“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
On 23/05/2025 10:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
What you can be sure of is that the Supreme Court did not give a ruling
on that, nor would it have been competent do do so.
Whilst we could continue to argue about terminology, and find scientists
to debate whether "biological sex" is a meaningful term or a journalists sloppy invention, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 remains the law.
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that,
if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that
of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that
of a woman). /unquote
You can if you like call that a "legal fiction" or propose amendments of various kinds, but currently trans people unquestionably have their
acquired gender. Subject always to whatever exceptions there may be in
the statute.
You could call the Act a "sorting hat" if you like. The hat says that a
trans man is a man and a trans woman is a woman "for all purposes".
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been saying
all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in one statute, the
Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader Baroness
Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress to trans people.
And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much photographed and much
quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was
all about the non-existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-definition-of-a-
woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact that
Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the fact that
there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people to
work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not require services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what was
meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological
sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with” about the judgment,
but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary reaction that there has been
to it”.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex, she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
On 23/05/2025 11:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex, she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond the point
where there was any likelihood of any being present could cure disease by
magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its share of idiots and
charlatans. So no, they are not right.
With respect, I bet your homoeopathic doctors didn't use the phrase "by >magic" unless they wanted to make fun of their own theories.
Is there a medical textbook, in print, that attempts to define the term >"biological sex"? I'm inclined to think there isn't, and that it's a
rather desperate attempt by journalists and campaigners to find a phrase
that means the opposite of "transgender".
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are
not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in
one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to
biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress
to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was
much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on
behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non-existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- definition-of-a-woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have
gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded
the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but
do not require services to be provided differently for people according
to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary reaction that there has been to it”.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex, she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
The vast majority of humans can be, and those which are easily identified will never be anything else. The fact that there are a small number of
humans whose sex is not amenable to a simple visual check doesn't nullify
the value of such identification for the majority.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
And is the presence of very rare edge cases a sufficient reason to upend society?
On 23/05/2025 12:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
I think that biological sex is a term that makes sense. Most people
would understand what is meant by it.
The problem is, as you have pointed out, there's more than 2 categories. Also, it's not always clear which category somebody belongs to.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond the
point where there was any likelihood of any being present could cure
disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its share of
idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>> biological sex, she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
The vast majority of humans can be, and those which are easily identified
will never be anything else. The fact that there are a small number of
humans whose sex is not amenable to a simple visual check doesn't nullify
the value of such identification for the majority.
Yes, none of that contradicts what I said.
I think that biological sex is a term that makes sense. Most people
would understand what is meant by it.
The problem is, as you have pointed out, there's more than 2 categories.
Also, it's not always clear which category somebody belongs to.
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a
boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond the
point where there was any likelihood of any being present could cure
disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its share of
idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
Using what criteria ? By inspection ? By weight ? By starsign ? By chromosomes ?
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
On 23/05/2025 12:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
I think that biological sex is a term that makes sense. Most people
would understand what is meant by it.
The problem is, as you have pointed out, there's more than 2 categories. Also, it's not always clear which category somebody belongs to.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the
sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a
boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
Now a sex reveal party I could understand. As could my wife when during
the course of a regular ultrasound, we knew without any medical training
that she was having a son.
On 2025-05-23, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Those are the terms most trans people are happy with. It's the
anti-trans people who don't like these terms, because they hate
truth and accuracy.
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
I think almost all of us have tremendous sympathy for intersex
individuals, even JK Rowling.
On 23 May 2025 at 17:32:33 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>> what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Those are the terms most trans people are happy with. It's the
anti-trans people who don't like these terms, because they hate
truth and accuracy.
Really??? I thought a popular slogan among trans activists was: "trans
women are women"?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:36:02 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - >>> with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
There are no human (or, indeed, mammalian) hermaphrodites, at least not in the biological sense of the term. The term has been incorrectly used in the past as a synonym for intersex conditions, but it's not at all the same thing.
All species which reproduce sexually have only two sexual reproduction
cells, aka gametes, which are labelled male and female. In mammals, male gametes are known as sperm and female gametes are known as eggs.
Some species (notably some molluscs) are capable of producing both male and female gametes simultaneously, while other species (notably some amphibians) are capable of alternating between male and female gamete production. Mammals, however, entirely lack both of these abilities. A mammal can only ever produce, at most, one type of gamete, and can never, under any circumstances, produce the other one.
A very, very tiny number of mammals have a sufficiently serious
developmental sexual disorder that they fully lack the ability to produce
any gametes at all. Such situations are incredibly rare. What's more common is that an individual mammal will have a developmental sexual disorder which affects either the viability or quantity of gametes they produce. All of these situations are commonly referred to as "intersex". In some cases, intersex disorders will also affect the visible form of the body, resulting in a body which appears to have both male and female sexual organs. However, irrespective of their appearance, they will still produce, at most, one form of gamete. Essentially, if they have the appearance of being both male and female, either one of those sets of sexual organs will be at least partly functional while the other is completely non-functional, or they will be entirely non-functional sexually.
People with intersex conditions can, therefore, usually still be identified as male or female, despite their visual appearance, by checking whether
their body produces sperm or eggs. One of the rarest forms of intersex is ovotesticular syndrome, where a person has both testicles and ovaries. However, in all known cases (there have been only just over 500 documented examples worldwide), only one or the other wil be functional (usually, but not always, the ovary). There are no recorded instances where someone with ovotesticular syndrome has had both functional. Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Mark
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:16:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I think that biological sex is a term that makes sense. Most people
would understand what is meant by it.
The problem is, as you have pointed out, there's more than 2 categories.
There are only two categories of sex in organisms which reproduce sexually.
There are only two types of sexual reproduction cells, aka gametes. Some species have the ability to be both categories simultaneously, and some species have the ability to switch between them. Neither of those applies to mammals. It is possible, but is vanishingly rare, for mammals to be effectively sexless, lacking the capacity to generate any gametes at all.
Also, it's not always clear which category somebody belongs to.
It's clear enough in the vast majority of cases.
Mark
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
I think almost all of us have tremendous sympathy for intersex
individuals, even JK Rowling.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the
sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a
boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built >around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
On 23 May 2025 at 14:36:02 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - >>> with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
There are no mammalian hermaphrodites; ever.
On 23 May 2025 at 17:28:18 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the
sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a
boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built
around an individuals identity ?
As a matter of interest, in the context of discrimination legislation UKSC >agrees with me that when referring to individual humans (rather than grammar, >or mating activities) that the words "sex" and "gender" are synonyms.
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:36:02 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - >>>> with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
There are no human (or, indeed, mammalian) hermaphrodites, at least not in >> the biological sense of the term. The term has been incorrectly used in the >> past as a synonym for intersex conditions, but it's not at all the same
thing.
All species which reproduce sexually have only two sexual reproduction
cells, aka gametes, which are labelled male and female. In mammals, male
gametes are known as sperm and female gametes are known as eggs.
Some species (notably some molluscs) are capable of producing both male and >> female gametes simultaneously, while other species (notably some amphibians) >> are capable of alternating between male and female gamete production.
Mammals, however, entirely lack both of these abilities. A mammal can only >> ever produce, at most, one type of gamete, and can never, under any
circumstances, produce the other one.
A very, very tiny number of mammals have a sufficiently serious
developmental sexual disorder that they fully lack the ability to produce
any gametes at all. Such situations are incredibly rare. What's more common >> is that an individual mammal will have a developmental sexual disorder which >> affects either the viability or quantity of gametes they produce. All of
these situations are commonly referred to as "intersex". In some cases,
intersex disorders will also affect the visible form of the body, resulting >> in a body which appears to have both male and female sexual organs. However, >> irrespective of their appearance, they will still produce, at most, one form >> of gamete. Essentially, if they have the appearance of being both male and >> female, either one of those sets of sexual organs will be at least partly
functional while the other is completely non-functional, or they will be
entirely non-functional sexually.
People with intersex conditions can, therefore, usually still be identified >> as male or female, despite their visual appearance, by checking whether
their body produces sperm or eggs. One of the rarest forms of intersex is
ovotesticular syndrome, where a person has both testicles and ovaries.
However, in all known cases (there have been only just over 500 documented >> examples worldwide), only one or the other wil be functional (usually, but >> not always, the ovary). There are no recorded instances where someone with >> ovotesticular syndrome has had both functional. Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously >> functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but >> there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been >> observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true
hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Mark
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially.
On 23/05/2025 16:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 14:16:10 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
I think that biological sex is a term that makes sense. Most people
would understand what is meant by it.
The problem is, as you have pointed out, there's more than 2 categories.
There are only two categories of sex in organisms which reproduce sexually.
That's certainly true in the vast majority of cases. XX females and XY
males, and everything develops as expected.
And, then, there are the exceptions! Have a look at Swyer syndrome, for >example.
"In Swyer syndrome, individuals have one X chromosome and one Y
chromosome in each cell, which is the pattern typically found in boys
and men; however, they have female reproductive structures"
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/
There are only two types of sexual reproduction cells, aka gametes. Some
species have the ability to be both categories simultaneously, and some
species have the ability to switch between them. Neither of those applies to >> mammals. It is possible, but is vanishingly rare, for mammals to be
effectively sexless, lacking the capacity to generate any gametes at all.
Also, it's not always clear which category somebody belongs to.
It's clear enough in the vast majority of cases.
I don't think the majority of trans people have any genetic, or obvious >physical issue.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 17:04:28 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the >>phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Whereas I dislike it. The phrase "Assigned male/female" implies that there
is someone with the right make that assignation. But there is not. Being
male or female is matter of fact, not a matter for anyone else to "assign".
On 23 May 2025 17:25:05 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:28:18 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the >>>> sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a >>>> boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built >>> around an individuals identity ?
As a matter of interest, in the context of discrimination legislation UKSC >> agrees with me that when referring to individual humans (rather than grammar,
or mating activities) that the words "sex" and "gender" are synonyms.
That's because legislation defines them as synonyms, and the UKSC can only intepret, not override, primary legislation.
I happen to be of the opinion that the legislation is faulty in this
respect, and it would be better to distinguish between them in a legal context. Maybe one of the outcomes of the UKSC judgment on the Equality Act will be to prompt the government to revisit the Gender Recognition Act and, inter alia, remove that legal conflation of the two terms.
Mark
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously
functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but >>> there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been >>> observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true
hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism. >>>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end
organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional >> gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially.
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 17:04:28 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>> what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Whereas I dislike it. The phrase "Assigned male/female" implies that there >> is someone with the right make that assignation. But there is not. Being
male or female is matter of fact, not a matter for anyone else to "assign".
Yet that is exactly what happens. So you're just disliking reality.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:37:50 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
"In Swyer syndrome, individuals have one X chromosome and one Y
chromosome in each cell, which is the pattern typically found in boys
and men; however, they have female reproductive structures"
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/
This is merely an example of the fact that it's over-simplistic to say
that XX=female and XY=male. In reality, while these are the typical commbinations, there are others. However, an XY female is still 100%
female, and an XX male is still 100% male.
On 23/05/2025 18:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 14:36:02 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - >>>> with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
There are no mammalian hermaphrodites; ever.
Forgive me quoting Mark's post, but:
"One of the rarest forms of intersex is ovotesticular syndrome, where a >person has both testicles and ovaries. However, in all known cases
(there have been only just over 500 documented examples worldwide), only
one or the other wil be functional"
My point is that this isn't simple. I don't think it matters whether
true hermaphrodites exist.
On 23 May 2025 at 20:50:58 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 17:25:05 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:28:18 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the >>>>> sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a >>>>> boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays >>>>> there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built >>>> around an individuals identity ?
As a matter of interest, in the context of discrimination
legislation UKSC agrees with me that when referring to individual
humans (rather than grammar, or mating activities) that the words
"sex" and "gender" are synonyms.
That's because legislation defines them as synonyms, and the UKSC can only >> intepret, not override, primary legislation.
I happen to be of the opinion that the legislation is faulty in this
respect, and it would be better to distinguish between them in a legal
context. Maybe one of the outcomes of the UKSC judgment on the Equality Act >> will be to prompt the government to revisit the Gender Recognition Act and, >> inter alia, remove that legal conflation of the two terms.
I suspect that doing so will merely result in endless circular arguments.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 20:50:58 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 17:25:05 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:28:18 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the >>>>>> sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a >>>>>> boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays >>>>>> there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built >>>>> around an individuals identity ?
As a matter of interest, in the context of discrimination
legislation UKSC agrees with me that when referring to individual
humans (rather than grammar, or mating activities) that the words
"sex" and "gender" are synonyms.
That's because legislation defines them as synonyms, and the UKSC can only >>> intepret, not override, primary legislation.
I happen to be of the opinion that the legislation is faulty in this
respect, and it would be better to distinguish between them in a legal
context. Maybe one of the outcomes of the UKSC judgment on the Equality Act >>> will be to prompt the government to revisit the Gender Recognition Act and, >>> inter alia, remove that legal conflation of the two terms.
