A more realistic view from Sarah Mittermaier.
open.substack.com/pub/sarahmit...

If the proposed trial has gone through "rounds and rounds of ethical approvals" he should be able to tell us what problems were raised, how they were addressed and what changes were made. Otherwise it's just "they discussed it for ages".

"Their ideology inherent excludes trans, queer and intersex people"
All those you mention have a sex, and are thus included. The claim that they have a different self perception does not change that.

In a way. Women and girls are entitled to a penis free space when going to the toilet. Or do you disagree?

Worst panto ever.

True enough. Thatcher, mad as she was, knew what she wanted to do and did it. Harris did not appear to have a clue what she wanted. Clinton would certainly have had a plan, but it might have involved WW3.
I've got it! They should run Representative Sarah McBride next time. That has to work.

I'm no expert on American politics, but the Dems have lost twice with that approach. They say it must be a woman, then select a woman with no visible skills or whom no one likes. They need to find a candidate who isn't obviously mad or corrupt, then worry about their sex.

"We concluded that that was not correct. It was inaccurate in part, but in our view honestly so."
You'd have to break that down for us. I'm not sophisticated enough to know how to give inaccurate testimony honestly.
Unless the judge meant "he has an honest face, and his wife's earrings suit him."

I'm sure you'll have seen this, but I hadn't.
xcancel.com/gothburz/sta...

On a brighter note, it ended with a liar going to gaol.

Here's the second paragraph.
"New police data show that at least 16 rapes, 80 sexual assaults and 65 acts of voyeurism were committed in sports centres in 2023, equating to three offences a week."
If reported to the police, probably not low level. Not to diminish the seriousness of your analysis.

Another good commentary on the verdict.
xcancel.com/Natasha_etc_...

Sad to say, this one doesn't work either.
archive.is/202512032107...

Share link not working for me. Try
archive.is/202512030840...

But one wouldn't want to be a burden on the taxpayers or hard working families, would one?
Or slow down the housing market? Very disappointing from Rawnsley.

Why, oh why, oh why is any government so desperate to push through a private member's bill with debate in committee tightly controlled by the bill's sponsor, with contrary voices ignored, and any semblance of oversight removed and no consideration of coercion? Where's the impact assessment?