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

🙄How embarrassing. Apologies to Wendy Cope and Jenny Joseph.

Sigh. Coffee time 😀

Do we think the drive for this civil servant post comes from civil servants or is there a political element there too? Is it Phillipson?

For anyone on this forum, I have never said or implied that women must obey.

Correct - it is however strongly implied in your composition

My comments have always been directed at the topic itself, which concerns gender, trans identities, and related claims —

The topic of this thread is in the OP. it’s about a civil service job advert. If you want a generalised debate about your list above then start your own post. You’re disturbing the people here who want to discuss the OP - hence the comments from PP about de-railing

My general observation is that there’s a lot of male pattern posting here.

I would guess it's Phillipson trying to delay/stop implementing the SC guidance.

But a more optiimistic take could be that she is about to approve the guidance and this is just a sop to appease the trans activists element of the civil service.

As the Cabinet Office is refusing to change their "men in women's spaces if they want" stance until the hidden EHRC guidance is issued, my guess is a bit of both? Driven by the captured civil service with MPs like Phillipson in thrall to the Unions happy to wave it through?

It is also about the equality act and gender identity is irrelevant to that. It is about how the civil service and/or Phillipson are trying to get around a Supreme Court ruling that states regardless of a GRC sex means biological sex within the equality act and is binary. No amount of whataboutery changes that.

I am no where near that optimistic. I suspect a first task would be to come up with more reasons for delaying the EHRC guidelines.

Or to water it down so much it's virtually meaningless

I seem to recall that proposals for such a post (and its two supporting posts) have been around for some time, even under the previous cabinet secretary. Do we know whether this is a new post or just an ad to replace someone who was already doing the job?

Also, Phillipson isn’t in a position to create a Cabinet Office post, I’d have thought.

The Supreme Court ruling states the law and that always takes precedence over guidelines. That is why they are in such a bind - the guidelines are correct, they cannot be watered down in the way they want. They could be made less helpful by removing things but they still must reflect the law.

Yes I know we all know that but in labour world inhabited by bee kiiinder ppl who support the fox botherer and think the Darlington nurses are unreasonable, there still seems to be this idea that somehow guidance can be produced that means organisations/services/individuals don't have to obey the bits of the law they don't like

The civil service is no different to most other organisations across the UK in having embraced DEI, including gender identity theory, and in having allowed activist staff groups to flourish and dictate policy and practice, supported by activist HR functions.

The private sector is apparently turning its back on this, but the public sector, where change takes a lot longer, is still caught in DEI’s embrace.

Many organisations that make big trans-supporting gestures contain a single principal who is an active supporter of trans/gender ideology who is pushing that agenda. Others in leadership don’t particularly care but don’t want to be seen as out of step with current thinking and values. They’ve also often been misinformed about the law by their lawyers and HR functions.

This subject is explored extremely well in the podcast This isn’t Working. A particularly good pod was a discussion between Helen Joyce and Inji Duducu, an HR director, on Who’s ignoring the Supreme Court ruling (2 July).

I enjoy "This isn't working". It's been very insightful about some of the organisations pushing this.

The depressing thing is until the civil service are reined back into complying with the Nolan Principles, schools and the NHS will continue to be targeted by the extreme trans lobby as civil servants not only fund them, but also continue to promote transgenderism via policy. Which is catastrophic for children in schools and treated by the NHS.

It's interesting how we all read it differently.

I see it as a FU to her husband, he's had freedom while she's had to be sensible bringing the kids up, her older years are her time for freedom.

But having had close members of family with dementia I can understand your interpretation

It's not complex at all. According to the UK Equality Act 2010, the primary piece of legislation protecting people from discrimination:

• Trans Women are Men
• Trans Men are Women
• 'Woman' and 'Man' refer to sex not gender
• Sex is biological, not a social construct
• A GRC is irrelevant. A man remains a man.