I suspect that doing so will merely result in endless circular arguments.
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there is
no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about human
rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation which
might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only real hope
we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
On 23 May 2025 at 22:24:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 17:04:28 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>> wrote:Yet that is exactly what happens. So you're just disliking reality.
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:Whereas I dislike it. The phrase "Assigned male/female" implies that there >>> is someone with the right make that assignation. But there is not. Being >>> male or female is matter of fact, not a matter for anyone else to "assign". >>
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>>> what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging. >>>
"Assign" has the wrong nuances in modern English at least - what is being done
is really identifying sex rather than allocating it. It is however a traditional usage.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the
sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a
boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
Now a sex reveal party I could understand. As could my wife when during
the course of a regular ultrasound, we knew without any medical training
that she was having a son.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 20:50:58 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 17:25:05 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:28:18 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the >>>>>> sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a >>>>>> boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays >>>>>> there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built >>>>> around an individuals identity ?
As a matter of interest, in the context of discrimination
legislation UKSC agrees with me that when referring to individual
humans (rather than grammar, or mating activities) that the words
"sex" and "gender" are synonyms.
That's because legislation defines them as synonyms, and the UKSC can only >>> intepret, not override, primary legislation.
I happen to be of the opinion that the legislation is faulty in this
respect, and it would be better to distinguish between them in a legal
context. Maybe one of the outcomes of the UKSC judgment on the Equality Act >>> will be to prompt the government to revisit the Gender Recognition Act and, >>> inter alia, remove that legal conflation of the two terms.
I suspect that doing so will merely result in endless circular arguments.
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there is
no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about human
rights and wants to improve things.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 16:28:18 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between
the sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is
it a boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.)
Nowadays there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child
is celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and
built around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
It's an Americanism. They mean sex reveal, they're just too prudish to actually say it.
On 23/05/2025 17:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between
the sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is
it a boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.)
Nowadays there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child
is celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and
built around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
Now a sex reveal party I could understand. As could my wife when during
the course of a regular ultrasound, we knew without any medical
training that she was having a son.
A "sex reveal party" would make people think their child is publicly
losing their virginity. Oo la la. I think that's why the word "gender"
is used.
On 23 May 2025 at 11:11:11 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 10:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
What you can be sure of is that the Supreme Court did not give a ruling
on that, nor would it have been competent do do so.
Whilst we could continue to argue about terminology, and find scientists
to debate whether "biological sex" is a meaningful term or a journalists
sloppy invention, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 remains the law.
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the
person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that,
if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that >> of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that
of a woman). /unquote
You can if you like call that a "legal fiction" or propose amendments of
various kinds, but currently trans people unquestionably have their
acquired gender. Subject always to whatever exceptions there may be in
the statute.
And exceptions in any other statute. As stated in the next but one subsection to the one you quote in the GRA. And the Supreme Court has pointed out that these exceptions include sex discrimination as described by the EA 2010, and previous legislation on the rights of men and women, such as the health and safety regulations. So it would be more accurate to say: "for all purposes not
excepted by statute". And the Supreme Court was able to clarify that biological sex meant sex at birth, or as very rarely corrected in childhood - the latter being subject to longstanding and uncontentious law. So the Supreme
Court has specifically excluded psychological and surgical factors related to self-identified sex or gender from the legal definition of biological sex in the context of the EA and previous laws on sex segregation.
Just helping to clarify.
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
I think almost all of us have tremendous sympathy for intersex
individuals, even JK Rowling.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:54:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:That's the basis of the hypothetical possibility that I noted in my
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have
simultaneously functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce
both eggs and sperm, but there are no records of it ever happening
(although apparently it has been observed in a rabbit). Such a person
would still not, though, be a true hermaphrodite, such a scenario
could only arise as a result of chimerism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate
end organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce
functional gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even
sequentially.
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
post. However, there are no recorded cases of this occuring in a human,
and the constraints mentioned by Roger suggest that it may, in fact, be simply impossible. Even if it did happen, though, that would not
contradict the general principle that a single individual can only ever
be male or female,
because a chimera is, on at least some level, not a single individual.
On 2025-05-23, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
And is the presence of very rare edge cases a sufficient reason to upend
society?
Society has not been upended. HTH.
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've
been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans
women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references
to women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they
refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its
leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary
distress to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling
who was much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim
victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non-
existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition-of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have
gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded
the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision
“despite the fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other >> people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit
but do not require services to be provided differently for people
according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel
with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very >> binary reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've
been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans
women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references
to women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they
refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its
leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary
distress to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling
who was much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim
victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non-
existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition-of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have
gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded
the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision
“despite the fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other >>> people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit
but do not require services to be provided differently for people
according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel
with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very >>> binary reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June
2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid?
Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and privacy for trans ideology.
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've
been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans
women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references
to women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they
refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its
leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary
distress to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling
who was much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim
victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non-
existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition-of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have
gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded
the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision
“despite the fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other >>> people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit
but do not require services to be provided differently for people
according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel
with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very >>> binary reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June
2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid?
Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and privacy for trans ideology.
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I somehow >> doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - with reason-
but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of things, and
they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to classify them
as male, female, or both?
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been
saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are not
to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in one >>> statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader
Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress to >>> trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much
photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of all
women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to exclude trans >>> women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- definition- >>> of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact that
Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the fact that
there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people to
work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not require
services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what
was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with” about
the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary reaction
that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I somehow >> doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - with reason-
but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 16:28:18 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between the
sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is it a
boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.) Nowadays
there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child is
celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and built
around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
It's an Americanism. They mean sex reveal, they're just too prudish to actually say it.
Mark
On 24 May 2025 at 10:55:32 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've
been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans
women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references >>>> to women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they
refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its
leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary >>>> distress to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling >>>> who was much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim
victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non-
existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition-of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have >>>> gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded >>>> the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision
“despite the fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other >>>> people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit
but do not require services to be provided differently for people
according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel
with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very >>>> binary reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - >>> with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June
2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid?
Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity
and privacy for trans ideology.
There is a move to *only* having gender neutral toilets in schools. I doubt Rowling objects to gender neutral toilets as a third alternative.
On 23 May 2025 at 23:25:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there is
no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about human
rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation which
might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only real hope
we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
I really don't see how the ECtHR can overrule the SC on a matter of
statutory interpretation. It could I suppose declare EA as now
understood to be incompatible with someone's human rights. That would
be Parliament it is "overruling".
On 23/05/2025 17:04, Pancho wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
They are terms that imply that parents can decide whether their child is
male or female in the same way they choose his/her name.
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:54:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously
functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but
there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been >>>> observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true >>>> hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism. >>>>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end >>> organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional >>> gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially.
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
That's the basis of the hypothetical possibility that I noted in my post. However, there are no recorded cases of this occuring in a human, and the constraints mentioned by Roger suggest that it may, in fact, be simply impossible. Even if it did happen, though, that would not contradict the general principle that a single individual can only ever be male or female, because a chimera is, on at least some level, not a single individual.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 23:25:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there
is no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about
human rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation
which might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only
real hope we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
I really don't see how the ECtHR can overrule the SC on a matter of
statutory interpretation. It could I suppose declare EA as now
understood to be incompatible with someone's human rights. That would
be Parliament it is "overruling".
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument). So the SC has
overruled Parliament and would in turn be overruled by the ECtHR.
On 23/05/2025 17:04, Pancho wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
They are terms that imply that parents can decide whether their child is
male or female in the same way they choose his/her name.
On 23/05/2025 22:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:54:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously
functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but
there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been
observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true >>>>> hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism. >>>>>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end >>>> organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional >>>> gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially. >>>
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
That's the basis of the hypothetical possibility that I noted in my post.
However, there are no recorded cases of this occuring in a human, and the
constraints mentioned by Roger suggest that it may, in fact, be simply
impossible. Even if it did happen, though, that would not contradict the
general principle that a single individual can only ever be male or female, >> because a chimera is, on at least some level, not a single individual.
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters
her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been >>>> saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are not
to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in one >>>> statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader >>>> Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress to
trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much >>>> photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of all
women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to exclude trans >>>> women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- definition-
of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact that
Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the fact that
there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people to
work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not require
services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what
was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with” about
the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary reaction
that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I somehow
doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - with reason-
but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June 2023.
Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe that's >> going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more recently
in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I suspect she was
referring to the chnages being made to what had been single sex toilets, to use
for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite often see ( an example
being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms (not cubicles within a room)
sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
On 5/24/25 10:00, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 17:04, Pancho wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
They are terms that imply that parents can decide whether their child is
male or female in the same way they choose his/her name.
Not really, parents can fill out sex on a birth certificate. Something
they have always been able to do.
Filling out a birth certificate doesn't establish what biological sex
is, it is just an accounting entry. It isn't handing carte blanche to
parents to suddenly misgender a child. In practical terms, most of the
values will be decades old. A matter of historical record.
I suspect an inappropriate entry may bring parents to the attention of
social services.
So in effect you have an observable proxy for biological sex, without
getting into religious discussion as to what makes a person a real woman
(or man).
The problem with using other values for biological sex is that zealots
from each side want to force the definition to match their view of
gender (as a social construct).
If you don't want gender as a social construct to diverge from apparent biological sex, people should have that argument head on. They should
let pragmatic people use this assigned at birth concept when they need to.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:03:25 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 23:25:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there
is no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about
human rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation >>>> which might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only
real hope we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
I really don't see how the ECtHR can overrule the SC on a matter of
statutory interpretation. It could I suppose declare EA as now
understood to be incompatible with someone's human rights. That would
be Parliament it is "overruling".
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument). So the SC has
overruled Parliament and would in turn be overruled by the ECtHR.
Let's wait and see, shall we ?
If parliament chooses to do nothing, then it's a tacit acceptance that -
in the face of much froth by legal ignorami the Supreme Court got it
right.
Or can parliament not change laws it believes are wrong ?
On 24 May 2025 at 13:43:28 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 22:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:54:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously
functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but
there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been
observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true >>>>>> hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end >>>>> organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional
gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially. >>>>
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
That's the basis of the hypothetical possibility that I noted in my post. >>> However, there are no recorded cases of this occuring in a human, and the >>> constraints mentioned by Roger suggest that it may, in fact, be simply
impossible. Even if it did happen, though, that would not contradict the >>> general principle that a single individual can only ever be male or female, >>> because a chimera is, on at least some level, not a single individual.
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters
her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true hermaphrodite.
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:03:25 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 23:25:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there
is no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about
human rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation >>>> which might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only
real hope we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
I really don't see how the ECtHR can overrule the SC on a matter of
statutory interpretation. It could I suppose declare EA as now
understood to be incompatible with someone's human rights. That would
be Parliament it is "overruling".
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument). So the SC has
overruled Parliament and would in turn be overruled by the ECtHR.
Let's wait and see, shall we ?
If parliament chooses to do nothing, then it's a tacit acceptance that -
in the face of much froth by legal ignorami the Supreme Court got it
right.
Or can parliament not change laws it believes are wrong ?
On Sat, 24 May 2025 09:50:29 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 17:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 15:51:21 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Let's see now. Most people are in favour of the distinction between
the sexes: about the first thing they ask when a baby is born is, "is
it a boy or a girl". (The next, for some reason, is its weight.)
Nowadays there are "gender reveal parties", where the sex of the child >>>> is celebrated, even if not yet born.
*Gender* reveal ? But aren't we told that gender is a construct and
built around an individuals identity ?
So how, pray tell, are these rather dim parents adducing the gender ?
Now a sex reveal party I could understand. As could my wife when during
the course of a regular ultrasound, we knew without any medical
training that she was having a son.
A "sex reveal party" would make people think their child is publicly
losing their virginity. Oo la la. I think that's why the word "gender"
is used.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've
been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans
women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the
references to women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make
sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its
leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused
unnecessary distress to trans people. And there was the triumphalism
of JK Rowling who was much photographed and much quoted, who was
quick to claim victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was all
about the non- existent need to exclude trans women from all manner
of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have >>>> gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She
applauded the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that >>>> decision “despite the fact that there are people saying that you
can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other >>>> people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit
but do not require services to be provided differently for people
according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing
as biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel >>>> with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the
“very binary reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be
obsessed - with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29
June 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is
stupid? Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’
dignity and privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been
single sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms
you quite often see ( an example being those for disabled persons)
Individual rooms (not cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity
or privacy.
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters
her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true hermaphrodite.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June
2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid?
Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are sacrificing girls dignity
and privacy for trans ideology.
Telegraph writer says that Rowling said
I would prefer the original source.
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 17:04:28 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>> what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the >>>phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person >>>doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Whereas I dislike it. The phrase "Assigned male/female" implies that there >> is someone with the right make that assignation. But there is not. Being
male or female is matter of fact, not a matter for anyone else to "assign".
Yet that is exactly what happens. So you're just disliking reality.
