Er ner ert’s ter kermplerkaterd
The years and years of childish meaningless tantrum continue.
It has been just over 200 days since the Supreme Court ruled that a woman was defined by biological sex alone. This landmark judgment sought to end legal and practical uncertainty, particularly on protecting single-sex spaces for women such as changing rooms. After the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said it would issue guidance for organisations to implement that welcome decision. Many arms of the state, such as the civil service and NHS, have been awaiting it before taking action.
What “guidance” do they fucking need? This isn’t a new surprise law that everyone must learn a new language overnight or fly a 747 from New York to London or teach a university-level physics class. It’s just a law that reminds laggards of the tautology that women (and women only) are women. It’s about as untricky and undifficult as you can get.
But of this guidance there is as yet no sign. As this newspaper reports, the women and equalities minister, Bridget Phillipson, received statutory guidance eight weeks ago, but has yet to publish anything. Part of the delay is due to the government deciding to conduct a “regulatory impact assessment”, which typically takes three to six months. Yet this assessment is not essential. No such work was done when the government decided to restrict the winter fuel allowance, for instance.
But when it’s a matter of restating the blindingly obvious it’s another story.
I wonder what it’s like, in a day to day living life way. I wonder what it’s like to be in government while having to pretend that who is which sex is a difficult tricky arcane subject as opposed to something everyone knows from infancy. How can it seem anything but childish and absurd?
It is now unlikely that guidance will be published before the end of the year. Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the outgoing chair of the EHRC, has warned that the government’s delay is allowing organisations to continue to illegally allow trans people to enter single-sex spaces.
Of course it is, because that’s the whole point – continuing to let “trans people” do whatever they want while refusing to let women have rights we’ve relied on for decades.
One potential reason for the lack of clarity is that trans activists are stubbornly refusing to accept the Supreme Court’s ruling and continue to lobby hard against it.
Gosh ya think? Trans activists stubbornly doing whatever they want all the time is how we got in this mess, so of course it’s also how we can’t get out of it even after the Supreme Court has ruled that women are women.
But it is not only activists who wish to challenge the ruling. Nearly 50 Labour MPs are reported to have written to Peter Kyle, the business secretary, complaining of a “minefield” of competing rights.
Oh fuck off. The rights are only “competing” because fools have allowed trans ideologues to demolish women’s rights.
Government insiders claim it is “total nonsense” to suggest any delay is deliberate, and that any hold-up is due simply to a complex document requiring careful consideration.
What is complicated about “men are not women”?
Well, feelings are complicated, and men who want to be accepted as women are easily upset when they aren’t (so accepted.) Moreover, understanding feelings IS rocket science, and way beyond anything in any branch of the aforementioned physics. So one has to tread warily lest some transy-pansy does his block and hijacks something.
Could be Hell to pay.
There was no such hesitation, delay, or uncertainty (let alone consultation) before the imposition of Stonewall Law. Funny how the straightforward and legal takes so much time and effort, while the impossible and extra-legal was implemented immediately.
I guess it’s easier to to break something than it is to fix it.
Yet these same willful, sabotaging laggards expected everyone else (especially women) to instantly accept and submit to the delusional belief that men could be women.
How is Phillipson spending her time? It can’t be that time consuming to do nothing and fuck all? While this would make great fodder for an updated reboot of Yes Minister, it’s not as entertaining to witness, or live through IRL.
But the government doesn’t have to listen to them. In fact the Supreme Court ruling gives them the perfect Get Out of Trans Jail Card. They could say that their hands are tied, they have no choice, and that they have to follow the law, but they’re not even willing to put the effort in to do that, however easily and faux reluctantly they could. Why? Because far too many of them want to continue to follow Stonewall Law. Far too many of them want to continue to shit on women. At this point, none of these MPs can claim ignorance. They are delaying because they want to. They want to maintain the illegitimate status quo that they helped to establish.
Bullshit. You found a way around the law, and despite the law to let men into women’s spaces without “careful consideration.” Your reluctance to uphold the law that is supposed to keep them out is simple preference.
I don’t know, but they seem to be having much more trouble with the even simpler idea that “Women are people.”
To them, it is sophisticated exactly because it seems absurd on first view. Everyone knows from infancy that space and time are different things, but if you study hard enough you can learn Einstein’s relativity and get a deeper insight into spacetime. Modern science frequently contradicts everyday experience.
From that, it is easy to conclude that the more absurd something seems on first view, the deeper and the more sophisticated it actually is. Seeming absurd is a virtue because if you accept knowledge that seems absurd, you prove how sophisticated and educated you are and how willing you are to challenge your assumptions.
I remember about 12 years ago or so when I read a complicated post on freethoughtblogs on the theory of gender and trans and reading it thought “wow, that is more complicated than theoretical physics”.
That is why TRAs proudly state “biology is more complicated than that” when confronted with the sex binary. It shows that they are willing to go beyond what everyone knows and thus demonstrates how smart they are.
There is only one tiny problem here which TRAs ignore: Being complicated and contradicting common sense is not quite enough for an idea to be sophisticated science. The idea also has to be true. And, alas, gender ideology is not.
Something a lot of them know in every other situation. P.Z. would have been one of the first to snort at that idea; now he is one of the ones buying the bullshit.
There is also the common theme that science changes its mind about things; older theories are overthrown by new evidence. Never mind that this isn’t an absolute; some things we still view the same way we always have. When something I am reading starts out by informing me that this is going to change science as we know it, that it flies in the face of received wisdom, I begin reading more skeptically, because a lot of those are isolated cranks. Not always…but more often than not, which justifies skepticism until they demonstrate their hypothesis with real data. This is something TWAW have failed to do, and which for some reason, otherwise skeptical intelligent scientists fail to see that.
When a claim is in direct opposition to observed and verified facts of science (such as there are two sexes, and humans cannot change sex), then it needs a lot of evidence. This ideology has none, but its advocates believe it is highly supported. Why? Because they’ve never looked at what the evidence really is or says…and what it doesn’t.
Add in a strong dose of virtue and being ‘on the right side of history; and you created a perfect witch’s brew: part toad, part chicken, and completely magic.
and even that is not as clear-cut. Sure quantum mechanics and relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics, but engineers still use it. Once science is sufficiently established, any new theory might overthrow concepts of the old, but usually the old theory is still contained as limiting case in the new.
So even if biology would move beyond the concept of binary sex, the concept would still be useful for all the cases where it was useful in the past. I always wonder whether these people ever think about, for example, Jane Goodall observing her chimps and classifying behaviour from males and females. Was that all wrong because she never asked whether David Greybeard (a male that was less aggressive than many others) actually identified as male? Or was she perhaps correct in assuming that not all males are equally aggressive?