@novicewatcher.bsky.social
And then they hired J.D. Vance to finish the job. Mission Accomplished!
February 14, 2026 at 11:18 PM
And then they hired J.D. Vance to finish the job. Mission Accomplished!
Time to think about the children you’ve killed, Hannah?
No of course you don’t want to think about them.
No of course you don’t want to think about them.
February 14, 2026 at 11:15 PM
Time to think about the children you’ve killed, Hannah?
No of course you don’t want to think about them.
No of course you don’t want to think about them.
Trump assuming that because lockdown “droit du seigneur” applied to Clinton’s White House it must apply to his too.
February 13, 2026 at 1:29 PM
Trump assuming that because lockdown “droit du seigneur” applied to Clinton’s White House it must apply to his too.
Best way to understand any complicated plan is to work through the consequences, see who benefits from them, and assume that was the goal all along.
February 13, 2026 at 1:23 PM
Best way to understand any complicated plan is to work through the consequences, see who benefits from them, and assume that was the goal all along.
Uneducated, unemployable kids who have been taken into the “care” system are just manna for the sex traffickers.
Add in DIY hormones (the only option available for trans kids) and the need to pay for them somehow and the chains of exploitation are complete.
Add in DIY hormones (the only option available for trans kids) and the need to pay for them somehow and the chains of exploitation are complete.
February 13, 2026 at 1:16 PM
Uneducated, unemployable kids who have been taken into the “care” system are just manna for the sex traffickers.
Add in DIY hormones (the only option available for trans kids) and the need to pay for them somehow and the chains of exploitation are complete.
Add in DIY hormones (the only option available for trans kids) and the need to pay for them somehow and the chains of exploitation are complete.
The schools “guidance” is more of the same. The known, predictable consequence will be trans kids refusing to attend school (again), maybe getting a bit of “home schooling” if the parents are supportive (though such parents will be subject to social services investigations)
February 13, 2026 at 1:16 PM
The schools “guidance” is more of the same. The known, predictable consequence will be trans kids refusing to attend school (again), maybe getting a bit of “home schooling” if the parents are supportive (though such parents will be subject to social services investigations)
I’m coming to the view that the goal of all of this has been to make trans women unemployable, except for sex work, because that’s what Epstein and his pervy friends lusting over new “morphs” wanted all along.
February 13, 2026 at 1:07 PM
I’m coming to the view that the goal of all of this has been to make trans women unemployable, except for sex work, because that’s what Epstein and his pervy friends lusting over new “morphs” wanted all along.
February 13, 2026 at 12:43 PM
I’m coming to the view that the goal of all of this has been to make trans women unemployable, except for sex work, because that’s what Epstein and his pervy friends lusting over new “morphs” wanted all along.
The effective repeal of Croft into the bargain (forcing your fully transitioned, fully-passable stealth-employee to use an apartheid loo is not discrimination after all, so there) is rather a curveball. Wonder what the Court of Appeal will say to that?
It’s going to get interesting at Strasbourg.
It’s going to get interesting at Strasbourg.
February 13, 2026 at 12:41 PM
The effective repeal of Croft into the bargain (forcing your fully transitioned, fully-passable stealth-employee to use an apartheid loo is not discrimination after all, so there) is rather a curveball. Wonder what the Court of Appeal will say to that?
It’s going to get interesting at Strasbourg.
It’s going to get interesting at Strasbourg.
So while a GRC changes sex “for all purposes” in 9(1), the exception clause in 9(3) now applies to *every* other piece of legislation that mentions “sex” because it all means “biological sex”?
Full repeal of GRA by statutory interpretation and putting UK in flagrant violation of Goodwin and I.
Full repeal of GRA by statutory interpretation and putting UK in flagrant violation of Goodwin and I.
February 13, 2026 at 12:41 PM
So while a GRC changes sex “for all purposes” in 9(1), the exception clause in 9(3) now applies to *every* other piece of legislation that mentions “sex” because it all means “biological sex”?
Full repeal of GRA by statutory interpretation and putting UK in flagrant violation of Goodwin and I.
Full repeal of GRA by statutory interpretation and putting UK in flagrant violation of Goodwin and I.
Well done Ash x
Can the oracle tell us what’s in the judgments too, and spare us a sleepless night ?
Can the oracle tell us what’s in the judgments too, and spare us a sleepless night ?
February 12, 2026 at 8:20 PM
Well done Ash x
Can the oracle tell us what’s in the judgments too, and spare us a sleepless night ?
Can the oracle tell us what’s in the judgments too, and spare us a sleepless night ?
Could they rebrand as “I can’t believe it’s not milk” ?