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 21:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 17:04:28 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>> wrote:Yet that is exactly what happens. So you're just disliking reality.
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:Whereas I dislike it. The phrase "Assigned male/female" implies that there >>> is someone with the right make that assignation. But there is not. Being >>> male or female is matter of fact, not a matter for anyone else to "assign". >>
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>>> what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the >>>>phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person >>>>doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless >>>>there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging. >>>
Saying that a baby has been "assigned male" by a medical professional is
like saying that the Met Office has "assigned rain" to this afternoon's weather. As if either of them, by their own choice, could make a different assignation. They're not making a choice. They're recording an observation. That observation can, of course, be inaccurate. But an inaccurate
observation is not the same as making a different assignment.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:07:39 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June
2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid?
Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are sacrificing girls dignity >>> and privacy for trans ideology.
Telegraph writer says that Rowling said
I would prefer the original source.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/essex-school-alleged-sex-attack-jk-rowling-same-sex-toilets/
Quote:
----
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are sacrificing girls dignity and
privacy for trans ideology after a school in Essex was forced to call in the police.
After revelations by The Telegraph that a teenage boy had been arrested over allegations of serious sexual assaults in mixed-sex lavatories, the author and campaigner said that such attacks were entirely foreseeable and preventable.
Girls safety, privacy and dignity is being sacrificed to an incoherent ideology pushed by lobby groups, which gives predatory males easy access to victims, Ms Rowling said.
Her comments came after Essex police were called in to investigate four allegations of serious sexual assault at a local school. It is understood that three of the attacks allegedly took place in toilets shared by boys and girls.
---
A slightly less sensationalist account of the incident can be found here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546
Mark
On 24/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters >>> her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly >> despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of >> ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true
hermaphrodite.
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 21:24:45 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 17:04:28 +0100, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>> wrote:Yet that is exactly what happens. So you're just disliking reality.
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:Whereas I dislike it. The phrase "Assigned male/female" implies that there >>> is someone with the right make that assignation. But there is not. Being >>> male or female is matter of fact, not a matter for anyone else to "assign". >>
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>>> what was meant by "biological sex".
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging. >>>
Saying that a baby has been "assigned male" by a medical professional is
like saying that the Met Office has "assigned rain" to this afternoon's weather.
As if either of them, by their own choice, could make a different assignation. They're not making a choice. They're recording an observation.
That observation can, of course, be inaccurate. But an inaccurate
observation is not the same as making a different assignment.
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:07:39 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid?
Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are sacrificing girls dignity >>>> and privacy for trans ideology.
Telegraph writer says that Rowling said
I would prefer the original source.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/essex-school-alleged-sex-attack-jk-rowling-same-sex-toilets/
Quote:
----
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are sacrificing girls dignity and
privacy for trans ideology after a school in Essex was forced to call in the >> police.
After revelations by The Telegraph that a teenage boy had been arrested over >> allegations of serious sexual assaults in mixed-sex lavatories, the author >> and campaigner said that such attacks were entirely foreseeable and
preventable.
Girls safety, privacy and dignity is being sacrificed to an incoherent >> ideology pushed by lobby groups, which gives predatory males easy access to >> victims, Ms Rowling said.
Her comments came after Essex police were called in to investigate four
allegations of serious sexual assault at a local school. It is understood
that three of the attacks allegedly took place in toilets shared by boys and >> girls.
---
A slightly less sensationalist account of the incident can be found here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546
Mark
Thanks for the longer quote from the Telegraph. It suggests that the paragraph previously quoted does not accurately reflect what Rowling said
as reported in the later paragraph.
I would have preferred a complete transcript of what Rowling actually said
or wrote rather than something filtered by a reporter and editor for a publication.
On 24/05/2025 21:15, Owen Rees wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:07:39 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? >>>>> Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are ?sacrificing? girls? dignity >>>>> and privacy for trans ideology.
Telegraph writer says that Rowling said ?
I would prefer the original source.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/essex-school-alleged-sex-attack-jk-rowling-same-sex-toilets/
Quote:
----
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are ?sacrificing? girls? dignity and >>> privacy for trans ideology after a school in Essex was forced to call in the
police.
After revelations by The Telegraph that a teenage boy had been arrested over
allegations of serious sexual assaults in mixed-sex lavatories, the author >>> and campaigner said that such attacks were ?entirely foreseeable and
preventable?.
?Girls? safety, privacy and dignity is being sacrificed to an incoherent >>> ideology pushed by lobby groups, which gives predatory males easy access to >>> victims,? Ms Rowling said.
Her comments came after Essex police were called in to investigate four
allegations of serious sexual assault at a local school. It is understood >>> that three of the attacks allegedly took place in toilets shared by boys and
girls.
---
A slightly less sensationalist account of the incident can be found here: >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546
Mark
Thanks for the longer quote from the Telegraph. It suggests that the
paragraph previously quoted does not accurately reflect what Rowling said
as reported in the later paragraph.
I would have preferred a complete transcript of what Rowling actually said >> or wrote rather than something filtered by a reporter and editor for a
publication.
One teenage boy has been arrested for serious sexual assaults in mixed
sex lavatories in a school, and on that basis Rowling takes a shot at >transgender people and regards it as a scandal that gender neutral
toilets exist in schools. Is that a fair summary?
I remember when I worked in a law firm and a young office boy was sacked
for going into the women's toilets and peering over the tops of the
cubicles. So it can happen regardless of whether the toilets are for
separate sexes or gender neutral. And it is rare. And the perpetrators
are normally caught and punished. Why exaggerate the problem, as Rowling >chooses to do? Because any excuse will do, to demonize trans women.
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
One teenage boy has been arrested for serious sexual assaults in mixed sex lavatories
in a school, and on that basis Rowling takes a shot at transgender people and regards
it as a scandal that gender neutral toilets exist in schools. Is that a fair summary?
I remember when I worked in a law firm and a young office boy was sacked for going into
the women's toilets and peering over the tops of the cubicles. So it can happen
regardless of whether the toilets are for separate sexes or gender neutral.
And it is rare. And the perpetrators are normally caught and punished.
Why exaggerate the problem, as Rowling chooses to do? Because any excuse will do, to
demonize trans women.
On 24/05/2025 20:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
I think the logic would be that when analysing the meaning of words in a statute, a trans woman would have nothing to contribute to the argument whether as a witness or as an advocate.
However, former judge Victoria McCloud would disagree, and I certainly respect her as a formidable lawyer.
On 24/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters >>> her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly >> despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of >> ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true
hermaphrodite.
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
On Sat, 24 May 2025 16:51:22 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters >>>> her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly >>> despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of
ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true
hermaphrodite.
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
I would advise them to use the gents, as there's likely to be less of a queue.
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do
the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
Shirley ?
bb
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
On 24 May 2025 at 12:27:38 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been >>>>> saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are not
to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in one >>>>> statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader >>>>> Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress to
trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much >>>>> photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of all
women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to exclude trans >>>>> women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- definition-
of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact that
Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the fact that
there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people to
work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not require
services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what
was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with” about
the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary reaction
that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I somehow
doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - with reason-
but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June 2023.
Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe that's >>> going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more
recently
in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I suspect she was
referring to the chnages being made to what had been single sex toilets, to use
for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite often see ( an example
being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms (not cubicles within a room)
sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
Individual rooms with fully-enclosed doors do have safety issues though. Both from illnes, substance use, and assailants trapping victims in them. All these
are much more likely in schools.
On 24/05/2025 14:39, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:03:25 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 23:25:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there >>>>> is no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about
human rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation >>>>> which might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only >>>>> real hope we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
I really don't see how the ECtHR can overrule the SC on a matter of
statutory interpretation. It could I suppose declare EA as now
understood to be incompatible with someone's human rights. That would
be Parliament it is "overruling".
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument). So the SC has
overruled Parliament and would in turn be overruled by the ECtHR.
Let's wait and see, shall we ?
If parliament chooses to do nothing, then it's a tacit acceptance that -
in the face of much froth by legal ignorami the Supreme Court got it
right.
Or can parliament not change laws it believes are wrong ?
I am surprised there hasn't been a call to propose cis-gender where it relates
to sex and birth and gender to be more fluid as an addendum to the Equality Act
in appropriate places.
I can see toilets being marked as Boy/Men and Girls/Women as opposed to Male and
Female just to muddy things!
On 24 May 2025 at 16:51:22 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters >>>> her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly >>> despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of
ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true
hermaphrodite.
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
The one relevant to their sex at birth, except in the vanishingly rare case of
a change in childhood.
Histology of gonads is not really the point.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 16:51:22 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters >>>> her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and secondly >>> despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any prospect of
ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true
hermaphrodite.
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
I would advise them to use the gents, as there's likely to be less of a queue.
Mark
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been >>>>> saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are >>>>> not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in >>>>> one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to biological
women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader >>>>> Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress to
trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much >>>>> photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of >>>>> all women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to exclude >>>>> trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- definition-
of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact >>>>> that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the
fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people
to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not >>>>> require services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>>> what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with”
about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary >>>>> reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I somehow
doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - with
reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June 2023.
Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe that's >>> going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more
recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I
suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been single >> sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite >> often see ( an example being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms (not
cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:57:02 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote in <m9eq4uF6irlU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2025 21:15, Owen Rees wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:07:39 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? >>>>>> Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are ?sacrificing? girls? dignity >>>>>> and privacy for trans ideology.
Telegraph writer says that Rowling said ?
I would prefer the original source.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/essex-school-alleged-sex-attack-jk-rowling-same-sex-toilets/
Quote:
----
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are ?sacrificing? girls? dignity and
privacy for trans ideology after a school in Essex was forced to call in the
police.
After revelations by The Telegraph that a teenage boy had been arrested over
allegations of serious sexual assaults in mixed-sex lavatories, the author >>>> and campaigner said that such attacks were ?entirely foreseeable and
preventable?.
?Girls? safety, privacy and dignity is being sacrificed to an incoherent >>>> ideology pushed by lobby groups, which gives predatory males easy access to
victims,? Ms Rowling said.
Her comments came after Essex police were called in to investigate four >>>> allegations of serious sexual assault at a local school. It is understood >>>> that three of the attacks allegedly took place in toilets shared by boys and
girls.
---
A slightly less sensationalist account of the incident can be found here: >>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546
Mark
Thanks for the longer quote from the Telegraph. It suggests that the
paragraph previously quoted does not accurately reflect what Rowling said >>> as reported in the later paragraph.
I would have preferred a complete transcript of what Rowling actually said >>> or wrote rather than something filtered by a reporter and editor for a
publication.
One teenage boy has been arrested for serious sexual assaults in mixed
sex lavatories in a school, and on that basis Rowling takes a shot at
transgender people and regards it as a scandal that gender neutral
toilets exist in schools. Is that a fair summary?
No. You say she is taking a shot at transgender people but if you bother
to read what she writes the transgender people are not the target.
I remember when I worked in a law firm and a young office boy was sacked
for going into the women's toilets and peering over the tops of the
cubicles. So it can happen regardless of whether the toilets are for
separate sexes or gender neutral. And it is rare. And the perpetrators
are normally caught and punished. Why exaggerate the problem, as Rowling
chooses to do? Because any excuse will do, to demonize trans women.
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do
the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
On 24/05/2025 14:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even respected journals use the term Hermaphrodite! According to posters >>> her the authors of this paper must be wrong!
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380305
Well firstly this is chimerism, not a hermaphrodite individual and
secondly
despite the existence of both types of gonad there was never any
prospect of
ovary becoming functional. Which is what would be necessary for a true
hermaphrodite.
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
On 24 May 2025 at 20:25:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
If you want to maintain that untrue position, could you please name the pro-trans group that applied to be heard and was refused? I believe such a group does not exist: let alone "groups".
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've >>>>>> been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that
trans women are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the
references to women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make
sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its
leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused
unnecessary distress to trans people. And there was the
triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much photographed and much
quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of all women. The >>>>>> reaction was all about the non- existent need to exclude trans
women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have >>>>>> gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She
applauded the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with
that decision “despite the fact that there are people saying that >>>>>> you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other
people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which
permit but do not require services to be provided differently for
people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing >>>>>> as biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to
quarrel with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern >>>>>> was the “very binary reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so
I somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be
obsessed - with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29
June 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is
stupid? Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’
dignity and privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather
more recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe
time I suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what
had been single sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the
individual rooms you quite often see ( an example being those for
disabled persons) Individual rooms (not cubicles within a room)
sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men had
a urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one unisex/baby changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently >> divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
Shirley ?
bb
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
On 5/25/25 08:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do
the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
They really do still have it...
<https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/23/meta-facebook-deletes-post-announcing-trial-of-anti-genocide-activist/>
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:...
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
To clarify. Both statements are fully consistent with,
but do not necessarily imply that
"no Scotsmen can play the bagpipes".
Shirley ?
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex,” she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond the
point where there was any likelihood of any being present could cure
disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its share of
idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
Using what criteria ? By inspection ? By weight ? By starsign ? By chromosomes ?
