More fuckwittery from Eva Wiseman, Observer

[ConstanzeMozart]

fuckwittery
the EHRC ‘insisting’ on single-sex toilets excluding trans people.
Well, only if they try to use the one for the wrong sex.
There are also some bingo points including trans people being excluded from public life, and women who don’t look feminine being harassed in the Ladies.

Sex wasn't defined until 2025 so 2010 is irrelevant particularly since its only in past few years that the definition became an issue.

SC's deferred to “the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman” which is highly debatable so they certainly weren't compelled to make the decision they did. Were they 'pressured' or bias who knows.

The SC judgment can't make the impossible possible. Their ruling has impractical consequences but rather than risk political blow back from Reform in drafting amending legislation the government settled for the easy way out with the confusing & impractical dogs breakfast that is the new EHRC.

Pretending any of this wouldn't be influenced by the media is just ludicrous.

Thanks very much for engaging. That’s much more helpful. Your view then is that the Supreme Court left the law in a confusing mess, but who knows why they did.

If the definition of sex only became an issue in recent years, after 2010, your claim must be that the traditional dominant meaning of sex was a self-identified sense of gender?

That doesn’t tally with my own memory of how the word was ever used, defined or taught until relatively recently.

Was that how you were taught it at school? And when did you go to school? Do you think most 2010 lawmakers would have used it in that way?

Sex wasn’t defined until 2025

Because before that nobody had any idea, & if babies happened or animals were bred it happened purely at random.

No one outside of TRAs think that the ordinary meaning of men and women is based on anything other than biology. HTH

Good questions, though I doubt @Baileyonice could answer even if he/she/they wanted to.

Which they clearly don’t.

I’d also like to know where the “right wing media push” was when the various laws that were rolled up into the Equality Act 2010 were passed: the Equality Act 2006, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Disability Discrimination Act 1994, The Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) & (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, The Employment Equality (Age) regulations 2006, etc

(Almost all by Labour governments, as it happens).

But suddenly it’s “right wing” to defend it… how odd…

i

Thing is though when you've got a lady dick you can just more or less pull it out and piss without fuss.

It's one of the benefits of being male.

#SadTimes for farmers and midwives.

It could so easily have been Emperor Matilda who invaded England in the 12th century, or King Mary Tudor who ruled after Henry VIII.

Why wasn’t it?

Food production must have rocketed!
Also I knew my trusty Roberts Biology textbooks were good, but damn they were seeing decades into the future.
And Darwin - how did he know?
Austen even sussed didn’t she?
What about the Bible?
Was it Dr Who?

Sex wasn’t defined until 2025

Wasn't sex defined for legal purposes in 1970 in corbett vs corbett ?

EXACTLY

I read the first couple of paragraphs and thought, what a pile of hyperbolic horseshit.

"Right wing media" blah, blah blah! Self righteous progressives with no ability to self reflect need to take some responsibility for the situation we are now in. Though I won't hold my breath. The Left have been blaming " the right wing media" for time immemorial. It is all a conspiracy you know. And didn't you also know it is all really a Jewish conspiracy to boot.

None of us here support MAGA. We simply want a return to reality, truth based politics. We want an end to the hegemony of the American campus formulated politics that created Queer Theory and the politics of Identity that then pushed itself into all of our institutions.

Men are not women and no child is born in 'the wrong body'. We didn't require the media to inform us of that. In fact, it is this site that helped to drive the grassroots campaign that encourgaed the media to cover the issue in the first place.

Sex wasn’t defined until 2025

John Stuart Mills wrote The Subjection of Women in 1869 and he refers to the female sex and male sex through out the booklet.

Just seven years ago we were not permitted to discuss this issue anywhere but here. The Labour party were demanding " No Debate". There was no discusion in either parliament or in any media. People were arrested, sacked, tyrannised, ejected and banned for just stating the truth of biology, and for wanting to preserve women's sex based protections.

in fact journalists from many media were blacklisted, including journalists who had worked for The Guardian. Janice Turner was the first journalist to really cover the issue in any meaningful way. ( and she's a dedicated Labour party member)

Yes. Although remember at that time, marriage could only be between a man and a woman. The EA 2010 “contains an exemption for gender reassignment discrimination in the context of solemnisation of marriage, which refers expressly to the effects of section 9(1) as "[the person's] gender has become the acquired gender under the Gender Recognition Act 2004" para 157.

It is this sort of thing that makes me so cross when people blithely say that the SC judgment was wrong, when they clearly have neither read it nor taken the trouble to work through the painstaking analyses within it.

You are late to this forum, but many of us have been here for quite some time. You only came here because of its latter notoriety amongst trans activists and its success in getting the issue into the public domain.

You seem unable to understand that many good people on the left just reject the premises of your argument.

They are not idiots, or being misled, or fooled by “the right”, they are educated, intelligent people who won’t play along with your nonsense.

The presuure on government policy, certainly in the U.K, has been down to committed activists, some of whom have since gone on to form a really impressive campaign structure...which includes organisations such as 'Sex Matters' 'Legal Feminist' 'Fair Play for Women' ( a largely left wing women's campaign group) and so on. A grassroots movement of women's groups and feminists......who had been meeeting in each other's homes and at secret locations for years. Secret, because for years they would be targeted by violent TRAS and then have their venues cancel on them at the last minute.

It just so happens that women are also journalists, trade union activists, doctors, mental health workers, politicians, lawyers, teachers and professors....they have skills and they are not stupid 'karens' as many like to imagine.

"self-identified sense of gender?"
No.
Ordinary meaning can be theoretical usage or practical usage. We don't usually distinguish males from females in social settings by checking gametes & chromosomes. We use surface level associations of cis people. In this sense ordinary meaning of 'sex' is inextricably linked to every day usage that usually isn't reproductive biological traits.

The point is this was never a broad grass roots issue but a small fringe one that's contained generationally. It only got traction because of its convenience to right wing political aspirations applying their powerful media connections.

Yes some left of centre/centrists are vulnerable to moral panics too & immigration is another example. Low information voters & personal biases are present on all sides of the political spectrum.

The point is this wasn't an organic broad grassroots grievance. That activists needed to 'tell' the broader population that there was a serious problem that they weren't aware of or didn't care about before ought to tell you there was no problem….until it was astro turfed.

Are you immune to low information and personal bias?

Do you believe you see this issue clearly?