February 11, 2026 at 11:56 PM
Could they rebrand as “I can’t believe it’s not milk” ?
As Goodwin v UK noted, the sex characteristic that is not reassigned fails to determine sex in cases where it differs from other sex characteristics.
Also, chromosomal sex is very far from being immutable:
Also, chromosomal sex is very far from being immutable:
February 11, 2026 at 9:23 PM
As Goodwin v UK noted, the sex characteristic that is not reassigned fails to determine sex in cases where it differs from other sex characteristics.
Also, chromosomal sex is very far from being immutable:
Also, chromosomal sex is very far from being immutable:
Also pushes the Sex Matters view that any difference of treatment (e.g. using a women’s pond vs men’s pond) is direct discrimination even when not actually unfavourable to one sex or the other; and hence a Sch 3 exemption is required to justify it.
Again eliding “unfavourable” with “different”.
Again eliding “unfavourable” with “different”.
February 11, 2026 at 4:52 PM
Also pushes the Sex Matters view that any difference of treatment (e.g. using a women’s pond vs men’s pond) is direct discrimination even when not actually unfavourable to one sex or the other; and hence a Sch 3 exemption is required to justify it.
Again eliding “unfavourable” with “different”.
Again eliding “unfavourable” with “different”.
Foran has for years been spreading the lie that if a trans woman is treated identically to a cis man that can never be direct discrimination. Which ducks the legal test of *unfavourable* treatment, or that identical treatment may be unfavourable because of a protected characteristic.
February 11, 2026 at 4:52 PM
Foran has for years been spreading the lie that if a trans woman is treated identically to a cis man that can never be direct discrimination. Which ducks the legal test of *unfavourable* treatment, or that identical treatment may be unfavourable because of a protected characteristic.
I’m with @natacha.bsky.social on this one; platforming such partisan and deceitful views plays to the pretence that there is some sort of fair intellectual “debate” here, one that can be resolved by a fair and balanced counter-argument.
Trans people are painfully aware it doesn’t work like that.
Trans people are painfully aware it doesn’t work like that.
February 11, 2026 at 4:42 PM
I’m with @natacha.bsky.social on this one; platforming such partisan and deceitful views plays to the pretence that there is some sort of fair intellectual “debate” here, one that can be resolved by a fair and balanced counter-argument.
Trans people are painfully aware it doesn’t work like that.
Trans people are painfully aware it doesn’t work like that.
He’s a liar. Easy to understand really
February 11, 2026 at 4:36 PM
He’s a liar. Easy to understand really
Rivalled only by porn hub really.
These right wing boys sure are obsessed with trans girls
These right wing boys sure are obsessed with trans girls
February 11, 2026 at 12:17 AM
Rivalled only by porn hub really.
These right wing boys sure are obsessed with trans girls
These right wing boys sure are obsessed with trans girls
It is not possible to understand any religious or political ideology without investigating the horrific social consequences that are supposedly “justified“ by that ideology.
Once these are investigated, it becomes obvious that was the point of the ideology all along.
Once these are investigated, it becomes obvious that was the point of the ideology all along.
February 11, 2026 at 12:04 AM
It is not possible to understand any religious or political ideology without investigating the horrific social consequences that are supposedly “justified“ by that ideology.
Once these are investigated, it becomes obvious that was the point of the ideology all along.
Once these are investigated, it becomes obvious that was the point of the ideology all along.
***same cronies.
They are anything but sane.
They are anything but sane.
February 10, 2026 at 11:55 PM
***same cronies.
They are anything but sane.
They are anything but sane.
And basically incomprehensible until you realise that their first commandment is “Thou shall not transition” and *everything* they do or say about trans people is in slavish obedience to that divine command.
February 10, 2026 at 11:54 PM
And basically incomprehensible until you realise that their first commandment is “Thou shall not transition” and *everything* they do or say about trans people is in slavish obedience to that divine command.
The sane cronies also now want to ban gathering (or attempting to gather) the “high quality” evidence they demanded because the trials needed to do so are unethical. It’s pure Catch 22.
February 10, 2026 at 11:54 PM
The sane cronies also now want to ban gathering (or attempting to gather) the “high quality” evidence they demanded because the trials needed to do so are unethical. It’s pure Catch 22.
Cass and her cronies are *desperate* to believe appallingly low quality evidence from 40 years ago (often authored by open bigots and homophobes) while demanding that modern gender affirming care is proven by “high quality” evidence, or else banning it.
February 10, 2026 at 11:54 PM
Cass and her cronies are *desperate* to believe appallingly low quality evidence from 40 years ago (often authored by open bigots and homophobes) while demanding that modern gender affirming care is proven by “high quality” evidence, or else banning it.