On 2025-05-23, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate.
They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Those are the terms most trans people are happy with. It's the
anti-trans people who don't like these terms, because they hate
truth and accuracy.
On 23 May 2025 at 17:32:33 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/23/25 09:48, The Todal wrote:
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>> what was meant by “biological sex”.
We were having a similar discussion in ukpm. A science paper used the
phrase "assigned female at birth", "assigned male at birth".
I quite like it, as I have confidence in the judgement of the person
doing the birth certificate. They will tend to get it right, unless
there is a genuine intersex problem, and it avoids tedious pettifogging.
Those are the terms most trans people are happy with. It's the
anti-trans people who don't like these terms, because they hate
truth and accuracy.
Really??? I thought a popular slogan among trans activists was: "trans women are women"?
Whereas those who disagree with that slogan would generally say that only women born as women were women for all purposes.
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed
- with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
On 2025-05-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 May 2025 at 20:25:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because >>>>> they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused >>>> to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
If you want to maintain that untrue position, could you please name the
pro-trans group that applied to be heard and was refused? I believe such a >> group does not exist: let alone "groups".
The court agreed to hear from anti-trans groups "Sex Matters", "Scottish Lesbians", "The Lesbian Project", and "LGB Alliance". On the pro-trans
side, Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud, backed by the Good Law
Project, applied, and were rejected with no reasons given.
Maybe more pro-trans groups would have applied, but, unlike the
anti-trans groups, they don't qualify for billionaire funding, and
don't have the entire British media establishment on their side.
The fundamental fact is that the Supreme Court decided to persecute
and murder trans people and didn't bother to even pretend to listen
to any before doing so.
On 23/05/2025 15:36, GB wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so II don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed
- with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
Is there something unacceptable about the term "hermaphrodite"?
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
On 5/25/25 08:37, Jethro_uk wrote:trial-of-anti-genocide-activist/>
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:They really do still have it...
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do
the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
<https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/23/meta-facebook-deletes-post-announcing-
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 16:51:22 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
Supposing neither set of gonads functions correctly, but there are both
male and female external gonads, which toilet should that person use?
I would advise them to use the gents, as there's likely to be less of a
queue.
Females that are not obviously transsexual men use the mens toilets >immediately before the start of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone, for >the reasons that the queue for the female toilets is very long, and at that >point in time the cubicles in the mens toilets are very underused. This >ad-hoc arrangement fazes no-one and appears to work well.
On 23/05/2025 15:36, GB wrote:cannot normally fertilise themselves but any two snails or earthworms can fertilise each other. Clownfish are an example of sequential hermaphrodites; the dominant male in a social group will become female if the dominant
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed
- with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
Is there something unacceptable about the term "hermaphrodite"?
From a biological perspective, a hermaphrodite is an organism which produces both male and female gametes, either simultaneously or sequentially. Garden snails and earthworms are examples of simultaneous hermaphrodites, they
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
On 25/05/2025 13:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 May 2025 at 20:25:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because >>>>>> they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have
refused
to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
If you want to maintain that untrue position, could you please name the
pro-trans group that applied to be heard and was refused? I believe
such a
group does not exist: let alone "groups".
The court agreed to hear from anti-trans groups "Sex Matters", "Scottish
Lesbians", "The Lesbian Project", and "LGB Alliance". On the pro-trans
side, Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud, backed by the Good Law
Project, applied, and were rejected with no reasons given.
Surely the four "groups" you mentioned first were there as witnesses for
the plaintiff?
What would have been the standing of the other two entities you mentioned?
Maybe more pro-trans groups would have applied, but, unlike the
anti-trans groups, they don't qualify for billionaire funding, and
don't have the entire British media establishment on their side.
The fundamental fact is that the Supreme Court decided to persecute
and murder trans people and didn't bother to even pretend to listen
to any before doing so.
Wow...
On 25 May 2025 at 12:11:25 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/25/25 08:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do
the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
They really do still have it...
<https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/23/meta-facebook-deletes-post-announcing-trial-of-anti-genocide-activist/>
Yes, they are merely "fact checking" on behalf of the opposite American political party to previously.
On 25 May 2025 at 10:47:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently >>> divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
Shirley ?
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all
X can" is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Admittedly there is a potential linguistic ambiguity here, but
actually I think the original formulation was simply a grammatical
mistake. Which had the side effect of potentially exaggerating the
proportion of X in whom any difficulty arises.
On 25/05/2025 13:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:They were interveners with an interest in the question. But they combined together to give single submission.
On 2025-05-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 May 2025 at 20:25:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because >>>>>> they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused >>>>> to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
If you want to maintain that untrue position, could you please name the
pro-trans group that applied to be heard and was refused? I believe such a >>> group does not exist: let alone "groups".
The court agreed to hear from anti-trans groups "Sex Matters", "Scottish
Lesbians", "The Lesbian Project", and "LGB Alliance". On the pro-trans
side, Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud, backed by the Good Law
Project, applied, and were rejected with no reasons given.
Surely the four "groups" you mentioned first were there as witnesses for
the plaintiff?
What would have been the standing of the other two entities you mentioned?
Maybe more pro-trans groups would have applied, but, unlike the
anti-trans groups, they don't qualify for billionaire funding, and
don't have the entire British media establishment on their side.
The fundamental fact is that the Supreme Court decided to persecute
and murder trans people and didn't bother to even pretend to listen
to any before doing so.
Wow...
On Sun, 25 May 2025 15:57:42 +0200, JNugent wrote:
On 23/05/2025 15:36, GB wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so II don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed >>>> - with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
Is there something unacceptable about the term "hermaphrodite"?
Cannabis growers aren't fans.
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
Most people can be wrong, of course.
On 25 May 2025 at 15:25:14 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:They were interveners with an interest in the question. But they combined together to give single submission.
On 2025-05-24, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 May 2025 at 20:25:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-05-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/05/2025 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because >>>>>>> they refused to hear the other side of the argument).
I didn't follow the case that closely. Why would the court have refused >>>>>> to hear the other side of the argument?
I don't know. As I recall they accepted several submissions from
anti-trans groups and refused all submissions from pro-trans groups.
If you want to maintain that untrue position, could you please name the >>>> pro-trans group that applied to be heard and was refused? I believe such a >>>> group does not exist: let alone "groups".
The court agreed to hear from anti-trans groups "Sex Matters", "Scottish >>> Lesbians", "The Lesbian Project", and "LGB Alliance". On the pro-trans
side, Stephen Whittle and Victoria McCloud, backed by the Good Law
Project, applied, and were rejected with no reasons given.
Surely the four "groups" you mentioned first were there as witnesses for
the plaintiff?
What would have been the standing of the other two entities you mentioned?
They were individuals with an interest, but the SC does not normally hear individuals so unsurprisingly the SC declined to hear them. No application from an organisation representing trans views was received, so could not have been accepted.
Maybe more pro-trans groups would have applied, but, unlike the
anti-trans groups, they don't qualify for billionaire funding, and
don't have the entire British media establishment on their side.
The fundamental fact is that the Supreme Court decided to persecute
and murder trans people and didn't bother to even pretend to listen
to any before doing so.
Wow...
All that from not being allowed in the ladies' changing rooms?
On Sun, 25 May 2025 15:57:42 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 15:36, GB wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I
somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed >>>> - with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
Is there something unacceptable about the term "hermaphrodite"?
From a biological perspective, a hermaphrodite is an organism which producesboth male and female gametes, either simultaneously or sequentially. Garden snails and earthworms are examples of simultaneous hermaphrodites, they cannot normally fertilise themselves but any two snails or earthworms can fertilise each other. Clownfish are an example of sequential hermaphrodites; the dominant male in a social group will become female if the dominant
female is removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
The word "hermaphrodite" used to be used as a colloquial term for mammals with visually indeterminate sexual organs, but this is now deprecated and, particularly when applied to humans with a developmental sexual disorder, considered offensive.
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
I suspect that most people know the word, but don't really know what it means.
On 25 May 2025 at 15:25:14 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:18, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Maybe more pro-trans groups would have applied, but, unlike the
anti-trans groups, they don't qualify for billionaire funding, and
don't have the entire British media establishment on their side.
The fundamental fact is that the Supreme Court decided to persecute
and murder trans people and didn't bother to even pretend to listen
to any before doing so.
Wow...
All that from not being allowed in the ladies' changing rooms?
On 2025-05-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 May 2025 at 12:11:25 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/25/25 08:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do >>>>> the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
They really do still have it...
<https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/23/meta-facebook-deletes-post-announcing-trial-of-anti-genocide-activist/>
Does Skwawkbox have fact checking, though?
Yes, they are merely "fact checking" on behalf of the opposite American
political party to previously.
You seriously think that Facebook was previously doing fact checking
that was biased in favour of the Democratic party? As opposed to,
very occasionally, fact-based fact checking?
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 23:25:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
The current political situation in this country is clearly that there is >>> no possibility whatsoever of a party in power which cares about human
rights and wants to improve things. Any hypothetical legislation which
might occur would be making things worse, not better. The only real hope >>> we have is that the ECtHR overrules the Supreme Court.
I really don't see how the ECtHR can overrule the SC on a matter of
statutory interpretation. It could I suppose declare EA as now
understood to be incompatible with someone's human rights. That would
be Parliament it is "overruling".
Well, except the Supreme Court got the interpretation wrong (because
they refused to hear the other side of the argument). So the SC has
overruled Parliament and would in turn be overruled by the ECtHR.
On 2025-05-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 May 2025 at 10:47:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond >>>>>> the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could >>>>>> cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its >>>>>> share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>>>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently >>>> divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
Shirley ?
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all
X can" is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Admittedly there is a potential linguistic ambiguity here, but
actually I think the original formulation was simply a grammatical
mistake. Which had the side effect of potentially exaggerating the
proportion of X in whom any difficulty arises.
What I originally wrote was not grammatically incorrect.
On 2025-05-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 May 2025 at 12:11:25 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/25/25 08:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do >>>>> the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
They really do still have it...
<https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/23/meta-facebook-deletes-post-announcing-trial-of-anti-genocide-activist/>
Does Skwawkbox have fact checking, though?
Yes, they are merely "fact checking" on behalf of the opposite American
political party to previously.
You seriously think that Facebook was previously doing fact checking
that was biased in favour of the Democratic party? As opposed to,
very occasionally, fact-based fact checking?
On 25/05/2025 17:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 15:57:42 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:I am sure I have read of Elizabeth I being referred to as a
On 23/05/2025 15:36, GB wrote:both male and female gametes, either simultaneously or sequentially.
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I >>>>> somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may beI don't think the doctors are stupid. They are at the sharp end of
obsessed - with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
things, and they have seen or know of the many cases that do not fall
into simple categories.
For example, 1 in 5000 births are hermaphrodite. Do you propose to
classify them as male, female, or both?
Is there something unacceptable about the term "hermaphrodite"?
From a biological perspective, a hermaphrodite is an organism which >>>produces
Garden snails and earthworms are examples of simultaneous
hermaphrodites, they cannot normally fertilise themselves but any two
snails or earthworms can fertilise each other. Clownfish are an example
of sequential hermaphrodites;
the dominant male in a social group will become female if the dominant
female is removed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
The word "hermaphrodite" used to be used as a colloquial term for
mammals with visually indeterminate sexual organs, but this is now
deprecated and, particularly when applied to humans with a
developmental sexual disorder, considered offensive.
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
I suspect that most people know the word, but don't really know what it
means.
hermaphrodite.
On 25 May 2025 at 10:47:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>>> biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>>> divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently >>> divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
Shirley ?
bb
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X.
"not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
On 25/05/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been >>>>>>> saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are
not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in
one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to
biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader >>>>>>> Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress
to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was >>>>>>> much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on >>>>>>> behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to
exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal-
definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact
that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the
fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people
to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not
require services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned >>>>>>> what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>>> biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with”
about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary
reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I >>>>>> somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed - >>>>>> with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe
that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more >>>> recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I >>>> suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been single
sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite
often see ( an example being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms >>>> (not cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men had a
urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one unisex/baby
changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
If there was a cubicle in the men's toilets who on earth would object if a woman
entered that area and made use of the cubicle?
On 24/05/2025 23:50, Owen Rees wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:57:02 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote in <m9eq4uF6irlU1@mid.individual.net>:
On 24/05/2025 21:15, Owen Rees wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 11:07:39 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? >>>>>>> Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are ?sacrificing? girls? dignity >>>>>>> and privacy for trans ideology.
Telegraph writer says that Rowling said ?
I would prefer the original source.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/29/essex-school-alleged-sex-attack-jk-rowling-same-sex-toilets/
Quote:
----
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are ?sacrificing? girls? dignity and
privacy for trans ideology after a school in Essex was forced to call in the
police.
After revelations by The Telegraph that a teenage boy had been arrested over
allegations of serious sexual assaults in mixed-sex lavatories, the author
and campaigner said that such attacks were ?entirely foreseeable and >>>>> preventable?.
