@spiderbatfrog.bsky.social
The first one is completely meaningless. Even I support that one; nobody can dictate how another person identifies within the privacy of their own head. All of the others relate to the implementation in practice, which is what everyone's arguing about.
December 16, 2025 at 11:17 PM
The first one is completely meaningless. Even I support that one; nobody can dictate how another person identifies within the privacy of their own head. All of the others relate to the implementation in practice, which is what everyone's arguing about.
The evidence doesn't look hugely supportive to me. In the graphic below, the category "Women" is column 5, green is trans-supportive and red is opposed.
yougov.co.uk/politics/art...
yougov.co.uk/politics/art...
December 14, 2025 at 7:14 PM
The evidence doesn't look hugely supportive to me. In the graphic below, the category "Women" is column 5, green is trans-supportive and red is opposed.
yougov.co.uk/politics/art...
yougov.co.uk/politics/art...
That was a brilliant video, nice work!
December 8, 2025 at 3:39 PM
That was a brilliant video, nice work!
That's a fantastic article, thanks Cathy.
YP have sunk themselves by hitching the trans flag to their mast, particularly when they're championing deeply unpopular policies like puberty blockers without parental consent. On the plus side, perhaps they'll draw the headbangers out of the Green Party.
YP have sunk themselves by hitching the trans flag to their mast, particularly when they're championing deeply unpopular policies like puberty blockers without parental consent. On the plus side, perhaps they'll draw the headbangers out of the Green Party.
December 7, 2025 at 6:24 PM
That's a fantastic article, thanks Cathy.
YP have sunk themselves by hitching the trans flag to their mast, particularly when they're championing deeply unpopular policies like puberty blockers without parental consent. On the plus side, perhaps they'll draw the headbangers out of the Green Party.
YP have sunk themselves by hitching the trans flag to their mast, particularly when they're championing deeply unpopular policies like puberty blockers without parental consent. On the plus side, perhaps they'll draw the headbangers out of the Green Party.
Nice one Tim, there's definitely sound there. Good work everyone 👍
December 7, 2025 at 6:08 PM
Nice one Tim, there's definitely sound there. Good work everyone 👍
Bizarrely unprofessional behaviour. Presumably they will now spend large amount of taxpayers' money on defending a legal action that they're bound to lose.
December 7, 2025 at 6:07 PM
Bizarrely unprofessional behaviour. Presumably they will now spend large amount of taxpayers' money on defending a legal action that they're bound to lose.
They're not excluding women. They're excluding:
* Men who identify as men
* Men who identify as women
* Men who identify as non-binary
* Men who identify as anything not already covered in the above
* Men who identify as men
* Men who identify as women
* Men who identify as non-binary
* Men who identify as anything not already covered in the above
December 6, 2025 at 6:20 PM
They're not excluding women. They're excluding:
* Men who identify as men
* Men who identify as women
* Men who identify as non-binary
* Men who identify as anything not already covered in the above
* Men who identify as men
* Men who identify as women
* Men who identify as non-binary
* Men who identify as anything not already covered in the above
Bloody hell, Henry, you've stirred up a proper hornets' nest of shrieking wankers with this one.
December 4, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Bloody hell, Henry, you've stirred up a proper hornets' nest of shrieking wankers with this one.
You seem to be irate. Have some elderly people got in your way in the M&S Food hall recently? Seen any annoying semicolons that you dislike? Some women wanting female-only spaces?
November 26, 2025 at 12:28 AM
You seem to be irate. Have some elderly people got in your way in the M&S Food hall recently? Seen any annoying semicolons that you dislike? Some women wanting female-only spaces?
Oooh, the lesser-spotted "ageist wanker" and "punctuation Nazi" combo, there's a bingo card I hadn't expected to cash in any time soon.
November 26, 2025 at 12:18 AM
Oooh, the lesser-spotted "ageist wanker" and "punctuation Nazi" combo, there's a bingo card I hadn't expected to cash in any time soon.
