.

Classic bad faith posting, which can be ignored until a specific claim is made.

Cows and sheep and dogs and cats have a sex - all are male or female.
Humans have a sex - all are male or female.

Gender is a belief system invented by dodgy blokes like John Money
and most definitely has not spread to most societies.

Sooooo familiar

Yes.
Social contagion amongst mentally vulnerable children and adolescents has been a key mechanism for instilling the belief in sex change / GI in the young.

Sadly the UK has our own group of dodgy blokes at the centre of this who openly undermine child safeguarding and promote parental alienation. It's why transactivists get very cross when social contagion is mentioned. The suggestion that children below the age of consent can't give informed consent to sex change, use of dangerous drugs and lifelong sterilisation & poor health must not be spoken about.

This government's record on child safeguarding is pretty grim. The idea that they are spending money on this and other posts promoting "trans rights" while failing to tackle the fundamental child safeguarding issues in society shows how fucked up their priorities are.

This isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a burden‑of‑proof reversal.

You’re not challenging my claims with evidence; you’re demanding I personally re‑prove an established consensus to your satisfaction, while offering none for your counter‑claims. That’s a classic tactic used when a position can’t meet the evidentiary bar.

That’s exactly how flat‑earth arguments operate too: avoid evidence, demand definitions, then declare victory.

You’re not challenging my claims with evidence; you’re demanding I personally re‑prove an established consensus to your satisfaction,

LOL! You think way too highly of yourself. We're not asking anything, let alone demanding it. We know that sex is real, while gender identity is an unprovable belief, so obviously you can't prove it, duh.

Agreed — vague assertions without evidence are classic bad faith. Until concrete claims are presented, the burden remains on those challenging the established consensus.

It seems there’s a misunderstanding about how debates work. The burden of proof always sits with the side challenging the established consensus, not the side defending it.

which means you are the one always flipping the burden of proof in bad faith.

i google it for you

i googled

"who does the burden of proof lie with when challenging a consensus"

reply from google

The burden of proof lies with the person or party challenging the consensus (the skeptic or challenger).
This is a fundamental principle in science, law, and logical debate, often summarized by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts, not the one who denies")

you are all the one making claims against the consensus, like social contagion.

you are the ones acting in bad faith in a debate, not me.

If you’re making claims against the consensus, you need evidence backed by* *credible institutions. Without it, they remain opinions, not facts.

so seeth does not have the evidence to back any claims made. they operate on opinion not fact.

just to re-iterate, burden lies with you to provide evidence. provide it, and we will discuss it in full, i promise you i will.

but its not there...

It just gets funnier and funnier, really.

totally unhinged.

"Sex is real" is backed up by all of biology, duh. Do you really need us to provide you with quotes 😂?

Seeth, you just need to re-educate yourself.

Clearly, as the pp implies, there is a consensus amongst healthcare professionals that sex is not real - also I have this handful of magic beans, would you like to buy them?

Oooh, magic beans! Shut up and take my money!!

... Why do I believe that gender identity is proven beyond a doubt now 🙃??

This is a classic bad faith move — steering the conversation away from the issue mentioned and claims being made so you can deny what’s being discussed and claim victory, like a flat-earther.

The topic is gender, gender-identity, trans identity, and claims like social contagion. Until you provide credible, institutionally backed evidence for those claims, that’s what should be addressed.

If you don’t have that evidence, that’s fine — it’s okay to admit it. At least then you’d be being honest about what’s opinion versus fact.

The established consensus throughout at least the first five decades of my life was that everyone is the sex they developed as in utero. So the burden is on those in the last decade or so trying to replace that with a gender identity based worldview. They have succeeded in shaming, and in the workplace intimidating, a lot of people into going along with it in public, but in private most people who have an opinion actually understand that sex is binary, unchangeable and societally important, unlike gender identity.

So Collat. I hope you have put your book order in by now. You'll be able to learn a lot when you read it.

As an aside, I have been researching stallions at stud. I have read a lot of information about AI (artificial insemination, in this case), frozen semen, chilled semen, live cover, plus veterinary information and even embryo transfer. To my utter surprise(!), there has been no mention of gender, gender identity or trans identity.

So, I would like to pose a question. Why are we the only mammal that supposedly has a 'gender identity'? I find it odd that other great apes and mammals don't have one. It's almost like it is a made-up, culture-bound syndrome.

Sex, on the other hand, is real. Turns out that if I want to breed a foal, a fertile mare and a fertile stallion are required. Who could have thunk it?

What is gender identity?

The only bad faith moves are you repeatedly derailing this thread about a controversial government civil service appointment.
You repeatedly and tediously attempt to dominate discussions with your narrow views. Making constant demands that women must obey. Your disdain for women, child safeguarding and women's rights is evident in the lengthy, confused word salads you keep posting.
You are entitled to believe in gender identity, fairies at the bottom of the garden or whatever suits you. But you can't browbeat the rest of us who understand facts, science and reality into accepting that men magically become women when they say they do.

What you’ve just described is a classic reversal of the burden of proof (bad faith again).

The burden is on you to provide credible, institutionally backed evidence for those claims. Simply asserting that “most people privately agree with me” or that a worldview has shifted socially does* *not meet that evidentiary bar.

Scientific understanding evolves over time, and as it improves, so does the consensus. Current consensus supports trans identities, gender diversity, and the recognition of sex alongside gender. Until evidence emerges to challenge it, your claims remain opinion, not fact.

the burden is still on you.

if you don't have the evidence, just say so.

but for anyone that missed it earlier

i googled

"who does the burden of proof lie with when challenging a consensus"

googles answer

The burden of proof lies with the person or party challenging the consensus (the skeptic or challenger)

This is a fundamental principle in science, law, and logical debate, often summarized by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts, not the one who denies")

Please ignore the sealioning now. It's getting really boring.

Collat is copy+pasting from ChatGPT, the style is unmistakable. Waste of time to argue with an AI.

All mammals are male or female
immutably from conception to death.

Identities and trends spread through societies by communication.
Remember "pro ana"

its why
The topic is gender, gender-identity, trans identity, and claims like social contagion. Until you provide credible, institutionally backed evidence for those claims, that’s what should be addressed.
is so silly

Sex is real, gender and trans are variants of personality with no empirical basis whatsoever

I was engaged with early on and re-engaged with many users across multiple topics. When I was accused of conflating discussions, I deliberately focused on one topic only to keep things clear.

I am still being engaged with and continue to respond. We all share responsibility for derailing from the original thread. its strange you only blame the person who isn't agreeable with you on this topic though.. i blame all of us (because I'm honest)

I've already proven that your community operate on opinion not facts.

For anyone on this forum, I have never said or implied that women must obey. That claim is made in bad faith (again more dishonest from the community). My comments have always been directed at the topic itself, which concerns gender, trans identities, and related claims — it applies to all people, male and female, including trans men and trans women. The fact that you keep framing this as being about women specifically reflects a bias, not anything I’ve said.

The evidence of the social contagion is that the number of very young women being diagnosed with gender incongruence has exploded for no explainable reason. This evidence is presented in the Cass report, but you refuse to read it, so heh, not my fault.

Okay, I'll sit on my hands now. Promise!