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

Being gay isn’t just a feeling you choose, but it is based on a person’s internal experience of attraction, ...

It's based on a biological reaction because it's sexual attraction. People can't identify as same sex attracted, they are sexually attracted to people who are the same sex as them, as a opposed to people who are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.

It's not actually very difficult @Collat

No human being can change sex.

Women's sex based rights need to be upheld.

Therefore men can keep out of women's single sex spaces and services.

Gender is irrelevant to this discussion.

Capeesh?

We're all putting in an effort.

You have yet to address any of the questions i have spent considerable time and effort putting to you in response to your points. You just resort to " It's complicated".

You do realise there are all sorts of people who post here, from every background and experience ( and sexual orientation). Many have been around the block on numerous occasions. We are not stupid.

I know. I just wanted to highlight the absurdity of the reasoning.

@Collat I'm a transman. That means I'm a female person presenting as a male one. That does not, however, make me a man. How could it? What do I know of being a man? I was never raised as a boy. I didn't get male socialisation. I don't have a male body through which to experience life. I'm not a man. I just present as one.

which shapes how you navigate the world, express yourself, and relate to others.

How do you relate to someone differently if they have a feminine gender identity compared to if they have a masculine one? Unless in a context where the biological differences between the sexes are relevant, I would just interact with people as individuals. Anything else is just sexism isn't it?

Why do we need to divide into identity groups based on what seems to be no describable criteria and what are we supposed to do with it once we've done so?

I don’t doubt that for a second. That’s not really how forums work anyway — the people actively posting usually have their minds made up. The value is more for the silent readers who are following along and forming their own views. It’s also very easy for spaces like this to become echo chambers when the same viewpoints go unchallenged, which can make existing beliefs feel more certain than they really are. Which judging by your post im sure that's how you would prefer it.

The silent readers will be able to see very clearly what side of this debate is based on science and reason and respect for women.

Clue, it isn't the side advocating for the presence of men in women's prisons, domestic violence centres and changing rooms.

No, what I would prefer is if someone would come with an argument that we haven't heard a gazzillion times before and that hasn't been debunked as many times as well. Every single argument or "fact" as you like to call it has been made in this forum (and elsewhere) even if it all seems quite new to you. Are you trying to bore us into defeat?

i don't think we are having the same discussion any more, you are so far off the point that it needs its own thread. Throwing 15 different topics into a pool without actually addressing an individual point is not a graceful way to debate.

But yes, for right or for wrong some of the norms have played into how gender norms have structured over time. just as gender norms have constructed differently in different cultures.

We’re largely in agreement. Sex-based spaces exist for reasons tied to sexed bodies, and where language or policy creates ambiguity that undermines that, it does need addressing. Acknowledging gender identity doesn’t automatically mean sex-based provisions should disappear or be ignored.

Where I think it tips into rhetoric is when concerns about access become a reason to dismiss the reality of trans people altogether, or to treat recognition of their existence as a threat. If definitions or policies around “man” and “woman” create practical problems in sex-segregated spaces, then those problems should be dealt with directly and proportionately, without denying people’s basic existence or rights in other areas of life.

On your point about separate provision for masculine or feminine gender identities, I agree — there isn’t a clear justification in most cases. But that itself reflects the fact that gender roles and norms are human-made. Over time, we’ve embedded expectations about masculinity and femininity so deeply into society that they shape people’s lives whether we like it or not. Recognizing that reality isn’t the same as endorsing it; it’s simply acknowledging how we got here.

‘Woman are sex objects’ is a socially constructed norm associated with sex, aka gender, ergo your definition of women is that they are sex objects. And that is what you say policy should be built on.

Where I think it tips into rhetoric is when concerns about access become a reason to dismiss the reality of trans people altogether, or to treat recognition of their existence as a threat. If definitions or policies around “man” and “woman” create practical problems in sex-segregated spaces, then those problems should be dealt with directly and proportionately, without denying people’s basic existence or rights in other areas of life.

No one is saying men who identify as women should not have the same existence or rights as other men.

If definitions or policies around “man” and “woman” create practical problems in sex-segregated spaces, then those problems should be dealt with directly and proportionately, without denying people’s basic existence or rights in other areas of life.

No one's existence is denied by referencing their biological sex. If people cannot deal with factual statements, they need to get therapy.

Argue against me then, the facts are on my side so i greatly encourage you to engage with me and prove me wrong.

what i suspect happens is, when someone starts to make some sense and has a stronger position than you like, you try to convince them to go away, thus the echo chamber continues.

you've not debunked anything yet. if you've done it before, quickly reply to me and debunk me.

If you're actually interested read the pages and pages of threads here, you'll find it all, plus evidence. YEARS of it. Try the 'break it down for me' thread. The Supreme Court threads.

If you're just here to play then whatever. If you want to believe women shouldn't have their legal rights then ok, believe women shouldn't have legal rights. Enjoy. The law exists anyway so it's a pointless conversation.

Physiological responses like heart rate or arousal don’t define sexuality — they correlate with it. They vary by context, suppression, age, medication, and individual difference. We don’t strap people to machines to verify if they’re gay, straight, or bi — we accept their self-report because internal states aren’t reliably or ethically testable.

Gender identity works the same way. There are biological correlates, but no definitive external test. In both cases, the only workable standard is lived experience and self-identification.

I’ve never argued women shouldn’t have legal rights. I’ve explicitly said sex-based protections exist and should remain. Please address what I’m actually saying, not a position you’ve assigned to me.

although you probably need me in that position otherwise nothing else you can say holds water.

People are arguing against you on this thread. Every argument I could make has been made repeatedly on this thread.
Women are adult human females. The definition of sex is based on the type of gametes your body produces (with the the usual caveat to developmental disorders), your feeling or gender make no difference to this. We can't base laws on ill-defined and changeable concepts like gender.

The issue is when a trans woman is referred to as a man at the level of gender, not sex. Saying a trans woman is male or was born male isn’t controversial — that’s literally why the term trans woman exists. It describes a change in gender, not a claim that sex was never male.

So no one is disputing factual statements about sex. The disagreement is about refusing to acknowledge gender at all, even when sex has already been clearly stated.

What difference would acknowledging their gender make? As long as they stay out of women's spaces and sports, I don't care about their gender.

Men and women are allowed to identify themselves as trans.
White people are allowed to identify themselves as black.
Old people are allowed to identify as young.
Afghans refugees are allowed to identify as British.

But identities are never reality
they are just an idea in a persons head
they do NOT change the reality of others

Someone's 'gender identity' is of zero consequence to me. Just like their religious beliefs, star signs, Myers Briggs profiles and so on

They can choose to read meaning into these things themselves, but I am under no compulsion to place any value on them.

Again i never had the position to make laws based on gender. Youve put me back into the position you want me in.

You are correct, I'm not disputing the sex elements. Although they can be discussed in much greater detail and actual end up supporting the gender nuance argument.

you're not even addressing anything I'm saying, just arguing the things you think I'm talking about. which again shows your echo chamber like bias on the subject.

But if you would like me to address your comment as it seems to be the topic of choice for you then, and just so you know this isnt my concrete opinion, just putting it out there that it is possible

It’s simply not true that laws can only be based on immutable biological traits. Legal systems constantly work with categories that are socially defined, flexible, or evolving. Gender is no different. If a society decides that gender identity is relevant for fairness, safety, or dignity, then it can absolutely create policies around it—just as it already does for religion, disability, marital status, or ethnicity. The fact that a concept evolves over time doesn’t make it unusable in law.

Identifying as another race or age fails because those categories are defined externally. Gender is defined socially and internally. Not the same structure.

He is a man because he is an adult human male. I don’t refer to gender. If he wants to identify with misogynistic sex stereotypes then that is up to him and I will do by best to avoid him.