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

What was the change in job title @Doomscrollingforever ?

I didn’t see, only a comment that it had changed between Saturday and this week.

The positive about all this is that the government knows they're under scrutiny from a mass of women, groups, politicians, lawyers etc. And that the courageous civil servants who don't dance to the trans bully tune will leak info. The Denton days of deals behind closed doors is over - they can (and no doubt will) try it, but will no longer get away with it.

The general public are now far more away of the safeguarding catastrophe this is so questions will continue to be asked and decisions challenged.

Quite!

Oh I so want the laugh react for this 😂

No. No sex related characteristics can be altered to be the characteristics of the opposite sex.

An inverted penis is still a penis a male sex organ. It hasn't magically morphed into an actual vagina.

IT'S STILL A PENIS! it's just inside out now. Which is a nauseating thought and I wish I hadn't had it.

Stitching a rolled up peice of arm flesh to a female groin does not remove the vagina and is not a penis. That woman cannot use that appendage to impregnate another woman.
Because IT'S NOT A PENIS.

These are superficial cosmetic surgeries. Mutilations. They haven't ALTERED anything fundamentally.

Can I call as a witness Emeritus Professor Lord Robert Winston who knows more about this topic than most, and certainly more than anyone posting on this board no matter how many web pages they have downloaded . He says quite categorically that humans, or anything else for that matter, can not change sex. That you remain the sex you were when conceived until your dying breath. He also says that humans are binary, ie there are male humans and there are female humans.

Um... that's not EXACTLY what the GC side are saying.

The definition of an adult human female is one that has the anatomy that is built around the production of large immotile gametes. Regardless of whether those gametes are actually being produced.

Example:
Menopausal women are still women - the rest of their body is geared towards large gamete production even though they are no longer producing them. They still have their ovaries and even if if they didn't, even if they have had a full hysterectomy in fact, their body is designed to house them. Not a single male person has that anatomy.

Chat GPT has left the chat

lets focus on dealing wit how to stop the Civil Service advertising jobs
whose specs are illegal

Well, it seems that the CONSENSUS is that @Collat is AI. So by Collat's logic, the burden of proof is on Collat to prove that (he?) isn't AI.

I had a quick peek to see if you had all stopped with the usual strategies of

Burden-Shifting <- its on you
Moving the goalpost
reality reframing
and derailment via substitution <- (You keep pivoting this discussion back to sex, which is odd given that this conversation is about gender identity and trans. I thought we all understood the distinction between sex and gender by now.)

but i did promise if you brough some credible evidence i would discuss it, and ive seen the Cass review mentioned multiple times.

What’s strange is that you keep citing the Cass Review as if it’s a decisive document that backs your claims, when it does no such thing.
The review is about process, evidence quality, service design, and clinical caution. It explicitly addresses shortcomings in how care was delivered and recommends slowing, restructuring, and strengthening standards. Nowhere does it deny the existence of trans people or reject the concept of gender identity.

Cass is not evidence for your position, nor is it evidence against the current medical consensus. It’s a middle-ground service review, not an ideological intervention. Yes, it has led to greater caution and tighter safeguards, which hopefully we all agree is a good thing — but that is not the same as overturning or rejecting the broader consensus.

Treating Cass as a “gotcha” that validates claims it never makes is simply a misreading of what the review actually says.

The other recurring issue is the outright denial that any consensus exists at all. That's extremely dishonest of you who do it, and shows your dishonesty in the conversation.

At this point it’s clear that the gender-critical position still hasn’t produced any claims that are backed by recognised medical, psychological, or psychiatric institutions.

Assertions like “social contagion” remain unsupported at the institutional level, and in consensus debates that matters: when you are challenging an established consensus, the burden of proof is on those making the counter-consensus claim.

Repeatedly denying the existence of consensus, shifting the burden back onto others, reframing the discussion around sex instead of gender, appealing to motive or ideology rather than evidence, or treating internal debate and service reviews as refutations of consensus are all well-known bad-faith tactics, not substitutes for evidence. I’d kindly ask that these tactics stop, and that any further engagement actually meets the evidentiary standard being claimed to matter. I already know these tactics won’t stop, because without them the position being argued and claims being made would have to stand on evidence alone — and that absence is exactly what’s being exposed here.

just to help you guys again understand this (from google)

In a debate against an established consensus, the burden of proof lies squarely on the challenger (the person or party arguing against the consensus).

• Evidential Requirement: The challenger cannot simply state that the consensus is wrong or demand that the consensus side "prove them wrong."

I’m not sure there’s much point in popping back at this stage, because it’s already clear there’s nothing forthcoming in terms of evidence. if anyone does reply, try not to prove my point by immediately reverting to the same bad-faith tactics outlined above. (or other ones I've not mentioned as there are others)

You can definitely claim a consensus if you only accept the views of organisations who agree with you.

But even cherry picking the organisations you do, other than wpath who are trans activists, I don't think they endorse gender ideology as fully as you seem to claim.

lol at the idea that absolute anyone either posting or lurking is persuaded by a load of AI generated word salad being plopped into the chat but you do you Collat. you're doing our work for us

I do like a good consensus. My absolute favourite is the consensus that the Sun and the planets all revolve around the Earth. This consensus was held by the scientific community until the middle of the seventeenth century despite there being no evidence to support it and good evidence that the Sun is the centre of the Solar system having been available for over 100 years.

Nobody today supports the geocentric consensus as it is patently wrong and the same is true of the loose consensus that affirmative care is the only acceptable treatment for gender incongruence.

