Sandie Peggie has lost her case against the nursing union.

[RhannionKPSS]

Terrible news

So can you give an example of ‘gender’ that does not involve the oppression of women?

I mean, yes, I literally said that? I simply think it's a more defensible opinion than the alternative.

Human rights, law, fairness, justice, the right to feel safe, the importance of consent, the right to own property, the right to be the parent of a child you bear - all just opinions. Many contingent and removable.

Nevertheless, we have collectively agreed to structure society around them. To pretend they matter. And within that context, a more cogent case can be made for recognising and supporting the needs of sex than those of gender.

In our society as we have structured it, all opinions are not equal. And I very much doubt even you, who I realise has had to face more grey between how things should work and how they actually do than most, really wants to live in a society where no opinion has any more validity than another.

If you did and you were actually present in this conversation, you'd have seen that I said "And what you're saying about it being "stronger" is an opinion, too. It doesnt matter who agrees with it. It isn't a fact."

In reference to that poster saying:

"I would say it is an opinion for which a stronger practical case can be made than the alternative."

See how that poster said "stronger" and then I quoted that word to give context to what I was referring to?

Just highlighting this post. Most people want single sex spaces. Most women don’t want men in female only spaces. So although alternative opinions, like the fringe ideological belief some people have that there is innate “gender” which can be different to a person’s biological sex, and that is more important, do exist, they’re not what most people believe. Totally valid opinions, though, obviously!

Yes. Here we have an example of a fact. Not an opinion.

What do you think would happen to the human race if people stopped having babies?

No, but if they then say airily that " Biological sex isn't important", they are hypocrites, because their parenthood is piggybacking on somebody else's biological sex. Like saying "Oh, money isn't that important" when you're living off an inheritance worked for by the person who left it to you.

Also a fact: there are two biological sexes for this reason in human reproduction. Male is the sperm producer sex, and female is the ova producer sex. Not an opinion, a fact.

Sandie Peggie is of the female biological sex and Dr Upton is of the male one. Still in the realm of facts.

Im glad at least you have kept up with the thread of the conversation.

"To pretend they matter."

The majority of people with the opposing views on this and many core issues all believe those core things matter, they disagree on how we show they matter and what matters more. They have different opinions on that part.

For example, if we took it back to immigration, many people who are anti immigration agree that people are facing awful hardship where they are, and that should be fixed somehow. They disagree that migration to places like the UK is the way to fix it because it poses unacceptable risk and takes resources from people and issues that matter more. Some are of course just racist etc.

Other people think that the risks are acceptable and a safe place for those in need is most important.

Excellent point.

So would my parenthood be "piggybacking" off of someone's biological sex if I needed donation to conceive within my heterosexual relationship.

Why would people stop having babies?

Well, yes! It might not be nice to point it out, but it’s true, isn’t it? A woman had to donate her eggs or a man had to donate his sperm, you don’t just find them behind a bin in the car park.

Yes, of course. But it only becomes a bad thing when the facts of the matter are written out of the story. Honestly acknowledged help is nothing to be ashamed of.

@alcovecupboards I wouldn't want her anywhere near me and my family

You like this phrase so much you've repeated it four or five times now.

In which case, I do hope you check the private opinions and whatsapp comments of absolutely everyone who comes into contact with you and your family. Medical staff, dentists, police officers, firefighters, vets, beauticians, hairdressers, teachers, sports coaches... basically anyone providing a service.

Not to do so would be very hypocritical.

I know you're not going to respond to this because you promised not to engage with me any more after I pulled you up on your use of 'benefit claimant' as a slur. You needed a negative label to insult another poster and benefit claimant was what you immediately reached for. It says a lot.

Mainly that you yourself are not above using a label based entirely on negative stereotypes and prejudices relating to a group.
Much like you accuse SP of doing. Hypocritical much?

Exactly. 😂

You had previously said:
"For one, not everyone wants a baby, so the fact that you need a male and a female to create one isn't of any importance to some people. The importance of that depends on the value one puts on having biological children."

Your question now shows that the importance is indeed greater than that.

A considerable amount of time during the tribunal was taken up discussing whether the RCN had institutionally adopted gender identity ideology, and whether this had any bearing on its ethos, provisions and decision-making processes. Judge Sangster declined to make a finding in this regard, ruling: “The Tribunal concluded that it was not necessary, in order to determine the issues before it, to make a finding on whether the respondent [RCN], as an organisation, held the asserted institutional belief.”
Sandie Peggie’s spokesperson calls this “disappointing” given “it had been decided at a preliminary hearing on 22 September 2026 that this was a matter in dispute between the parties which needed to be determined.”

Is this grounds for an appeal? If the judge deemed RCN's capture irrelevant, how much does it matter to the judgment that in a previous hearing it was a fact that needed determining?

It's perfectly obvious to anyone that RCN is completely captured.

And, personally, although I would love Sandie to keep pursuing this, I'm pretty certain the perception of RCN now is that they're unaware, sexist and fairly useless for women. And I can't wait for their shop to be absolutely rammed with Suffragette tat.

But, like Alison Bailey's failed (previous) case against Stonewall, the damage is done by the crap these people spout at the public tribunal.

The reputation of RCN, for women at least, is shot. If they're not going to make a political stand about women being subjected to sexual harassment at work, what's the point of them?

Please. I''m not "keeping up with the thread". I'm way ahead of you. You are belatedly catching up.

Not only on this thread, but with years of thought. Everything you have said is both true, and facile.

Once you work through that, you eventually conclude that if we want a worthwhile functioning society, we have to place moral weight and value on opinions, because opinions can still have material impacts that are facts. One comes through post modern relativism and out the other side, and realises that being able to make a practical case for one opinion over another matters. Which is what I am doing.

I do not believe "meh, sex" and "meh, gender" have equal outcomes. I think there are enough facts to back that up. And that means while both are opinions, they are not of equal worth. A case can be made.

So when you stop arguing with your own projections and want to ask about that let me know. I'll be ready.

Trans is a word that means fake?

Such a short but such a significant post. It's only in the denial of thse facts that they become sonehow sensitive or controversial.

Just as it is only Genderism's denial of the significance of sex that makes sex sensitive or controversial to a Genderist.

Well yes. Yes it would. Because you’d need either a man to provide sperm or a woman to provide eggs. So yes, yes you would.

It means “across from”. But most people, in terms of “trans women” are mentally translating it as “not real women, men who call themselves women”, I would argue.

All children will be a product of their biological parents.

For hereditary conditions for example, the doctors will ask if X is in the family. I know this still happens as a doctor asked my OH not 2 hours ago that very same question.

A legal fiction of a piece of paper saying you are a child's parent is fine for the some purposes but not every single one.

It should be about the kids, not about the parent's egos. This is a theme time and again it would seem.

A FTM trans person can get changed in women's changing.

A MTF trans person - I'm sorry, but no. I still don't want them in female changing areas or toilets. The fears of many women outweigh those of a handful of men.