 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is, the law never changed. What the judges did in 2025 was confirm what Parliament legislated for in 2010 - that same-sex service providers can exclude trans woman on the basis of sex, ie they are not of the female sex. That was always the case. But the activists and DEI industry spent years pushing their own interpretation of the rules: “trans woman are woman”. Anyone who suggested otherwise - ie applied the law as it was passed by Parliament - was shouted down as some kind of extremist and hater. They’ve set the trans movement back years, because they tried to push water up a hill"  Mx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone else heard this? It's a scathing reply to the Supreme Court Ruling and JK Rowling's personal attack against the Trans community. Me? I personally love it and hope it gets top 10 at least. It's on Spotify and also has a lyric video on YouTube. " JK Rowling's personal attack against the trans community? Do you really expect to be taken seriously after a statement like that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone else heard this? It's a scathing reply to the Supreme Court Ruling and JK Rowling's personal attack against the Trans community. Me? I personally love it and hope it gets top 10 at least. It's on Spotify and also has a lyric video on YouTube. JK Rowling's personal attack against the trans community? Do you really expect to be taken seriously after a statement like that" Someone should get Calvin Harris to make a dance track by setting all the death and rpe threats that Rowling received from the trans community to music. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has anyone else heard this? It's a scathing reply to the Supreme Court Ruling and JK Rowling's personal attack against the Trans community. Me? I personally love it and hope it gets top 10 at least. It's on Spotify and also has a lyric video on YouTube. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JK Rowling's personal attack against the trans community? Do you really expect to be taken seriously after a statement like that" It seems to be the only thing it ever talks about. Almost like it's obsessed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" JK Rowling's personal attack against the trans community? Do you really expect to be taken seriously after a statement like that It seems to be the only thing it ever talks about. Almost like it's obsessed?" The use of dehumanising language undermines your claim to the moral high-ground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Someone like JK ought to have been an ally of wannabe women. Instead, the lunatic fringe made an enemy of her. All she ever stated was what the law said, and was hounded for it. She was wealthy enough to ask the courts if her position was sound in law. The courts found it was. Cue an almighty tantrum from the lunatic fringe. " They took it too far and an actual woman who has the spending power to prove how bogus it was proved it via our courts. Common sense at last. Mx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is, the law never changed. What the judges did in 2025 was confirm what Parliament legislated for in 2010 - that same-sex service providers can exclude trans woman on the basis of sex, ie they are not of the female sex. That was always the case. But the activists and DEI industry spent years pushing their own interpretation of the rules: “trans woman are woman”. Anyone who suggested otherwise - ie applied the law as it was passed by Parliament - was shouted down as some kind of extremist and hater. They’ve set the trans movement back years, because they tried to push water up a hill" Lady Hale seems to disagree with you and most other people on how we should read the decision | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ugh I'm exasperated and I haven't even heard the song... I think I'll just leave Kate Nash to it. As a side, I feel JK Rowling has been unfairly treated for raising some legitimate issues, as well as just pointing out some of the ridiculous ways society seems to cater to a remarkably vocal minority... such as "person who menstruates" rather than "woman" " Some transmen menstruate. I think the (rather clumsy) term was meant to include them. I imagine it would only be relevant when it comes to some medical issues | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really very good "All a matter of taste really irrespective of the lyrics. Too me is was just a squawky voice over a cacophony posing as music. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's really very good
All a matter of taste really irrespective of the lyrics. Too me is was just a squawky voice over a cacophony posing as music."I see you decided to engage with me.....out of everyone...... You know the one you label agist when you conveniently feel victimised because I point out some home truths in your ideology | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thing is, the law never changed. What the judges did in 2025 was confirm what Parliament legislated for in 2010 - that same-sex service providers can exclude trans woman on the basis of sex, ie they are not of the female sex. That was always the case. But the activists and DEI industry spent years pushing their own interpretation of the rules: “trans woman are woman”. Anyone who suggested otherwise - ie applied the law as it was passed by Parliament - was shouted down as some kind of extremist and hater. They’ve set the trans movement back years, because they tried to push water up a hill Lady Hale seems to disagree with you and most other people on how we should read the decision " I’m absolutely fine with other opinions. I do think the EHRC has now swung too far the other way in its guidance. The exclusion of trans from female spaces was always a “can”, not a “must”. Leave it to service providers to decide if a space is demarcated by sex (exclusive to females) or gender (inclusive of trans). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
