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

quod erat demonstrandum

Of course not. Nor an equality civil servant for disability. Trans activists re desperate to impose a hierarchy of protected characteristics with themselves at the top.

Sorry couldn't resist ...

Though they will have to compete for the top slot with Islam and the islamophobic blasphemy law Labour seem keen to impose. At some point they will discover that they are not good bedfellows.

And there you go again, with a content free post.

Wake me up when you have something to say.

The topic is civil service posts.

You of course, are free to start your own thread.

Are you wanting evidence thst sex is binary? Really? And that all mammals are male or female? You don’t get out much do you?

Golly, there was me thinking that the consensus was that there are two sexes, and that mammals can't change sex.

I believe that Robert Winston is a scientist. I may be paraphrasing, but I seem to recall that his opinion on this debate was that one side was talking 'bollocks'. And that wasn't the FWR side.

That looks like you googled your question and come up with an AI argument.

Throughout this thread you have failed to enagage with any of the substantive points that have been made to you; you have totally ignored others; you have come out with many logical inconsistencies and failures of critical thought.

Your final tack has been endless repetition, whilst continuing to ignore or dismiss all evidence provided. You have been told that there is no consensus of the sort you claim ( and with no evidence) on the concept of 'gender identity' apart from the fact that some people feel they have one; the only medical or scientific 'consensus' comes from those who subscribe to the thoroughly discredited WPATH guidelines; the WPATH guidelines are self admittedly based on a no evidence platform.

Genuine evidence has only started to be gathered in the last several years, and has had to come from a variety of sources and a variety of different bodies in different countries. Even the NHS Tavistock clinic did no long term follow ups nor did they collect any reliable data on the young people that passed through its doors; its own clinicians raised alarm bells over its ideological 'affirmation' model and other concerns that they had about what was going on.

You cannot trust anything which comes out of the U.S gender industry...because it is so wealthy, so influential and is firmly embedded. Its proponents even ignore the evidence of their own commissioned studies when they don't come up with the desired goods ( See Rachel Levine and the John Hopkins study he commissioned).

You're obviously committed and piqued enough to persist with this day after day, presumably in order to stave off anxiety? I do understand, though, how the loss of a crumbling and long standing world view can feel. Many of us have been through similar scenarios in our lives. It happens, Often we discover the world is not actually the way we believed it to be. It can be tough.

You need to go back and re-read my posts, what you have put is a strawman, you should know by now that's not the issue being discussed, bad faith debating again.

if you don't have the evidence for what i actually posted on and have posted many times very clearly. its fine to just say so.

if you don't understand the debate, that's also fine.

Jeez, @Collat I assume AI is being used a lot in your posts because it’s incredible that you can post so much word salad and so little actual legible quality content.

Off- topic post is off- topic.

Mate. Your posts are so incomprehensible no one can understand you. You’re the one claiming there is a consensus that humans can change sex and sex is not binary.

You’re doing exactly what I’ve been pointing out for several pages now: asserting, dismissing, instead of substantiating.

You’ve made a long series of claims here, that the evidence base is “no evidence”, that a “US gender industry” suppresses data, that studies are ignored, that Tavistock proves ideological capture, but you haven’t actually provided institutional, peer-reviewed, consensus-level evidence for any of those claims. Repeating them confidently doesn’t turn them into facts.

This is the issue, and it hasn’t changed no matter how many paragraphs are written around it: you are making counter-consensus claims. That means the burden of proof is on you and your community. Not rhetorically, not politically.... evidentially.

Pointing to internal debate, evolving guidelines, or historical shortcomings in data collection does not overturn consensus. That’s how science works: evidence accumulates, standards improve, and positions are refined. That process does not somehow invalidate the existence of a consensus across major medical and psychiatric bodies, it is how those consensuses were formed in the first place.

You keep saying “there is no consensus” while offering no evidence that any major medical, psychiatric, or clinical institution endorses your position instead. None. Not one. That’s the gap you keep trying to talk around.
And when that gap is pointed out, the response shifts to motives, tone, psychology, and speculation about my emotional state. That’s not engagement, it’s deflection. It’s what happens when a position can’t meet the evidentiary bar it’s claiming to care about.

But just to help you, Ill use google

I googled

"Is there currently a medical, psychological, clinical and psychiatric consensus on gender identity, and trans?"

googles answer

"Yes, there is a strong, broad consensus among major medical, psychological, clinical, and psychiatric professional organizations worldwide regarding the legitimacy of transgender identities and the necessity of gender-affirming care."

That summary isn’t Google’s opinion; it reflects the published positions of those institutions.

If you believe the consensus is wrong, the task is simple: show credible institutional backing for your claims. If you can’t, then what you’re offering is opinion, not fact. Just say that. It would be more honest than continuing to assert certainty while avoiding the standard of proof you’re wanting from others.

But you have none. That’s the point. No institutional backing, no consensus support, only opinion and rhetoric standing in for evidence.

Stop engaging with the sea lion people! He is just trying to fill the thread with distraction!

have you read The Cass review @Collat? I assume you think that’s just opinion and rhetoric, yeah? 🤣🤣

He tells her that the Earth is flat -
He knows the facts, and that is that.
In altercations fierce and long
She tries her best to prove him wrong.
But he has learned to argue well.
He calls her arguments unsound
And often asks her not to yell.
She cannot win. He stands his ground.
The planet goes on being round.
Wendy Cope, c.2001

for all Collats endless AI word salad there will continue to be only 2 sexes

Geez, , if we'll decide important issues based on what answer Google throws up first, we are truly fucked.

Now I think a relevant question at this point is why do some people not want us to talk about the civil service position?

Wendy Cope's a great poet isn't she? Of course she also wrote When I am old...

When I am an old woman I shall wear purple
With a red hat which doesn’t go, and doesn’t suit me.
And I shall spend my pension on brandy and summer gloves
And satin sandals, and say we’ve no money for butter.
I shall sit down on the pavement when I’m tired
And gobble up samples in shops and press alarm bells
And run my stick along the public railings
And make up for the sobriety of my youth.
I shall go out in my slippers in the rain
And pick flowers in other people’s gardens
And learn to spit.
You can wear terrible shirts and grow more fat
And eat three pounds of sausages at a go
Or only bread and pickle for a week
And hoard pens and pencils and beermats and things in boxes.
But now we must have clothes that keep us dry
And pay our rent and not swear in the street
And set a good example for the children.
We must have friends to dinner and read the papers.
But maybe I ought to practise a little now?
So people who know me are not too shocked and surprised
When suddenly I am old, and start to wear purple.

💕💕

I must admit that I utterly hate (and have always hated) that poem.

😁
It's not everyone's cup of tea I know . But it speaks to the power of older women stepping out from the pressures of social convention and having the confidence to do as we want.

And maybe has a message to women civil servants trying to avoid the boot on the neck approach of all the trans extremists currently employed there, busily trying to erase women's rights? Which of course goes right to the subject of the thread.

When I first read it, it made me think of my aunt’s behaviour and her distress as dementia took hold, particularly the slippers outdoors and the hoarding.

It’s not Wendy Cope, it’s Jenny Joseph. Nothing like Wendy Cope’s style, which uses formal structures and rhyme. I prefer Cope’s work by a rather long way.