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

*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.*

In the first place, yes they are very much disputing factual statements about sex and claiming access to women's single sex spaces. Before that became mainstream, there was pretty much the live and let live situation you ask for. We knew transwomen were not actual women because actual women means female, but politely pretended and used pronouns etc to help them get along with their dysphoria. That's gone now because trans activists said transwomen ARE women and therefore should be in women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons etc. So in order to keep single sex spaces, women had to clearly assert the truth that men and women means sex not identity.

Women cannot just let the trans movement co-opt the word woman to mean some kind of meaningless identity club because the word woman is all over our sex based rights. Swathes of law and medical science would need overwriting to not mention men/women and just mention male/female. You can't just rewrite history like that.

And there's really very little point because as soon as we did that transactivists would assert transwomen are female too. They're already doing it. Beth Upton, a doctor no less, claimed in court under oath to be a biological female. (He's male, a man.)

Gay isn't sexuality, it's sexual attraction, it's biology, it's not an internal state, so long as people who are same sex attracted acknowledge they are attracted to their own sex it's merely acknowledging their material reality.

Gender is entirely made up, it can change on a whim, it isn't a reality, it can't be compared to sexual attraction which is a result of someone's biology, which can't be changed.

Nothing, But this job role may be about how we move forward as a society given that trans people do exist and its all natural, they deserve basic human rights and acceptance as much as anyone

and...

Acknowledging someone’s gender mainly helps with basic day‑to‑day stuff — not sports or women’s spaces. Countries like Finland handle this by adding more unisex bathrooms and neutral facilities so nobody’s rights clash. It’s practical, not ideological.

In other words, it is a belief system. I don’t follow that belief system and I don’t think laws should be made to require anyone to follow any particular religion or belief.

What race is Barack Obama ? (white mother, black father)
What race was Bob Marley ? (white father, black mother )
What race is Tiger woods ? (asian mother, black father)

Race is an entirely human construct - it cannot be empirically tested
Age is a result of human documentation - it is not possible to empirically test
Sex is UTTERLY easy to test and verify (in humans, mammals, and many plants)

Gender is a form of religion - its an internal belief system with constantly changing catechisms

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.

We should not base laws on something that is completely unverifiable and solely exists in a person's head.

Sexual orientation isn’t measurable like height. It’s defined by attraction, which is internal. Gender works the same way — internal identity expressed socially.

You can’t change being trans any more than you can change being gay. Both come from deep biological wiring.

I don't agree that it is moving society forward, it's giving in to emotional blackmail.
We have suggested third spaces for years and it's been rejected because third spaces don't provide validation.

Why do we need more unisex toilets if they only want the same basic human rights and acceptance as anyone? They have the same access to sex based toilets as anyone.

Those examples actually prove the opposite of what you think: race is externally imposed, not self‑identified. Gender is internal identity; race is external categorization. Different systems.

i can google and find out what race those three are if you want as they will be externally defined.

Gender is not a form of religion. but it is an internal system so you are getting there!

Most of society's issues with trans ideology are based on the interminable demands from transactivists to impose their preferences on unconsenting members of society - the old TWAW, women can have a penis nonsense.

The focus on children has been most egregious - from the activists who targeted children in the care of the state over a decade ago to persuade them that their bodies might be wrong and a sex change the cure (Julie Bindel has written powerfully about this). The toxic Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence, Stonewall exerting such inappropriate influence on child healthcare / GIDs that the place had to be shut down (see Hannah Barnes book, Time to Think). Let alone promoting the idea that physically healthy but mentally vulnerable children should have their bodies chemically sterilised and physically mutilated to fix their mental illness.

This movement represents a tiny % of the population yet has enforced niche demands about language, the removal of sex based rights and demolished so many aspects of child safeguarding through bullying and threats. It's anti democratic, undermining of the social contract and lacking in both intellectual and scientific credibility.

Until transactivists stop demanding that society changes according to their demands and leaves children to mature to adulthood in safety, they'll always get push back.

