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

Collat, you lost me at
About a year and a half ago, i was on your side of the debate... until someone pointed out that sex and gender is different... i went and did some research ..

There's nothing wrong with not knowing something, there's loads of stuff I don't know, but I've known for decades that sex and gender are different.

You only found that out about a year and a half ago. OK, fine.

But your attitude is condescending; you write as if you are talking to people who have not had that revelation that you had a year and a half ago, and have not done any research, who think sex and gender are the same thing, who have not studied the subject in great detail, who have not, in some cases, got professional qualifications in areas related to sex and gender, who have not thought as deeply as you have about this topic..

We have- most of us for more than a year and a half. We've been around this block, we've done our research, we've verified our scientific facts, and on that basis we've formed our opinions. We defend our opinions on the basis of verifiable facts.

Inconvenient for some, obviously...

But "man" refers exclusively to sex. A man is an adult male human, so a transwoman is a man. If you want words to refer to gender, then you'll need to invent them. You can't just take a word that refers to one thing and declare that it now refers to another thing.

Anybody familiar with my style of posting knows that I am not confrontative and it is very unusual for me to use the word 'condescending' about another poster.
I didn't do so lightly in my reply to Collat, and here's an example:

Collat · Today 16:56
Gender is not a form of religion. but it is an internal system so you are getting there!

Getting where, Collat? To a position of total alignment with your opinions about sex and gender? Is anything short of that not quite up to scratch for you?

PLEASE do not feed the troll.
It does not want to learn.
Id is not listening to us.
It is just filling the thread with guff.

I am just looking forward to Akua Rheindorf applying to that Civil Service job and them having to justify why she is not qualified.

Now don't go being all factual with your posts Marie 😄
Maybe you missed Collat's response to Keating earlier (when the mask slipped)?

"14:27
TheKeatingFive · Today 14:09
I'm guessing you've done no research on this outside of tik tok and youtube/facebook shorts, some of us read books past a GCSE level, learning didn't need to stop after school (for some of us anyway) "

What does that actually mean? A right to what?

The pay isn’t enough. It will be an Isla Bumbla type.

One possibility is that this appointment will be useful evidence of the government's obsession with trans ideology when they are taken to a JR for their failure to implement the SC judgment.

Ill come back tomorrow to engage with you all if i have the energy, been a while since i debated this topic this long, its as exhausting as i remember!

Apologies for anyone who may of been engaging with me today and i didn't always reply to, hopefully you can appreciate i have about 20 people debating with me at this point all on slightly different areas :D

im off to make a sphag bol and spend some time with the kiddos, hope you all have a great night, hopefully we all remember that we may have differences but ultimatel, hopefully we all want the same thing, for everyone to be able to just be happy and healthy!

I’ll leave you with this thought specifically around safe spaces as its a hot topic on this and requires great thought and consideration.

women needed safe spaces because the main threat to their safety historically came from men. Those protections were created in response to male violence and long‑standing misogyny — that’s the foundation of the whole framework we’re talking about.

But that history isn’t a reason to target trans people. They didn’t create the problem, and they’re not the ones women needed protecting from. The roots of all this lie in male dominance, not in people who are simply trying to live their lives without harm.

If the goal is a fair society where everyone can coexist without conflict, it’s worth noting that the Nordic countries are already trying to model this. They’ve been working on practical solutions that balance women’s safety, trans people’s dignity, and social cohesion — things like mixed‑use facilities alongside protected spaces, and policy frameworks that focus on reducing friction rather than creating new fault lines.
That’s the kind of direction the UK civil service position will hopefully be aiming towards: not picking sides, but building systems where people can actually live alongside each other without turning every issue into a culture war.

or so one would hope :)

Quite! Anyone who was being vaguely serious would have had a look around the board at the numerous threads going on for months and years and thought at the very very least "yeah these ppl have been talking about this for a long time"

but no

Its crazy how you missed his reply to me... if you did it wouldn't fit your position very well, i treat others how they treat me.

To be fair @Collat your position has been mostly obfuscation and rabbiting on about 'gender'.

I'm not exactly quaking in my boots at your intellectual prowess here. No offence.

God, you sound pompous.

But that history isn’t a reason to target trans people. They didn’t create the problem, and they’re not the ones women needed protecting from.

I don't understand this fetishisation of trans people as Other. We're still male and female. And male trans people are just as dangerous to women as non trans ones.

Just to clarify — that comment was meant in a light‑hearted way, not as a dig at anyone. I was trying to make the point that gender is an internal experience, not a belief system, and I phrased it a bit playfully. No condescension intended. But apologies if it came across like that i can see how it could have.

And just to be clear, I’m not saying you have to agree with my whole view on gender — I’m just trying to untangle specific points where I think the comparison doesn’t quite work.

I was trying to make the point that gender is an internal experience, not a belief system

But holding a belief system is an internal experience...

The judgment specifically stated that under the Equality Act 2010, transwomen are men and transmen are women. Having or not having a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is irrelevant. Men remain male, and transwomen are both men and permanently male. So they must stay out of all women's spaces

This isn't correct. The court stil respected that those with a GRC where a "legal" sex, but where a service or provision was advertised as being based on sex, then this would mean biological sex only.

So anyone could advertise something as being for women or females, but not quote the EA.

If however the provision or service was advertised under the EA, then it was automatically biological sex.

ie all it did was reinforce that the Single Sex Exemption means what it always meant. That where proportionate women are allowed to only meet or receive services from other biological women.

Edited to add:

The court case was about clarifying the wording in the EA. The ruling was in relation to the EA and its powers.

I am not aware of any situation where having a GRC would be relevant however.

So anyone could advertise something as being for women or females, but not quote the EA.
They could
But if they let in one category of men (the deluded ones) and excluded another
they would fall foul of the EA because it applies to every service provider in England, Scotland or Wales

The only way someone can legally advertise as being for females only IS by applying the exemptions under the Equality Act. Otherwise it is unlawful discrimination.

You are correct. Belief system such as religions is externally defined and taught. Gender is self identity not ideology.

You do not need to quote a law to be bound by it.

It’s interesting how quickly the focus shifts from the points I’m making to comments about my “style” or “intellect.” That’s usually what happens when people run out of arguments — attack the tone instead of the substance.

I’m sticking to the actual topic. Gender is literally central to any discussion about transgender issues, so yes, I’m going to keep talking about it. If someone disagrees, great — engage with the argument instead of trying to discredit the person making it.

And don’t worry, I wouldn’t expect anyone to be “quaking in their boots” over an online debate. very weird comment to make.

Can you explain what relevance 'gender' then has for spaces and services divided by sex?

But you have to believe in gender first. Nobody's born thinking that "men are like this, women are like that". You first have to be taught, in order to then believe.