More recently and appropriate to the context, there were all the pain associations in American who held the consensus that OxyContin wasn’t addictive. The FDA were in on that consensus too. There is simply a matter of a huge opioid crisis that spread across American as a result leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the destruction of families and communities...

I recommend watching ‘Dopesick’ to find out more - there are a lot of parallels between OxyContin and ‘Gender Affirming Care’.

OK, so we've almost got a clear point or two amongst the AI verbiage.

I don't think that the Gender Critical view denies the existence of trans people, so that's a straw man argument.

Gender identity is more a legal point than a medical one, and is rejected as attempts to define it end up in circular arguments and reliance on stereotypes. The claimed universality of gender identity is simple to deal with.

The rest is padding.

There are no clear points only unevidenced assertion. Pages and pages of unevidenced assertion. All to say men must be allowed to commit voyeurism and sexual exposure with impunity. And to distract from a civil service post looking to support men in that.

Note to self - must investigate chatgpt's new student politics mode

Having been watching the transmogrification of gender over the years
through

• born in the wrong body
• chimerism
• dragging in those with DSDs
• the invention and contagion of non binary
• the denial that trans identifying men think they have changed sex
• the supergay / superlesbian memes
• the invention of trans lebians (straight men)
• educate yourself
• no debate
• support animals

it is absolutely clear that gender is a cult that is welcome to live alongside reality but not interfere with it

It certainly has NO PLACE in the Civil Service or legislation.

“They turned me into a cat” 🤣

Yes along with incessant demands and attempts to control.

'I’d kindly ask that these tactics stop, and that any further engagement actually meets the evidentiary standard being claimed to matter'.

"...but i did promise if you brough some credible evidence i would discuss it" 😂

So many transactivists treat women on here as if we're their mothers, teachers, nannies or even cleaners, requiring us to their googling for them.

It was infuriating days ago but now the pomposity is just very funny. 😅

Collat

I had a quick peek to see if you had all stopped with the usual strategies of

Burden-Shifting <- its on you
Moving the goalpost
Reality reframing, and
Derailment via substitution

(You keep pivoting this discussion back to sex, which is odd given that this conversation is about gender identity and trans. I thought we all understood the distinction between sex and gender by now.)

Reply to Collat:

Everyone on this board considers gender and sex to be two different things. Gender is based on the regressive and limiting stereotypes a particular society or individual places on sex, i.e. males and females. Our world would be a better place without these gender stereotypes.

Gender relies on sex, and is a human construct in a continual state of flux. Sex is a physical reality that exists independently of all humans. We didn't construct the idea of sex, it was already an obvious verifiable truth in the world's animals and plants. Like gravity or the earth orbiting the sun, sex is a concrete fact we cannot change.

Gender identity is just a label we chose to place on wanting to be the opposite sex. Humans want lots and lots of different things. This particular want is, of course, wholly impossible. Sex is fixed and cannot be changed. That is a universal fact for all mammals.

And we do have scientific consensus here. Sex is fixed. Like tigers, whales, bats and squirrels, as mammals, if we're born male, we will die male.

We also have legal consensus. Trans women are men, the Equality Act 2010 confirms this. Surgery, hormones and a piece of paper cannot turn a man into a woman. Still a man.

But the desire itself to become the opposite sex will have a range of reasons driving it, most commonly:

• Straight middle-aged men with a sexual fetish of imagining themselves as a young 'desirable' woman. They want to be able to perform their fetish in public, and greatly enjoy invading women's only spaces

• Young women and girls wanting to escape the male gaze. Epitomised by the unwanted and creepy behaviour from those in the category above. Some may be seeking to escape sexual abuse by becoming unattractive to a specific predator from childhood

• Children who are worried about being same sex attracted. They often also feel 'different' due to autism or another condition. They want to escape the bullying by becoming someone else, someone who is 'straight'

The Cass Review looked at children, not adults. So focused on the second two very sympathetic categories.

But let's focus on the first, deeply selfish, category.

Do you think a straight middle aged man can become a woman and a lesbian through:

• sheer force of his imagination or will?
• him wearing makeup, a wig, dress and heels?
• his taking female hormones?
• cosmetic surgery that takes his male bodily tissue and makes a new shape from it?

None of these work. Changing sex can never happen. Science says no. Man is still a man.

No-one denies that trans people - people who want to be the opposite sex - exist. Nor do we think all trans people are sexual predators. But this 'want' is doomed to failure. We cannot change our sex.

Some children want to escape their sex because of sexual predators. They are not trans, they're trying to protect themselves. Running away from something terrible is not the same as moving purposefully and thoughtfully towards something good. Pretending to be the opposite sex, a fragile easily dismantled falsehood, isn't something good for anyone at any age.

Who would be so cruel as to use children suffering fear and abuse as handy arguments to be exploited for pushing their own sexual fetish into the public sphere?

You've lost.

We have legal consensus. Trans women are men, the Equality Act 2010 confirms this. Surgery, hormones and a piece of paper cannot turn a man into a woman. Still a man. Always a man.

The above is my humble offering to whomever gets this poisoned post in the Cabinet Office.

And I wish the future postholder the very best of luck in ensuring that the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling is followed to the letter in all Government Departments. Both the policies in how they manage themselves and in the public policies they develop.

All civil servants must support the rule of law. And the Law says: Men must stay out of women's spaces.

Thank you @KitWyn for that beautiful clarity.