Humans, as is the case with all mammals, cannot change their sex. Men were born male, and will die male. Their thoughts, wishes, hopes and dreams cannot change this biological reality.

Quote from the recent Supreme Court judgement:

The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and
not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent
and impracticable to operate.

'Gender Identity' is a selfish, science-denying ideology that draws on damaging and outdated gender stereotypes primarily to allow men to perform their sexual fetishes in public.

As with prostitution and porn, some men are so damaged by their sexual obsessions that any and all reason, logic and concern for others becomes irrelevant. Being able to meet their sexual 'needs' trumps the safety and wellbeing of women and children.

TWAM and TMAW are both firmly established in UK Law. And this IS moving the UK to a better place.

The Darlington Nurses' case recognises these legal truths. The Leonardo/Kelly and NHS Fife/Peggie cases will be reversed on appeal, and these rulings will then be binding on the lower courts.

Therefore, this new post in the Cabinet Office can usefully lead on robustly embedding TWAM across all Government policies affecting women-only spaces and services. The postholder could work with, for example, DCMS, to ensure UK sporting clubs can easily and efficiently keep men out of women's sports and the women's changing rooms.

The postholder can also consider the specific concerns arising when trans identifying women place themselves in danger by using men-only spaces. As with the recent shocking case of a trans identifying woman patient being raped on an NHS male psychiatric ward.

So much useful work to be done. She or he will be very, very busy.

And it’s not only a matter of rolling back some DEI/gender theory influence. Trans/gender activism is like mushrooms, it pops up all over the place overnight. We now see the attempts to influence cross-European policy through Brussels, and apparently as Stonewall’s influence has waned, many gender ‘training’ organisations are emerging to fill the vacuum.

I have been shocked how easily activists in any area can set themselves up as a training organisation and the public sector with happily pay them to train them. No due diligence by the public sector and no qualifications (however dubious) needed by the activist. ‘Lived experience’ is seen as a big plus not a risk for self-interested activism.

And more widely, but especially with trans, the only people considered ‘stakeholders’ in developing policy are those advocating for their own benefit. Other ‘stakeholders’ who would be impacted by the change are ignored. It is a bit like asking me what I want and I say I want Fred’s house and car and they say ‘ok, here is his house and car’ without considering if Fred should get any consideration in having his house and car handed over.

Gender identity is a totally made up concept, it does not exist in reality or biology. No member of the medical profession treats a patient according to their gender, they are treated according to their biological sex.
The following clearly shows how gender is an invented concept, a personal choice.

https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/article.htm

The kiddos have demanded breakfast! Now!

The kiddos are like gender identity - completely made up.

A huge amount of the problems here have occurred because people mistook activists for experts.

That is an AI response. AI responses are a collation of everything that has ever been stated on the internet; including the claims made by people such as yourself that there is a scientific consensus on 'gender identity'. There isn't.

If there is, please post links to the actual studies - and preferably not from organisations that simply go along with WPATH guidelines ( the only ones you have so far referenced such 'The Endocrine Society' etc).

The reason the NHS Tavistock was closed down was because it provided no evidence; and held no data - and it was acting in contravention to normal medical ethical processes and standards. The NHS had itself been relying on WPATH guidelines, and many of its practitioners were highly ideologically motovated by its 'affirmation' protocols.

If you cannot accept the findings of the Cass Review - a four year long study - then it is clear you will accept nothing at all. Instead i imagine you will cling to the idea that the consensus you talk about actually exists.

It is you on the back foot....and in the defensive position.

WPATH - the flat-earthers got together and formed a World Authority to generate no evidence guidance so everyone else can understand how flat the world is.

I wonder whether that job will be quetly shelved
it was an internal one - no advert
but got leaked to Rupert Lowe and then shared by Julie Bindel.

The Civil Service are now on notice that the internal jobs board is liable to screenshot at any time ...

I think that is overly optimistic. I saw Julie Bindel said the job title changed so I suspect they will still have the role just make is marginally less obvious.