?Girls? safety, privacy and dignity is being sacrificed to an incoherent >>>>> ideology pushed by lobby groups, which gives predatory males easy access to
victims,? Ms Rowling said.
Her comments came after Essex police were called in to investigate four >>>>> allegations of serious sexual assault at a local school. It is understood >>>>> that three of the attacks allegedly took place in toilets shared by boys and
girls.
---
A slightly less sensationalist account of the incident can be found here: >>>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66052546
Mark
Thanks for the longer quote from the Telegraph. It suggests that the
paragraph previously quoted does not accurately reflect what Rowling said >>>> as reported in the later paragraph.
I would have preferred a complete transcript of what Rowling actually said >>>> or wrote rather than something filtered by a reporter and editor for a >>>> publication.
One teenage boy has been arrested for serious sexual assaults in mixed
sex lavatories in a school, and on that basis Rowling takes a shot at
transgender people and regards it as a scandal that gender neutral
toilets exist in schools. Is that a fair summary?
No. You say she is taking a shot at transgender people but if you bother
to read what she writes the transgender people are not the target.
And if you "bother" to read all of Rowling's output, you'll know that in
her opinion transgender women are males, and therefore potentially "predatory" males, a belief that has acquired much traction. Why else
would she cite "ideology pushed by pressure groups"? That would be the
trans ideology, obviously. There are no pressure groups of men demanding gender neutral toilets.
I remember when I worked in a law firm and a young office boy was sacked >>> for going into the women's toilets and peering over the tops of the
cubicles. So it can happen regardless of whether the toilets are for
separate sexes or gender neutral. And it is rare. And the perpetrators
are normally caught and punished. Why exaggerate the problem, as Rowling >>> chooses to do? Because any excuse will do, to demonize trans women.
On 25/05/2025 17:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HermaphroditeI am sure I have read of Elizabeth I being referred to as a hermaphrodite.
The word "hermaphrodite" used to be used as a colloquial term for mammals
with visually indeterminate sexual organs, but this is now deprecated and, >> particularly when applied to humans with a developmental sexual disorder,
considered offensive.
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
I suspect that most people know the word, but don't really know what it
means.
On 25 May 2025 at 19:10:28 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 May 2025 at 10:47:14 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>> "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9g3ugFcuebU1@mid.individual.net...
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
"I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such >>>>>>>>> thing as biological sex," she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond >>>>>>> the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could >>>>>>> cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its >>>>>>> share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and
consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male"
and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and
consistently divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male"
and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
There is not distinction.
All X cannot and not all X can
mean exactly the same thing.
Thus "all Scotsmen cannot play the bagpipes"
means exactly the same as
"not all Scotmen can play the bagpipes"
Shirley ?
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all
X can" is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Admittedly there is a potential linguistic ambiguity here, but
actually I think the original formulation was simply a grammatical
mistake. Which had the side effect of potentially exaggerating the
proportion of X in whom any difficulty arises.
What I originally wrote was not grammatically incorrect.
I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it was a mistake to make it
ambiguous.
I am sure I have read of Elizabeth I being referred to as a hermaphrodite.
On 25 May 2025 at 19:07:59 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 May 2025 at 12:11:25 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/25/25 08:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 21:43:25 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 5/24/25 18:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Have you ever been responsible for recording statistical data? How do >>>>>> the Meta Office decide if it rained or not.
Meta don't have fact checking any more.
They really do still have it...
<https://skwawkbox.org/2025/05/23/meta-facebook-deletes-post-announcing-trial-of-anti-genocide-activist/>
Does Skwawkbox have fact checking, though?
Yes, they are merely "fact checking" on behalf of the opposite American
political party to previously.
You seriously think that Facebook was previously doing fact checking
that was biased in favour of the Democratic party? As opposed to,
very occasionally, fact-based fact checking?
I think they were rejecting racist and fascist propaganda in the past.
Until they were told not to.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
On 25/05/2025 13:52, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what
I've been saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed
that trans women are not to be regarded as women. It has said
that the references to women in one statute, the Equality Act, >>>>>>>> only make sense if they refer to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its >>>>>>>> leader Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused
unnecessary distress to trans people. And there was the
triumphalism of JK Rowling who was much photographed and much
quoted, who was quick to claim victory on behalf of all women. >>>>>>>> The reaction was all about the non- existent need to exclude
trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- >>>>>>>> definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t >>>>>>>> have gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She >>>>>>>> applauded the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with >>>>>>>> that decision “despite the fact that there are people saying >>>>>>>> that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for >>>>>>>> other people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act,
which permit but do not require services to be provided
differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also
questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such >>>>>>>> thing as biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things >>>>>>>> to quarrel with” about the judgment, but Hale said her main
concern was the “very binary reaction that there has been to it”. >>>>>>>>
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space,
so I somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may
be obsessed - with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 >>>>>> June 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is
stupid? Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ >>>>>> dignity and privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather
more recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted.
Atthe time I suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to
what had been single sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than
the individual rooms you quite often see ( an example being those
for disabled persons) Individual rooms (not cubicles within a room)
sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men
had a urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one
unisex/baby changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
If there was a cubicle in the men's toilets who on earth would object
if a woman entered that area and made use of the cubicle?
I am not sure how to use a urinal. That is all there was.
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can" is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 17:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HermaphroditeI am sure I have read of Elizabeth I being referred to as a hermaphrodite.
The word "hermaphrodite" used to be used as a colloquial term for mammals >>> with visually indeterminate sexual organs, but this is now deprecated and, >>> particularly when applied to humans with a developmental sexual disorder, >>> considered offensive.
Most people know of it even if they cannot accurately describe it.
I suspect that most people know the word, but don't really know what it
means.
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married. One theory is that she had a developmental sexual disorder (aka intersex) which
rendered her infertile and incapable of normal sexual intercourse. That's
the sort of thing which would, once, have been colloquially referred to as being a hermaphrodite. Another theory is that she was a lesbian. Neither of these has any significant support by historians. Although, if she was a lesbian, that would actually explain some of the rumours which circulated in her lifetime that she had a physical deformity, as in the culture of the day the idea that a woman would actually prefer physical intimacy with her own sex was considered unthinkable.
However, the majority of modern historians are in agreement that Elizabeth I was neither a lesbian nor had any physical sexual disorder. The big debate, which remains unresolved and almost certainly always will be unresolved, is whether she really was the "Virgin Queen" of popular folklore or whether any of the rumours of her affairs with male friends were true.
On 25/05/2025 13:52, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been
saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are
not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in
one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to >>>>>>>> biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader
Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress
to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was >>>>>>>> much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on >>>>>>>> behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to
exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- >>>>>>>> definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact
that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the
fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”. >>>>>>>>
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people
to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not
require services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with”
about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary
reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I >>>>>>> somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe
that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more >>>>> recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I >>>>> suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been single
sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite
often see ( an example being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms >>>>> (not cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men had a >>> urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one unisex/baby
changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
If there was a cubicle in the men's toilets who on earth would object if a >> woman
entered that area and made use of the cubicle?
I am not sure how to use a urinal. That is all there was.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to ensure
her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to
ensure her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
Except that that's not a theory supported by a significant number of historians.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to ensure
her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
Anything else is the projection of later mores.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:00:02 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to
ensure her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
Except that that's not a theory supported by a significant number of
historians.
I draw your attention to Hitchens Razor :)
And Occams Razor.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 16:00:02 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to
ensure her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
Except that that's not a theory supported by a significant number of
historians.
I draw your attention to Hitchens Razor :)
And Occams Razor.
On 26/05/2025 14:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to
ensure her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
Her own safety might have been enhanced if she bore legitimate children.
Marriage was seen as a means of ensuring good relations with the source
of the husband.
Anything else is the projection of later mores.
Can you offer any compelling evidence?
On 26/05/2025 12:31, kat wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:52, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been
saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women >>>>>>>>> are not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to >>>>>>>>> women in one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer >>>>>>>>> to biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader
Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary >>>>>>>>> distress to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling
who was much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim >>>>>>>>> victory on behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non- >>>>>>>>> existent need to exclude trans women from all manner of spaces. >>>>>>>>>
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- >>>>>>>>> definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have
gender neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded
the fact that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision >>>>>>>>> “despite the fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”.
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other
people to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit >>>>>>>>> but do not require services to be provided differently for people >>>>>>>>> according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with”
about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary
reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I >>>>>>>> somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? >>>>>>> Maybe that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity
and privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more >>>>>> recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I >>>>>> suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been >>>>>> single sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms
you quite often see ( an example being those for disabled persons) >>>>>> Individual rooms (not cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity or
privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men had a >>>> urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one unisex/baby >>>> changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
If there was a cubicle in the men's toilets who on earth would object if a >>> woman entered that area and made use of the cubicle?
I am not sure how to use a urinal. That is all there was.
Okay.
There are devices to enable women to urinate discreetly behind trees or in bushes, not having to crouch down, thus able to get away quickly if there is any
danger, and perhaps it is surprising that they aren't fashionable yet. https://www.shewee.com/shewee.html
On 26 May 2025 at 12:31:51 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:52, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been
saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are
not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in
one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to >>>>>>>>> biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader
Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress
to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was >>>>>>>>> much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on >>>>>>>>> behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to
exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- >>>>>>>>> definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact
that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the
fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”. >>>>>>>>>
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people
to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not
require services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with”
about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary
reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I >>>>>>>> somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June >>>>>>> 2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe
that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more >>>>>> recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I >>>>>> suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been single
sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite
often see ( an example being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms
(not cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy.
They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men had a >>>> urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one unisex/baby >>>> changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
If there was a cubicle in the men's toilets who on earth would object if a >>> woman
entered that area and made use of the cubicle?
I am not sure how to use a urinal. That is all there was.
I have seen a woman attempt to use a urinal backwards, lifting herself up with
her arms. I was too polite to observe how well she managed.
On 26/05/2025 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 May 2025 at 12:31:51 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 25/05/2025 13:52, The Todal wrote:
On 25/05/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 16:46, Max Demian wrote:
On 24/05/2025 12:27, kat wrote:
On 24/05/2025 10:55, The Todal wrote:They're more expensive than communal toilets, especially for men.
On 23/05/2025 12:56, kat wrote:
On 23/05/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
Worth reading. At the risk of sounding like Norman, it's what I've been
saying all along. The Supreme Court has not decreed that trans women are
not to be regarded as women. It has said that the references to women in
one statute, the Equality Act, only make sense if they refer to >>>>>>>>>> biological women.
Our press, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and its leader
Baroness Falkner, have misled the public and caused unnecessary distress
to trans people. And there was the triumphalism of JK Rowling who was
much photographed and much quoted, who was quick to claim victory on >>>>>>>>>> behalf of all women. The reaction was all about the non- existent need to
exclude trans women from all manner of spaces.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may/22/court-ruling-legal- >>>>>>>>>> definition- of-a- woman-misinterpreted-lady-hale
quotes
"...there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender
neutral loos, as we have here in this festival.” She applauded the fact
that Charleston’s organisers went ahead with that decision “despite the
fact that there are people saying that you can’t do that”. >>>>>>>>>>
The judgment “says nothing about that”, she added. “It’s for other people
to work out the other parts of the Equality Act, which permit but do not
require services to be provided differently for people according to sex.”
The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned
what was meant by “biological sex”.
“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as
biological sex,” she said. “There are plenty of things to quarrel with”
about the judgment, but Hale said her main concern was the “very binary
reaction that there has been to it”.
A gender neutral toilet is not a designated women's only space, so I >>>>>>>>> somehow doubt JK Rowling said anything about them. She may be obsessed -
with reason- but she isn't stupid.
Unlike the doctors quoted.
I've looked at the Daily Telegraph, not my favourite newspaper, 29 June
2023. Would you now revise your view and say that Rowling is stupid? Maybe
that's going slightly too far.
quote
JK Rowling says gender neutral toilets are “sacrificing” girls’ dignity and
privacy for trans ideology.
And that can still be true - and still not be what was said rather more >>>>>>> recently in the judgement which she has happily accepted. Atthe time I >>>>>>> suspect she was referring to the chnages being made to what had been single
sex toilets, to use for anyone, rather than the individual rooms you quite
often see ( an example being those for disabled persons) Individual rooms
(not cubicles within a room) sacrifice no-ones dignity or privacy. >>>>>>
A car park I visited recently had indiviual rooms, the ones for men had a >>>>> urinal. Those for women were all out of order, leaving one unisex/baby >>>>> changing room for all women and any man who needed a toilet.
If there was a cubicle in the men's toilets who on earth would object if a >>>> woman
entered that area and made use of the cubicle?
I am not sure how to use a urinal. That is all there was.
I have seen a woman attempt to use a urinal backwards, lifting herself up with
her arms. I was too polite to observe how well she managed.
If I was taller and not somewhat disabled, possibly. But the number of women whom I saw have a look and then queue for the one unisex/disabled/babychange would suggest we mostly find that rather difficult.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "?
