Madeleine Moore
@matheleine.bsky.social
Adopted Yorkshirewoman. Applied mathematician. Cricket fan. Appalling Dota player. Vote Green. (She/her)
https://www.matheleine.com/
Views my own.
https://www.matheleine.com/
Views my own.
It was a toss-up between the Watch and the Witches, but I couldn’t find my copy of Equal Rites, so Vimes wins!
November 29, 2025 at 11:52 AM
It was a toss-up between the Watch and the Witches, but I couldn’t find my copy of Equal Rites, so Vimes wins!
The sooner the Party is rid of these people, the better.
November 29, 2025 at 11:45 AM
The sooner the Party is rid of these people, the better.
“nothing more anti-feminist than saying a woman is no more than a costume, identity or fantasy”
Quite the statement by someone who seems to think that a woman is no more than giving birth. How very feminist.
A lovely suggestion that trans people are a child safeguarding issue for good measure too.
Quite the statement by someone who seems to think that a woman is no more than giving birth. How very feminist.
A lovely suggestion that trans people are a child safeguarding issue for good measure too.
November 29, 2025 at 11:44 AM
“nothing more anti-feminist than saying a woman is no more than a costume, identity or fantasy”
Quite the statement by someone who seems to think that a woman is no more than giving birth. How very feminist.
A lovely suggestion that trans people are a child safeguarding issue for good measure too.
Quite the statement by someone who seems to think that a woman is no more than giving birth. How very feminist.
A lovely suggestion that trans people are a child safeguarding issue for good measure too.
It was to do with brain development, if I recall correctly. They split it up into several stages and the adolescent one apparently lasts until you are 32.
November 29, 2025 at 11:25 AM
It was to do with brain development, if I recall correctly. They split it up into several stages and the adolescent one apparently lasts until you are 32.
This reminds me of something @robertmullins.bsky.social has said on here a few times, that he thinks this is one of the reasons the court didn’t want to hear from any trans people as they couldn’t look them in the eye while pulling this chicanery.
Sorry if I am butchering quoting you, Rob!
Sorry if I am butchering quoting you, Rob!
November 29, 2025 at 9:48 AM
This reminds me of something @robertmullins.bsky.social has said on here a few times, that he thinks this is one of the reasons the court didn’t want to hear from any trans people as they couldn’t look them in the eye while pulling this chicanery.
Sorry if I am butchering quoting you, Rob!
Sorry if I am butchering quoting you, Rob!
This. Always this.
November 29, 2025 at 9:45 AM
This. Always this.
I say “almost” because it completely ignores intersex people, so in actuality doesn’t work at all, but hey, don’t let the real world get in the way of you, SC.
November 29, 2025 at 9:32 AM
I say “almost” because it completely ignores intersex people, so in actuality doesn’t work at all, but hey, don’t let the real world get in the way of you, SC.
The thing is, I can almost see a world where they can have protected characteristics like this.
But then it just doesn’t make sense that single sex service provision is based solely on “sex”.
Which reads absurdly, but only because of the absurd nature of the SC’s decision.
But then it just doesn’t make sense that single sex service provision is based solely on “sex”.
Which reads absurdly, but only because of the absurd nature of the SC’s decision.
November 29, 2025 at 9:28 AM
The thing is, I can almost see a world where they can have protected characteristics like this.
But then it just doesn’t make sense that single sex service provision is based solely on “sex”.
Which reads absurdly, but only because of the absurd nature of the SC’s decision.
But then it just doesn’t make sense that single sex service provision is based solely on “sex”.
Which reads absurdly, but only because of the absurd nature of the SC’s decision.
Hmm, that’s… interesting. A plain* reading of s7 suggests that one can change their “biological sex” then. Which is at odds to what the SC wanted!
* Plain according to this pleb mathematician, it has to be said.
* Plain according to this pleb mathematician, it has to be said.
November 29, 2025 at 9:15 AM
Hmm, that’s… interesting. A plain* reading of s7 suggests that one can change their “biological sex” then. Which is at odds to what the SC wanted!
* Plain according to this pleb mathematician, it has to be said.
* Plain according to this pleb mathematician, it has to be said.
I am against fruit in cheese in general. If I want it, I will get a chutney. Get that bloody cranberry out of my cheese.
And yes, I feel like I am betraying Yorkshire, but Wensleydale is so bland!
And yes, I feel like I am betraying Yorkshire, but Wensleydale is so bland!
November 29, 2025 at 9:13 AM
I am against fruit in cheese in general. If I want it, I will get a chutney. Get that bloody cranberry out of my cheese.
And yes, I feel like I am betraying Yorkshire, but Wensleydale is so bland!
And yes, I feel like I am betraying Yorkshire, but Wensleydale is so bland!
True! Hopefully some of the lovely people there can powerfully make that point. I am hinting at you @zackpolanski.bsky.social!
November 29, 2025 at 9:11 AM
True! Hopefully some of the lovely people there can powerfully make that point. I am hinting at you @zackpolanski.bsky.social!
Someone needs to be an optimist, goodness knows I am brining the pessimism to the debates!
But that’s a great point.
I worry that a rewrite like that, which tries to separate sex and gender can be slyly used to promote segregation though. Something where “sex” trumps “gender” in e.g. services.
But that’s a great point.
I worry that a rewrite like that, which tries to separate sex and gender can be slyly used to promote segregation though. Something where “sex” trumps “gender” in e.g. services.