"Biological male who identifies as a woman" is a helpful summary which succinctly identifies the salient points.
November 26, 2025 at 12:07 AM
"Biological male who identifies as a woman" is a helpful summary which succinctly identifies the salient points.
I don't know, you'd have to ask them. While you're there, ask them if they're dragging women out of public restrooms because of the upswing in men in their restrooms over the last fifteen years or so, courtesy of your gender-enthusiast mates.
November 12, 2025 at 12:02 AM
I don't know, you'd have to ask them. While you're there, ask them if they're dragging women out of public restrooms because of the upswing in men in their restrooms over the last fifteen years or so, courtesy of your gender-enthusiast mates.
I mean, we judge that men aren't women and vice versa, but that won't surprise anyone. What other judgementalism are you concerned about?
And really, I think anyone on the pro-gender side of the fence has a hell of a brass neck accusing anyone else of judgementalism.
And really, I think anyone on the pro-gender side of the fence has a hell of a brass neck accusing anyone else of judgementalism.
November 11, 2025 at 11:46 PM
I mean, we judge that men aren't women and vice versa, but that won't surprise anyone. What other judgementalism are you concerned about?
And really, I think anyone on the pro-gender side of the fence has a hell of a brass neck accusing anyone else of judgementalism.
And really, I think anyone on the pro-gender side of the fence has a hell of a brass neck accusing anyone else of judgementalism.
That's a lovely post, thanks Margaret.
November 11, 2025 at 8:20 PM
That's a lovely post, thanks Margaret.
Cheek swab?
November 11, 2025 at 12:25 AM
Cheek swab?
It's fine, they can take a one-off cheek swab and enjoy the rest of their sporting career. And in the meantime they can be confident that they aren't having to compete against male athletes.
November 11, 2025 at 12:22 AM
It's fine, they can take a one-off cheek swab and enjoy the rest of their sporting career. And in the meantime they can be confident that they aren't having to compete against male athletes.
The platform's fine, it's some of the users that are the problem. Anyway, I'm perfectly transparent about my beliefs; you just don't like one of them.
November 10, 2025 at 8:03 PM
The platform's fine, it's some of the users that are the problem. Anyway, I'm perfectly transparent about my beliefs; you just don't like one of them.
Well, no one other than women and girls, anyway.
November 10, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Well, no one other than women and girls, anyway.
Thank you for all your hard work!
November 10, 2025 at 7:22 PM
Thank you for all your hard work!
About time!
November 10, 2025 at 7:21 PM
About time!
Is anyone making a genuine, good-faith assertion that Rose isn't male?
November 10, 2025 at 7:21 PM
Is anyone making a genuine, good-faith assertion that Rose isn't male?
Of course it would, but in a case that (for whatever reason) hinged upon the person's ethnicity or heritage, it would be weird for the article to not mention it. I don't think that being male or of, say, Zambian descent, are inherently negative attributes that need to be delicately elided.
November 10, 2025 at 4:19 PM
Of course it would, but in a case that (for whatever reason) hinged upon the person's ethnicity or heritage, it would be weird for the article to not mention it. I don't think that being male or of, say, Zambian descent, are inherently negative attributes that need to be delicately elided.
I know that's how you see it, but it begs the question of whether or not Rose is a woman, which is the point of contention.
November 10, 2025 at 11:10 AM
I know that's how you see it, but it begs the question of whether or not Rose is a woman, which is the point of contention.
The entire point of the case is that he's a man who identifies as a woman. "Women object to a woman using the women's changing room" would be grossly misleading and would completely gloss over the actual problem.
November 10, 2025 at 10:14 AM
The entire point of the case is that he's a man who identifies as a woman. "Women object to a woman using the women's changing room" would be grossly misleading and would completely gloss over the actual problem.
It's amazing how well those programmes still hold up!
October 29, 2025 at 5:39 PM
It's amazing how well those programmes still hold up!