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:13:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 13:26:59 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2025 01:11:53 +0200, JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
There's a lot of speculation as to why Elizabeth I never married.
Is there ? Only if you have an agenda.
The premise that she remained unmarried as a political strategy to ensure >>her own safety is so simple as to be correct.
Except that that's not a theory supported by a significant number of historians.
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "? >>
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
On 23/05/2025 13:15, Jon Ribbens wrote:
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently
divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
It's an easy mistake to make, but surely you meant to say:
"They are clearly right that not all humans can be easily and consistently divided at
birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female"?
I am sure you appreciate the distinction.
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not
all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few
X "?
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "? >>>
(a)
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the
other one didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist
at all.
On 5/26/25 22:47, JNugent wrote:
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not
all X can" is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a
few X "?
Take the names Nugent, Hayter, Bookcase
All the names include the letter "e".
All the names do not include the letter "i"
Not all the names include the letter "a" (because Nugent doesn't)
I think Roger means "not all X can" means you only need to find one that cannot to prove that it is true.
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
Does 1% of X can imply 99% of X cannot, there is no reason to assume it
does.
Jon's initial phrase was perfectly understandable. The phrase (all
humans) should be interpreted as a single set, the set of all humans, as opposed to interpreted as universal quantification. Given it only had
one sensible interpretation, I wouldn't say it was ambiguous.
On 5/26/25 22:47, JNugent wrote:
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "? >>>
Take the names Nugent, Hayter, Bookcase
All the names include the letter "e".
All the names do not include the letter "i"
Not all the names include the letter "a" (because Nugent doesn't)
I think Roger means "not all X can" means you only need to find one that cannot to
prove that it is true.
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
Does 1% of X can imply 99% of X cannot, there is no reason to assume it does.
They were individuals with an interest, but the SC does not normally hear individuals so unsurprisingly the SC declined to hear them. No application from an organisation representing trans views was received, so could not have been accepted.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "? >>>
(a)
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the
other one didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist
at all.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:1013tu4$2gqul$4@dont-email.me...
On 5/26/25 22:47, JNugent wrote:
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "?
Take the names Nugent, Hayter, Bookcase
All the names include the letter "e".
All the names do not include the letter "i"
Not all the names include the letter "a" (because Nugent doesn't)
I think Roger means "not all X can" means you only need to find one that cannot to
prove that it is true.
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
Does 1% of X can imply 99% of X cannot, there is no reason to assume it does.
Oh Really ?
So if I say that 1% of road accidents are caused by old ladies
wandering into the road, there is no reason not to suppose that in fact
100% of road accidents are caused by old ladies wandering into
the road ?
Are you sure ?
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageHow would you compare All Humans cannot fly with Not all Humans can fly?
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:(a)
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not
all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a
few X "?
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the other one
didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist at all.
On 5/26/25 22:47, JNugent wrote:
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "? >>>
Take the names Nugent, Hayter, Bookcase
All the names include the letter "e".
All the names do not include the letter "i"
Not all the names include the letter "a" (because Nugent doesn't)
I think Roger means "not all X can" means you only need to find one that cannot to prove that it is true.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
They were individuals with an interest, but the SC does not normally hear
individuals so unsurprisingly the SC declined to hear them. No application >> from an organisation representing trans views was received, so could not have
been accepted.
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
Obviously, the SC does not want to hear individuals nattering on, but I assume that representation could have been arranged - the Good Law
Project, for example, might well have helped out.
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "?
(a)
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the
other one didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist
at all.
How would you compare
All Humans cannot fly
with
Not all Humans can fly?
On 27/05/2025 10:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "?
(a)
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
Obviously.
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
Again, obviously; the halves of that are incompatible.
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
The same as above.
If so then please state what it is
You are using words outside their meanings.
Let's re-word your three assertions:
(A) If 1% of X can, then not all of X can (literally, 99% cannot).
That now makes sense.
(B) if 50% of X can, then not all of X can (because 50% cannot).
Again, that makes sense.
(C) If 99% of X can, then not all X can (because 1% cannot).
The central point is that "not all can" means that less than 100% can.
And that "all of N cannot" means that none of them can.
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
Observation, not objection. Others made the same observation.
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the
other one didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist
at all.
I have explained my position
And that "all of N cannot" means that none of them can.
and I'm sorry you're finding it difficult to agree. It's a straightforward matter of
language.
"All cannot" does not mean the same as "Not all can".
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Seeing how Starmer caved in so easily to the demands of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, I don't think that even that famous human
rights KC can be trusted to do the right thing.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:08:33 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageHow would you compare All Humans cannot fly with Not all Humans can fly?
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:(a)
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not >>>>>> all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a
few X "?
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the other one
didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist at all.
You need to start with a definition of "human" and "fly" before an
accurate response can be considered. Otherwise someone will win £5 by dropping a corpse (or indeed a live person) from a great height.
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Seeing how Starmer caved in so easily to the demands of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, I don't think that even that famous human
rights KC can be trusted to do the right thing.
... which leaves us with the alternative I already mentioned,
the European Court of Human Rights.
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Seeing how Starmer caved in so easily to the demands of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, I don't think that even that famous human
rights KC can be trusted to do the right thing.
... which leaves us with the alternative I already mentioned,
the European Court of Human Rights.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 18:42:14 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Seeing how Starmer caved in so easily to the demands of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews, I don't think that even that famous human
rights KC can be trusted to do the right thing.
... which leaves us with the alternative I already mentioned,
the European Court of Human Rights.
The ECHR can't override the UKSC on a matter of interpretation of legislation. It can rule that the legislation is incompatible with the convention. But that is not a judgment on the UKSC, it's a judgment on the legislation that the USSC has interpreted.
And such a ruling can only be addressed by the government
re-legislating. Until the government changes the legislation, the
existing legislation, as inteprereted by the UKSC, stands.
On 5/27/25 11:51, billy bookcase wrote:
So if I say that 1% of road accidents are caused by old ladies
wandering into the road, there is no reason not to suppose that in fact
100% of road accidents are caused by old ladies wandering into
the road ?
We don't know what happens in the other 99%.
Are you sure ?
No, I'm not sure. English is imprecise. If you wanted us to infer that 99% cannot, why
didn't you just write that
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:08:33 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageHow would you compare All Humans cannot fly with Not all Humans can fly?
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:(a)
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not >>>>>> all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a
few X "?
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the other one
didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist at all.
You need to start with a definition of "human" and "fly" before an
accurate response can be considered. Otherwise someone will win £5 by dropping a corpse (or indeed a live person) from a great height.
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m9lkpgF9cpsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "?
(a)
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the
other one didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist
at all.
How would you compare
All Humans cannot fly
Because some simply can't afford the fare
with
Not all Humans can fly?
Again because some simply can't afford the fare.
bb
On 2025-05-27, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:08:33 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageHow would you compare All Humans cannot fly with Not all Humans can fly?
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:(a)
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not >>>>>>> all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a >>>>>> few X "?
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the other one
didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist at all.
You need to start with a definition of "human" and "fly" before an
accurate response can be considered. Otherwise someone will win £5 by
dropping a corpse (or indeed a live person) from a great height.
Fortunately, I provided a helpful clarification in 2017:
'Well, only if you redefine "flying" to include "accelerating to
terminal velocity straight downwards under the force of gravity"...'
True, but it does put really quite a lot of pressure on the government
to do something about it.
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:21:41 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
There isn't one. By definition, the interpretation of the UKSC is the
legally correct one.
The legislation can, of course, be changed. But that doesn't "correct"
the UKSC. It merely creates a new legislative framework which needs interpreting again. The UKSC's interpretation was correct for the older version of the legislation, but will need to be re-made for the new
version.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:21:41 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
There isn't one. By definition, the interpretation of the UKSC is the
legally correct one.
The legislation can, of course, be changed. But that doesn't "correct" the UKSC. It merely creates a new legislative framework which needs interpreting again. The UKSC's interpretation was correct for the older version of the legislation, but will need to be re-made for the new version.
Mark
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
On 27/05/2025 15:09, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9lkpgF9cpsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 27/05/2025 09:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m9k5qmF29v4U2@mid.individual.net...
On 26/05/2025 15:51, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:7834742707.bb5e6166@uninhabited.net...
I disagree. "all X cannot" is a property of all individual X. "not all X can"
is a property of a few X. In this case a tiny percentage of X
Could you please explain why "not all X can" is "the property of a few X "?
(a)
If 1% of X can, then not all X can.
if 50% of X can, then not all X can
if 99% of X can, then not all X can.
+1.
So do you have any problem with the following ?
(b)
If 1% of X can, then all of X can not
if 50% of X can, then all of X can not
if 99% of X can, then all of X can not.
If so then please state what it is
Your objection to Jon Ribbens hinged on your claim
that there was a"distinction" between his formulation
(b) All X can NOT be easily divided
and your formulation
(a) NOT all X can be easily divided
That one formulation suggested an implication that the
other one didn't.
And that as a consequence Ribbens had made an "easy mistake".
Whereas clearly no such implication appears to exist
at all.
How would you compare
All Humans cannot fly
Because some simply can't afford the fare
or have wings. But it suggests no human can fly.
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:18:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
True, but it does put really quite a lot of pressure on the government
to do something about it.
Votes for prisoners suggests that isn't a great motivator.
On 28/05/2025 10:49, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
Given that there aren't all that many transgender people around, I'm surprised that we can't simply accommodate them.
On 27/05/2025 21:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:21:41 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
There isn't one. By definition, the interpretation of the UKSC is the
legally correct one.
Just for completeness, the Supreme Court can overrule itself. So, if the court agrees to hear another case relating to (or including) the same interpretation issue, the court could come to a different conclusion.
On 2025-05-28, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:accepts-uk-compromise-on-prisoner-voting-rights
On Tue, 27 May 2025 22:18:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
True, but it does put really quite a lot of pressure on the government
to do something about it.
Votes for prisoners suggests that isn't a great motivator.
On the contrary, that's an excellent example of how it puts really quite
a lot of pressure on the government. The ruling wasn't ignored and
continued causing issues until a compromise was reached in 2017 (bearing
in mind the court never said all prisoners must have the vote anyway).
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/council-of-europe-
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>> biological sex, she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
The vast majority of humans can be, and those which are easily identified will never be anything else. The fact that there are a small number of
humans whose sex is not amenable to a simple visual check doesn't nullify
the value of such identification for the majority.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 12:05:31 +0100, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 21:37, Mark Goodge wrote:Now if that has ever happened would be an interesting and fruitful answer
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:21:41 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
There isn't one. By definition, the interpretation of the UKSC is the
legally correct one.
Just for completeness, the Supreme Court can overrule itself. So, if the
court agrees to hear another case relating to (or including) the same
interpretation issue, the court could come to a different conclusion.
to have ....
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:54:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously
functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but
there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been >>>> observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true >>>> hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism. >>>>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end >>> organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional >>> gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially.
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
That's the basis of the hypothetical possibility that I noted in my post. However, there are no recorded cases of this occuring in a human, and the constraints mentioned by Roger suggest that it may, in fact, be simply impossible. Even if it did happen, though, that would not contradict the general principle that a single individual can only ever be male or female, because a chimera is, on at least some level, not a single individual.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 12:05:31 +0100, GB wrote:
On 27/05/2025 21:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 13:21:41 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
There isn't one. By definition, the interpretation of the UKSC is the
legally correct one.
Just for completeness, the Supreme Court can overrule itself. So, if the
court agrees to hear another case relating to (or including) the same
interpretation issue, the court could come to a different conclusion.
Now if that has ever happened would be an interesting and fruitful answer
to have ....
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
11;rgb:0000/0000/0000
On Fri, 23 May 2025 20:54:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 23/05/2025 18:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 17:25:04 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Wikipedia[1] notes that
there is a hypothetical scenario in which a person could have simultaneously
functional ovaries and testicles, and thus produce both eggs and sperm, but
there are no records of it ever happening (although apparently it has been
observed in a rabbit). Such a person would still not, though, be a true >>>>> hermaphrodite, such a scenario could only arise as a result of chimerism. >>>>>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Furthermore, it requires a specific hormonal milieux (and appropriate end >>>> organ sensitivity) for either type of gonad to actually produce functional >>>> gametes, and is probably impossible to support both, even sequentially. >>>
Hmm, there are exceptions!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chimera
That's the basis of the hypothetical possibility that I noted in my post.
However, there are no recorded cases of this occuring in a human, and the
constraints mentioned by Roger suggest that it may, in fact, be simply
impossible. Even if it did happen, though, that would not contradict the
general principle that a single individual can only ever be male or female, >> because a chimera is, on at least some level, not a single individual.
True, but a human chimera is one person for legal purposes.
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
?I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>> biological sex,? she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>>divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
The vast majority of humans can be, and those which are easily identified
will never be anything else. The fact that there are a small number of
humans whose sex is not amenable to a simple visual check doesn't nullify
the value of such identification for the majority.
AIUI, the small number is about 2% of the population that we know of
based on current science.