November 29, 2025 at 9:09 AM
Someone needs to be an optimist, goodness knows I am brining the pessimism to the debates!
But that’s a great point.
I worry that a rewrite like that, which tries to separate sex and gender can be slyly used to promote segregation though. Something where “sex” trumps “gender” in e.g. services.
But that’s a great point.
I worry that a rewrite like that, which tries to separate sex and gender can be slyly used to promote segregation though. Something where “sex” trumps “gender” in e.g. services.
I agree with you.
But I hope this will have the same vibe of positivity that came with the April 19th protests.
That solidarity and love really helped me after the low of that week. It was beautiful.
I think this can do the same, while also helping fundraise and perhaps reach a wider crowd.
But I hope this will have the same vibe of positivity that came with the April 19th protests.
That solidarity and love really helped me after the low of that week. It was beautiful.
I think this can do the same, while also helping fundraise and perhaps reach a wider crowd.
November 29, 2025 at 9:06 AM
I agree with you.
But I hope this will have the same vibe of positivity that came with the April 19th protests.
That solidarity and love really helped me after the low of that week. It was beautiful.
I think this can do the same, while also helping fundraise and perhaps reach a wider crowd.
But I hope this will have the same vibe of positivity that came with the April 19th protests.
That solidarity and love really helped me after the low of that week. It was beautiful.
I think this can do the same, while also helping fundraise and perhaps reach a wider crowd.
This is a crime.
November 29, 2025 at 9:03 AM
This is a crime.
I do see why uniform meanings can be important. But the fact they had to have an exception for this in s7, rather than in the pregnancy part, just buries that argument for me.
Particularly as they invented another inconsistency regarding the GRA being disapplied despite it not being said anywhere.
Particularly as they invented another inconsistency regarding the GRA being disapplied despite it not being said anywhere.
November 29, 2025 at 8:57 AM
I do see why uniform meanings can be important. But the fact they had to have an exception for this in s7, rather than in the pregnancy part, just buries that argument for me.
Particularly as they invented another inconsistency regarding the GRA being disapplied despite it not being said anywhere.
Particularly as they invented another inconsistency regarding the GRA being disapplied despite it not being said anywhere.
Similarly, my wife can’t make it because it’s a week night (she is a teacher), which is a real shame.
I always um and ah about this sort of thing (because crowds, toilets etc.) but I feel the positivity will be so good I am going to try!
I always um and ah about this sort of thing (because crowds, toilets etc.) but I feel the positivity will be so good I am going to try!
November 29, 2025 at 8:55 AM
Similarly, my wife can’t make it because it’s a week night (she is a teacher), which is a real shame.
I always um and ah about this sort of thing (because crowds, toilets etc.) but I feel the positivity will be so good I am going to try!
I always um and ah about this sort of thing (because crowds, toilets etc.) but I feel the positivity will be so good I am going to try!
While I agree in principle, do we trust any of the current set of ideologues to redefine in a considerate and careful manner?
They are more likely to just remove it from the protected characteristics altogether…
They are more likely to just remove it from the protected characteristics altogether…
November 29, 2025 at 8:51 AM
While I agree in principle, do we trust any of the current set of ideologues to redefine in a considerate and careful manner?
They are more likely to just remove it from the protected characteristics altogether…
They are more likely to just remove it from the protected characteristics altogether…
I greatly dislike the way actual written text in legislation (“for all purposes”) was given lower importance than some unwritten spectral precedent.
I am bitter about it, but I no longer believe the SC was just incompetent; they wanted this ideologically.
I am bitter about it, but I no longer believe the SC was just incompetent; they wanted this ideologically.
November 29, 2025 at 8:25 AM
I greatly dislike the way actual written text in legislation (“for all purposes”) was given lower importance than some unwritten spectral precedent.
I am bitter about it, but I no longer believe the SC was just incompetent; they wanted this ideologically.
I am bitter about it, but I no longer believe the SC was just incompetent; they wanted this ideologically.
I am very much planning to if I can!
November 29, 2025 at 8:22 AM
I am very much planning to if I can!
1) Didn’t the SC’s own interpretation have “sex” meaning different things in defining gender reassignment in s7? Hardly something to aspire to.
2) You’d have thought that “for all purposes” in the GRA would be treated with the same care, but apparently that can be dropped on an ideological whim.
2) You’d have thought that “for all purposes” in the GRA would be treated with the same care, but apparently that can be dropped on an ideological whim.
November 29, 2025 at 8:12 AM
1) Didn’t the SC’s own interpretation have “sex” meaning different things in defining gender reassignment in s7? Hardly something to aspire to.
2) You’d have thought that “for all purposes” in the GRA would be treated with the same care, but apparently that can be dropped on an ideological whim.
2) You’d have thought that “for all purposes” in the GRA would be treated with the same care, but apparently that can be dropped on an ideological whim.
This seems
1) ridiculous;
2) another potential route in which to get the nonsense of Scottish Ministers overturned?
1) ridiculous;
2) another potential route in which to get the nonsense of Scottish Ministers overturned?
November 28, 2025 at 10:20 PM
This seems
1) ridiculous;
2) another potential route in which to get the nonsense of Scottish Ministers overturned?
1) ridiculous;
2) another potential route in which to get the nonsense of Scottish Ministers overturned?