... given that trans people do exist and its all natural, they deserve basic human rights and acceptance as much as anyone

'trans' people don't exist, humans exist and all humans have the same rights, there is no need for any special rights or extra rights.

It's not all natural, it's all performative, a man may want to be a women, but that doesn't mean he can ever be one, he can only present as his version of one through performance.

There are very good reasons that make unisex toilets unsafe, and the least best option, despite how Finland are doing things.

Not to mention the 'trans' activists don't want neutral spaces because it doesn't validate there performance, they want to be allowed to go into women's spaces.

But gender stereotypes are externally imposed. No man knows what it feels like to be female. He'd just rather wear a skirt and make up, which has been externally codified as female. So it's not internal at all, bar an unhappiness with his own life. Possibly due to the external stereotypes imposed on that life.

Of course this also applies to women who identify as trans.

I agree that right now it’s tricky. But science evolves. Sexuality, mental health, and even chronic pain were once dismissed as ‘in someone’s head’ too. Over time they became better understood and easier to work with legally.

to dismiss it entirely though... the conversation should always be left open if its the best thing to do in the future.

Sexual orientation isn’t measurable like height. It’s defined by attraction, which is internal.

Sexual attraction is very measurable because it's a biological response, scientists have been studying sexual responses for years.

Gender is not a form of religion.

Key Characteristics of Religion often Include:

• Beliefs/Worldviews: Ideas about the divine, the sacred, the cosmos, or ultimate reality.
• Practices/Rituals: Ceremonies, prayers, worship, or prescribed behaviors.
• Ethics/Morals: Codes of conduct guiding human actions.
• Community: Social structures, organizations, or shared identities.
• Texts/Stories: Sacred scriptures, myths, or prophecies.

Gender ideology definitely fits.@

Are you suggesting that science is going to find a way to measure a person's gender?

@Collat

Can I play back my understanding of your position on the provision of services in a civilised society and where discrimination based on sex or gender may be applied?

Firstly, there should be no discrimination in the provision of most services (healthcare, education, employment, housing etc.) based on sex or gender as they should be the same for everyone.

Secondly, it is appropriate to discriminate on the basis of sex where sex is relevant. Examples would include: shared toilets and changing rooms; hospital wards and prisons; refuges and group rape counselling services; most sports.

Thirdly, it is appropriate to discriminate on the basis of gender where gender is relevant. This is where I hit a wall. I fail to come up with any examples. Can you help me?

Not quite.
Every person has an internal sense of themselves — a felt understanding of what it means to be a man, a woman, or something else entirely. That sense isn’t simply handed to us by stereotypes, even if stereotypes influence how society expects us to behave.

For some men, being a man is tied to ideas like sacrifice, building, protecting. For others, it’s about embracing emotional openness or traits traditionally labelled “feminine.”
For some women, being a woman is connected to caregiving, compassion, or motherhood. For others, it’s about strength, independence, or roles that don’t fit the traditional mould at all.

The point is: no one else can define your internal sense of self. And many people never consciously examine it — they just assume the default because it was never questioned.

So it’s not as simple as “stereotypes imposed from the outside.” There’s an inner experience too, and that’s what people are trying to express when they talk about gender identity.

Gender identity works the same way. There are biological correlates,

Eh? What biological correlates?? I'm trans and this is news to me.

Every person has an internal sense of themselves — a felt understanding of what it means to be a man, a woman, or something else entirely.

No, I have a sense of what it means to be me. I have no clue what sense of themselves other women have.

If there is no equivalent post for women (and/or men), isn’t that discrimination?

Every person has an internal sense of themselves — a felt understanding of what it means to be a man, a woman, or something else entirely.

According to your examples, I have no sense of being a man nor a woman nor anything else. I don't have a sense of being anything at all.

So personality then.

Can Afghan women identify as men to make the Taliban stop persecuting them ?

No
its always men wanting to impose upon women