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or,
if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life
was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:3rd class in some eyes.
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear >>>>>>> the individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or,
if it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans
people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human
to males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
believing that the world is against you?
On Wed, 28 May 2025 18:31:17 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 11:15:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-05-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 May 2025 at 10:46:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2025 09:48:25 +0100, The Todal wrote:
?I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as >>>>>>> biological sex,? she said.
And are they right ?
I met some doctors the other day who said substances diluted beyond
the point where there was any likelihood of any being present could
cure disease by magic. It's a liberal profession, and contains its
share of idiots and charlatans. So no, they are not right.
They are clearly right that all humans cannot be easily and consistently >>>>divided at birth into exactly two neat boxes, "male" and "female".
The vast majority of humans can be, and those which are easily identified >>> will never be anything else. The fact that there are a small number of
humans whose sex is not amenable to a simple visual check doesn't nullify >>> the value of such identification for the majority.
AIUI, the small number is about 2% of the population that we know of
based on current science.
It's a lot less than that, at least if Wikipedia can be trusted. According
to various pages, around 1.7% of people aere born with some form of intersex as defined by the DSD consortium. But that's a deliberately inclusive definition which extends to all atypical sexual development, not just those conditions which lead to sexual ambiguity or which have any genetic abnormality. The proportion of babies with ambiguous genitalia is generally estimated at around 0.05% of births.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_intersex
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to >>> males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that the
world is against you?
On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:44:36 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:3rd class in some eyes.
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear >>>>>>>> the individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, >>>>>> if it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans
people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human >>>> to males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
believing that the world is against you?
I would immediately agree with the proposition that womens lives - along
with the disabled - are no better now than in 1975.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to >>>> males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to >>>>> males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that
the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, believing them
to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the more in need of your chivalrous
protection?
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:44:36 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,3rd class in some eyes.Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human >>>> to males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
believing that the world is against you?
I would immediately agree with the proposition that womens lives - along
with the disabled - are no better now than in 1975.
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
On 30/05/2025 11:21, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
Any answer to that is likely to raise the hackles of some people.
Thus, there may be some men who feel they can't compete for women's attention with the tall, muscular, high achieving men that they see around them, so they
want to become the person people compete for, part of the feminine mystique, their flaws hidden (in their opinion) by well chosen garments and makeup. With
no pressure to be a breadwinner, rather to be cosseted and looked after. And to
be admired from afar and up close.
Okay, that's entirely in my imagination, I have no right to speculate about how
trans women arrive at their decision, and many trans women are very successful
in their careers and wouldn't want to be kept women. And Victoria McCloud really
is a heroine of mine.
On 30 May 2025 at 11:21:09 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
Would it make better sense if I explained that they *were* entitled men who wanted to have their needs served by actual women? Or is that in any way contentious?
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting
their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second thoughts.
On 30/05/2025 13:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life
was to serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
Oh but they do wish it. They could continue feeling some sort of
feminine while retaining the advantages of remaining a man.
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to >>> males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that the world is against you?
On 30/05/2025 14:23, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:44:36 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,3rd class in some eyes.Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human >>>>> to males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
believing that the world is against you?
I would immediately agree with the proposition that womens lives - along
with the disabled - are no better now than in 1975.
B-but women have The Pill, and so can shag any time they like!
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m9tsntFjg0eU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that
the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, believing them
to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the more in need of your chivalrous
protection?
You mean forever asking them if they're suffering from low self esteem, believing the
world is against them ?
A.k.a "gaslighting".
https://www.solacewomensaid.org/have-you-heard-about-gaslighting/
On 30/05/2025 14:23, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:44:36 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:3rd class in some eyes.
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear >>>>>>>>> the individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, >>>>>>> if it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans
people.
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human >>>>> to males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
believing that the world is against you?
I would immediately agree with the proposition that womens lives - along
with the disabled - are no better now than in 1975.
Which is plainly untrue. Do you even live in the UK?
Disabled people have far more rights, and it is unlawful to discriminate against
them or to refuse to provide reasonable adjustments. Women are getting closer
to equal pay and are far more numerous on boards of directors and in city partnerships than ever before.
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
On 2025-05-31, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life
was to serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
Oh but they do wish it. They could continue feeling some sort of
feminine while retaining the advantages of remaining a man.
What on earth are you *talking* about? You are just making up stuff completely randomly, with no clue whatsoever what you are on about.
Why would you do that?
On 30/05/2025 18:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting
their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second
thoughts.
They might not like the monthly swings in hormones either!
(Childbirth can be a doddle compared.)
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to >>>>> males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
On 30/05/2025 18:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court >>>>>>> of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting
their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second
thoughts.
They might not like the monthly swings in hormones either!
(Childbirth can be a doddle compared.)
On 2025-05-31, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 13:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life
was to serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
Oh but they do wish it. They could continue feeling some sort of
feminine while retaining the advantages of remaining a man.
What on earth are you *talking* about? You are just making up stuff completely randomly, with no clue whatsoever what you are on about.
Why would you do that?
On 30/05/2025 22:19, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:23, Jethro_uk wrote:
I would immediately agree with the proposition that womens lives - along >>> with the disabled - are no better now than in 1975.
B-but women have The Pill, and so can shag any time they like!
I had the pill in 1975...
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if >>>>>>>> it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life,
believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life,
believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take
you through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class
citizen but a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here are
my reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third class citizens".
Mr Bookcase, displaying his sanctimonious side, then accuses me of frightening off all the women in this group. An accusation which is
plainly virtue-signalling and without merit. Which infantilizes women.
And then you somehow connect this to racism and antisemitism, implying
that Mr Bookcase has courageously taken a stand against my (in his own
mind) misogyny.
Unworthy of Mr Bookcase, unworthy of you.
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life,
believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you through
this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen but a
third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that the
world is against you?
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ma0s95F3is4U1@mid.individual.net...
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you through
this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen but a
third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that the
world is against you?
It's not a reasonable question at all.
The precise opposite in fact.
Clearly both yourself and Mr Ribbens prioritise the interests of men, and men wishing to transition into women, over the interests of women themselves.
Turning them now into third class citizens; where previously they had been second
class citizens, since time immemorial.
And then, when one of these women has the effrontery to point out this obvious
truth to you, your only response is to question whether or not she might have mental issues, be suffering from low self esteem etc.
You simply couldn't make this stuff up !
Please, please, admit you're not serious,.
On 31 May 2025 at 18:23:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take
you through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class
citizen but a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here are
my reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third class
citizens".
Mr Bookcase, displaying his sanctimonious side, then accuses me of
frightening off all the women in this group. An accusation which is
plainly virtue-signalling and without merit. Which infantilizes women.
And then you somehow connect this to racism and antisemitism, implying
that Mr Bookcase has courageously taken a stand against my (in his own
mind) misogyny.
Unworthy of Mr Bookcase, unworthy of you.
What myself, kat and possibly Mr bookcase are telling you is that it is offensive to suggest that anyone is suffering from "low self esteem" just because they are aware of misogyny, patriarchal repression and the pervading risk of male violence. You clearly don't believe that. You have that right. To say that someone who experiences it in their daily life "must be suffering from low self esteem" I don't think is your right. Although it does neatly illustrate the point we are making.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn103j9nm.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...Ah.
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have
rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to >>>> serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
Surely it would be more accurate to say that they "think" they are.
Because unless you are going to claim that they conform to all those observable physical and behavioural criteria, as are normally used in any system of biological classification, as are normally applied to women,
then in any external sense in many/most cases, they clearly are not.
It's often all in their heads, in other words
Which someone like Richard Dawkins might well call a delusion; where
a persons' mental picture doesn't in fact accord with objective reality.
On 01/06/2025 09:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageAh.
news:slrn103j9nm.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
Surely it would be more accurate to say that they "think" they are.
Because unless you are going to claim that they conform to all those
observable physical and behavioural criteria, as are normally used in any
system of biological classification, as are normally applied to women,
then in any external sense in many/most cases, they clearly are not.
It's often all in their heads, in other words
Which someone like Richard Dawkins might well call a delusion; where
a persons' mental picture doesn't in fact accord with objective reality.
And have you ever wondered why so few trans people, relatively speaking,
post to ULM? Can't you see that no trans person could possibly see ULM
as a safe space for them?
(I think I've administered some sauce to your gander)
On 31/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ma0s95F3is4U1@mid.individual.net...
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you >>> through
this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen
but a
third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
It's not a reasonable question at all.
The precise opposite in fact.
Clearly both yourself and Mr Ribbens prioritise the interests of men, and men
wishing to transition into women, over the interests of women themselves.
Turning them now into third class citizens; where previously they had been >> second
class citizens, since time immemorial.
And then, when one of these women has the effrontery to point out this obvious
truth to you, your only response is to question whether or not she might have
mental issues, be suffering from low self esteem etc.
You simply couldn't make this stuff up !
Please, please, admit you're not serious,.
I think this may be a dialogue of the deaf.
You now presume to speak on behalf of all womenkind whom you see as
victims in need of your courageous protection. You don't see how
arrogant that makes you look. You actually buy into the belief that
because of trans women, the "biological" women can justifiably see
themselves as third class citizens
So let me try a different approach, an analogy.
Roger has likened this to antisemitism.
How about if, in the same style as you, I were to say "There have been numerous criticisms of Israel in this newsgoup. And have you ever
wondered why so few Jews, relatively speaking, post to ULM? Can't you
see that no Jew could possibly see ULM as a safe space for Jews?"
Please, please, see the mote in your own eye. You devalue your own contributions by pontificating as you have done.
On 1 Jun 2025 at 10:52:38 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 31/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ma0s95F3is4U1@mid.individual.net...
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking, >>>>>>> post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you >>>> through
this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen
but a
third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
It's not a reasonable question at all.
The precise opposite in fact.
Clearly both yourself and Mr Ribbens prioritise the interests of men, and men
wishing to transition into women, over the interests of women themselves. >>>
Turning them now into third class citizens; where previously they had been >>> second
class citizens, since time immemorial.
And then, when one of these women has the effrontery to point out this obvious
truth to you, your only response is to question whether or not she might have
mental issues, be suffering from low self esteem etc.
You simply couldn't make this stuff up !
Please, please, admit you're not serious,.
I think this may be a dialogue of the deaf.
You now presume to speak on behalf of all womenkind whom you see as
victims in need of your courageous protection. You don't see how
arrogant that makes you look. You actually buy into the belief that
because of trans women, the "biological" women can justifiably see
themselves as third class citizens
So let me try a different approach, an analogy.
Roger has likened this to antisemitism.
How about if, in the same style as you, I were to say "There have been
numerous criticisms of Israel in this newsgoup. And have you ever
wondered why so few Jews, relatively speaking, post to ULM? Can't you
see that no Jew could possibly see ULM as a safe space for Jews?"
Please, please, see the mote in your own eye. You devalue your own
contributions by pontificating as you have done.
Meanwhile, in Iran, sex transition is regarded as a "cure" for homosexuality.
It's a strange world.
On 31 May 2025 at 13:05:03 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 18:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting
their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second
thoughts.
They might not like the monthly swings in hormones either!
(Childbirth can be a doddle compared.)
You really don't want to read reddit and find out what some extreme trans individuals are willing to do to emulate menstruation.
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life,
believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen but
a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here are my reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third class citizens".
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ma09jfFj4cU4@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 18:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the >>>>>>>>> individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it.
We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting
their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second
thoughts.
They might not like the monthly swings in hormones either!
(Childbirth can be a doddle compared.)
I decline to elaborate further on the practicalities of the scenario envisaged above, concerning a full sized plastic baby, on the grounds
of good taste
On 31/05/2025 14:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 May 2025 at 13:05:03 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 18:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to >>>>>>>>>> hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>
Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights >>>>>>>> or, if it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not
have rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in
life was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting >>>> their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second
thoughts.
They might not like the monthly swings in hormones either!
(Childbirth can be a doddle compared.)
You really don't want to read reddit and find out what some extreme trans
individuals are willing to do to emulate menstruation.
I did see a shared post on X with a smiling trans person saying "I am on
my monthly". A weird thing a woman wouldn't bother to post!
On 01/06/2025 12:21, kat wrote:
I did see a shared post on X with a smiling trans person saying "I am on
my monthly". A weird thing a woman wouldn't bother to post!
And presumably something a trans man (still possessing a uterus) would
be reluctant to post. Being trans is one thing. Being obsessed with
one's bodily functions and the evidence of one's maleness or femaleness
seems morbid. That is, unhealthy. On the other hand, if you join
facebook groups that discuss IBS or diverticulitis you will be subjected
to discussions about people's poop.
Your post inspired me to google, and I can see some informative websites about how trans women can experience periods. Not bleeding, but the
physical effects of feminising hormones. Do they really have to continue
to take hormones?
quote
These hormones can result in a range of physical and emotional symptoms, including:
Anxiety
Appetite changes
Bloating due to water retention
Cramping
Tiredness and fatigue
Listlessness
Mood swings
These symptoms may occur at the same time each month, just like
premenstrual syndrome (PMS). For many trans women, this is their period.
unquote
On 31/05/2025 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not >>>>>>>>> have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the >>>>>>>>>>> Supreme
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to >>>>>>>>>>>> hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human
rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans >>>>>>>>>> people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of >>>>>>>> human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the
more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-
semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy
of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take
you through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class
citizen but a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I didn't say or imply that *I* feel that way - but that there are some
who would say I was. A simple response to Mr Hayter's comment
"the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. "
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here
are my reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third
class citizens".
I wouldn't respond that way because of the implication that I had low
esteem!
But if you want my reasoning ( given the comment to which I was
responding) those men who think that way think they come first. Some
trans women are "men" who consider they and their rights to womens
spaces and sports are more important than those of women. So that leaves women third. In some eyes.
Not, I assure you, in mine.
On 01/06/2025 12:29, kat wrote:
On 31/05/2025 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not >>>>>>>>>> have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the >>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to >>>>>>>>>>>>> hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human >>>>>>>>>>> rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans >>>>>>>>>>> people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of >>>>>>>>> human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-
semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy
of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take
you through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class
citizen but a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I didn't say or imply that *I* feel that way - but that there are some
who would say I was. A simple response to Mr Hayter's comment
"the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. "
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here
are my reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third
class citizens".
I wouldn't respond that way because of the implication that I had low
esteem!
But if you want my reasoning ( given the comment to which I was
responding) those men who think that way think they come first. Some
trans women are "men" who consider they and their rights to womens
spaces and sports are more important than those of women. So that leaves
women third. In some eyes.
Not, I assure you, in mine.
Okay. I don't agree with "more important than those of women" because I
think they just want equality, to be seen as women with the same
privileges and drawbacks that all women face.
Just to elaborate, though, when I hear people say that migrants are
taking all our jobs and that they get to the front of the queue for
social housing, and that ordinary native Brits are third class citizens,
I do tend to think that people who say that have self-esteem problems
and are blaming everything that has gone wrong with their life or
career, on the immigrants. Not bigotry, but a misapprehension on their part.
I see there's a news report about a trans-woman football player who has
now been excluded from a women's football team and is feeling sad about
that. And personally I can't see any injustice there. Where competitive sports are concerned it makes good sense to exclude trans people in
specific types of sport. But arguable trans people must now suspect that
it is they who are third class citizens, facing a new default assumption
that they don't belong.
On 01/06/2025 09:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in messageAh.
news:slrn103j9nm.6tv.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-05-30, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
They don't "wish to be", they are. They don't have a choice in the
matter. I don't understand what's difficult to understand about this.
Surely it would be more accurate to say that they "think" they are.
Because unless you are going to claim that they conform to all those
observable physical and behavioural criteria, as are normally used in any
system of biological classification, as are normally applied to women,
then in any external sense in many/most cases, they clearly are not.
It's often all in their heads, in other words
Which someone like Richard Dawkins might well call a delusion; where
a persons' mental picture doesn't in fact accord with objective reality.
And have you ever wondered why so few trans people, relatively speaking, post to ULM?
Can't you see that no trans person could possibly see ULM as a safe space for them?
(I think I've administered some sauce to your gander)
On 01/06/2025 12:29, kat wrote:
On 31/05/2025 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not >>>>>>>>>> have
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the >>>>>>>>>>>> Supreme
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to >>>>>>>>>>>>> hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human >>>>>>>>>>> rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans >>>>>>>>>>> people.
rights? or are we just not human?
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of >>>>>>>>> human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-
semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy
of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take
you through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class
citizen but a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I didn't say or imply that *I* feel that way - but that there are some
who would say I was. A simple response to Mr Hayter's comment
"the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. "
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem,
believing that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here
are my reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third
class citizens".
I wouldn't respond that way because of the implication that I had low
esteem!
But if you want my reasoning ( given the comment to which I was
responding) those men who think that way think they come first. Some
trans women are "men" who consider they and their rights to womens
spaces and sports are more important than those of women. So that leaves
women third. In some eyes.
Not, I assure you, in mine.
Okay. I don't agree with "more important than those of women" because I
think they just want equality, to be seen as women with the same
privileges and drawbacks that all women face.
Just to elaborate, though, when I hear people say that migrants are
taking all our jobs and that they get to the front of the queue for
social housing, and that ordinary native Brits are third class citizens,
I do tend to think that people who say that have self-esteem problems
and are blaming everything that has gone wrong with their life or
career, on the immigrants. Not bigotry, but a misapprehension on their part.
I see there's a news report about a trans-woman football player who has
now been excluded from a women's football team and is feeling sad about
that. And personally I can't see any injustice there. Where competitive sports are concerned it makes good sense to exclude trans people in
specific types of sport. But arguable trans people must now suspect that
it is they who are third class citizens, facing a new default assumption
that they don't belong.
On 01/06/2025 11:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Meanwhile, in Iran, sex transition is regarded as a "cure" for
homosexuality.
It's a strange world.
And in the UK, chemical castration seems to be regarded - by politicians
and pundits if not by doctors - as a cure for paedophilic behaviour.
On 31/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ma0s95F3is4U1@mid.individual.net...
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you through
this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen but a
third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that
the
world is against you?
It's not a reasonable question at all.
The precise opposite in fact.
Clearly both yourself and Mr Ribbens prioritise the interests of men, and men
wishing to transition into women, over the interests of women themselves.
Turning them now into third class citizens; where previously they had been second
class citizens, since time immemorial.
And then, when one of these women has the effrontery to point out this obvious
truth to you, your only response is to question whether or not she might have
mental issues, be suffering from low self esteem etc.
You simply couldn't make this stuff up !
Please, please, admit you're not serious,.
I think this may be a dialogue of the deaf.
You now presume to speak on behalf of all womenkind whom you see as victims in need of
your courageous protection.
You don't see how arrogant that makes you look.
You actually buy into the belief that because of trans women, the "biological" women
can justifiably see themselves as third class citizens
So let me try a different approach, an analogy.
Roger has likened this to antisemitism.
How about if, in the same style as you, I were to say "There have been numerous
criticisms of Israel in this newsgoup. And have you ever wondered why so few Jews,
relatively speaking, post to ULM?
Can't you see that no Jew could possibly see ULM as a safe space for Jews?"
Exactly. What Kat is describing is the phenomenon whereby people in privileged positions view an increase in equality as an injustice to themselves.
But as a man I don't thereby feel "entitled" to "lecture" woman as to
what is and isn't good for them; as both yourself and Mt Ribbens
presume to do,
While you clearly still don't appreciate what the almost pathological antagonsm shown towards J.KRowling by both yourself and Mr Ribbens
indicates about your attuitude towards women in general.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:ma2m76FcctvU2@mid.individual.net...
On 31/05/2025 20:10, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:ma0s95F3is4U1@mid.individual.net...
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking, >>>>>>> post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti-semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you through
this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen but a
third class citizen, without explaining why.
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing that
the
world is against you?
It's not a reasonable question at all.
The precise opposite in fact.
Clearly both yourself and Mr Ribbens prioritise the interests of men, and men
wishing to transition into women, over the interests of women themselves. >>>
Turning them now into third class citizens; where previously they had been second
class citizens, since time immemorial.
And then, when one of these women has the effrontery to point out this obvious
truth to you, your only response is to question whether or not she might have
mental issues, be suffering from low self esteem etc.
You simply couldn't make this stuff up !
Please, please, admit you're not serious,.
I think this may be a dialogue of the deaf.
You now presume to speak on behalf of all womenkind whom you see as victims in need of
your courageous protection.
Not at all.
But as a man I don't thereby feel "entitled" to "lecture" woman as to what is and isn't good for them; as both yourself and Mt Ribbens presume to do,
You don't see how arrogant that makes you look.
Because J.K. Rowling very clearly examplifies that quality which you most dislike
about women.
When they simply refuse to be told what to do, or how to think by men..
So let me try a different approach, an analogy.
Roger has likened this to antisemitism.
How about if, in the same style as you, I were to say "There have been numerous
criticisms of Israel in this newsgoup. And have you ever wondered why so few Jews,
relatively speaking, post to ULM?
No.
I don't know or care haw many Jews have or haven;'t posted to ULM
On 01/06/2025 12:29, kat wrote:
On 31/05/2025 18:23, The Todal wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 30 May 2025 at 15:13:17 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 30/05/2025 14:33, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m9tnhkFik9dU1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/05/2025 11:19, kat wrote:
On 28/05/2025 11:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2025 10:49:21 +0100, kat wrote:
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>>>> rights? or are we just not human?
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:Legislation in Parliament, of course.
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme >>>>>>>>>>>> Court of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people. >>>>>>>>>>>
I think the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. I could be wrong, it's hard to keep up.
3rd class in some eyes.
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, >>>>>>> believing that the
world is against you?
And have you ever wondered why so few women, relatively speaking,
post on UseNet ?
Have you ever wondered whether you infantilize the women in your life, >>>>> believing them to be fragile and their feelings easily hurt, all the >>>>> more in need of your chivalrous protection?
If I oppose racism am I patronising black people? If I oppose anti- semitism am
I belittling Jewish people? I really feel that argument is not worthy of you.
Oh dear. Normally you display rather better comprehension. Let me take you >>> through this.
Kat says (or implies) that she feels like not so much a second class citizen
but a third class citizen, without explaining why.
I didn't say or imply that *I* feel that way - but that there are some who >> would say I was. A simple response to Mr Hayter's comment
"the argument of some is that you are a different sort of human to
males. "
I ask a reasonable question:
Do you think maybe that's just you, suffering from low self-esteem, believing
that the world is against you?
And I'm genuinely interested in the answer, which might be "no, here are my >>> reasons for believing that I, and others, are effectively third class citizens".
I wouldn't respond that way because of the implication that I had low esteem!
But if you want my reasoning ( given the comment to which I was responding) >> those men who think that way think they come first. Some trans women are >> "men" who consider they and their rights to womens spaces and sports are more
important than those of women. So that leaves women third. In some eyes. >>
Not, I assure you, in mine.
Okay. I don't agree with "more important than those of women" because I think they just want equality, to be seen as women with the same privileges and drawbacks that all women face.
Just to elaborate, though, when I hear people say that migrants are taking all
our jobs and that they get to the front of the queue for social housing, and that ordinary native Brits are third class citizens, I do tend to think that people who say that have self-esteem problems and are blaming everything that has gone wrong with their life or career, on the immigrants. Not bigotry, but a
misapprehension on their part.
I see there's a news report about a trans-woman football player who has now been
excluded from a women's football team and is feeling sad about that. And personally I can't see any injustice there. Where competitive sports are concerned it makes good sense to exclude trans people in specific types of sport. But arguable trans people must now suspect that it is they who are third
class citizens, facing a new default assumption that they don't belong.
On 01/06/2025 12:21, kat wrote:
On 31/05/2025 14:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 31 May 2025 at 13:05:03 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/2025 18:24, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m9tf4kFh7n7U2@mid.individual.net...
On 28/05/2025 12:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 May 2025 at 10:49:21 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 27/05/2025 18:47, The Todal wrote:
On 27/05/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2025 12:00:17 +0100, GB wrote:
On 25/05/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:We are where we are. What is the procedure to correct the Supreme Court
[quoted text muted]
I think that was wrong of the SC. They could have chosen to hear the
individuals, as there's nothing in the rules to prevent it. >>>>>>>>>>
of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland ?
Legislation in Parliament, of course.
But that forces our venal politicians to commit to human rights or, if
it gets
more votes, to removing existing rights from trans people.
Do not women ( as in biological from birth actual females) not have >>>>>>>> rights? or
are we just not human?
It would perhaps be argumentative to suggest that your role in life was to
serve the needs of entitled men. So I won't say it.
:-)
Makes one wonder why so many men wish to be a woman.
If they had to give "birth" to a full sized plastic baby before getting >>>>> their certificates, you might imagine most of them would have second >>>>> thoughts.
They might not like the monthly swings in hormones either!
(Childbirth can be a doddle compared.)
You really don't want to read reddit and find out what some extreme trans >>> individuals are willing to do to emulate menstruation.
I did see a shared post on X with a smiling trans person saying "I am on my >> monthly". A weird thing a woman wouldn't bother to post!
And presumably something a trans man (still possessing a uterus) would be reluctant to post. Being trans is one thing. Being obsessed with one's bodily functions and the evidence of one's maleness or femaleness seems morbid. That is, unhealthy. On the other hand, if you join facebook groups that discuss IBS
or diverticulitis you will be subjected to discussions about people's poop.
Your post inspired me to google, and I can see some informative websites about
how trans women can experience periods. Not bleeding, but the physical effects
of feminising hormones. Do they really have to continue to take hormones?
quote
These hormones can result in a range of physical and emotional symptoms, including:
Anxiety
Appetite changes
Bloating due to water retention
Cramping
Tiredness and fatigue
Listlessness
Mood swings
These symptoms may occur at the same time each month, just like premenstrual syndrome (PMS). For many trans women, this is their period.
unquote
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:46:35 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |