Wow. Great compendium. Thank you. It's hard to keep track of all this stuff. (And obviously, if the world weren't upside-down thanks to "trans" bullshit, we wouldn't have to.)
“Labour’s NEC had already decided to cancel this year’s women’s conference over concerns trans women would complain if they were barred from the event.”
Ah yes, the testerical heckler’s veto rears its ugly heads again.
And as for Joshua Dale Brown …
*Trigger warning: graphic violence*
I’m in principle entirely against both torture & execution, but in this case would make an exception & also be willing to deliver the punishment myself, if it would deter a single one of my fellow males from acting in a similar fashion.
Ideally, he’d have his genitalia fed into a deli slicer at an excruciate slow rate, with alum applied liberally to elevate the pain & slow his bleeding. And if he survived up to reaching the pubic bone, left to bleed out.
Though somewhat disconcerting that they don't seem to know whether they're on foot or horseback when it comes to naming male transvestites, to calling a spade a shovel. Nine different cases where they use the adjective-noun pair -- i.e., "trans woman" -- but only one case where they use the more logically and legally consistent compound word -- i.e., "transwomen".
Given that Supreme Court Judgement has asserted that the "meaning of the terms 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex" [#265] -- though I think they dropped the ball in not saying exactly what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place -- one might reasonably infer that "biological sex" means that "man" is "adult human male", and that "woman" is "adult human female":
In which case the Telegraph's clueless blathering on about "trans women" is saying that those individuals -- i.e., men, i.e., adult human males -- are, in fact, also "women" -- i.e., adult human males. Which is a biological impossibility: absolutely no human qualifies as both male and female. Though those Justices, clearly a biologically illiterate bunch, are just as bad -- some 85 uses of the incoherent and inconsistent "trans woman" and "trans women":
SCJ: "A person who is a biological man, i.e. who was at birth of the male sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans woman” ...." [6]
Some remedial courses in both basic biology and logic -- for those Justices, the Telegraph, and many other so-called journalists -- are clearly in order. And likewise the anathematizing of "trans women" in favour of "transwomen".
Wow. Great compendium. Thank you. It's hard to keep track of all this stuff. (And obviously, if the world weren't upside-down thanks to "trans" bullshit, we wouldn't have to.)
Thank you as always 🙏
“Labour’s NEC had already decided to cancel this year’s women’s conference over concerns trans women would complain if they were barred from the event.”
Ah yes, the testerical heckler’s veto rears its ugly heads again.
And as for Joshua Dale Brown …
*Trigger warning: graphic violence*
I’m in principle entirely against both torture & execution, but in this case would make an exception & also be willing to deliver the punishment myself, if it would deter a single one of my fellow males from acting in a similar fashion.
Ideally, he’d have his genitalia fed into a deli slicer at an excruciate slow rate, with alum applied liberally to elevate the pain & slow his bleeding. And if he survived up to reaching the pubic bone, left to bleed out.
> "Labour Party finally accepts trans women aren’t women"
Thanks for the archive link to that Telegraph article: https://archive.is/2025.07.15-202940/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/15/labour-party-trans-women/
Though somewhat disconcerting that they don't seem to know whether they're on foot or horseback when it comes to naming male transvestites, to calling a spade a shovel. Nine different cases where they use the adjective-noun pair -- i.e., "trans woman" -- but only one case where they use the more logically and legally consistent compound word -- i.e., "transwomen".
Given that Supreme Court Judgement has asserted that the "meaning of the terms 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex" [#265] -- though I think they dropped the ball in not saying exactly what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place -- one might reasonably infer that "biological sex" means that "man" is "adult human male", and that "woman" is "adult human female":
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
In which case the Telegraph's clueless blathering on about "trans women" is saying that those individuals -- i.e., men, i.e., adult human males -- are, in fact, also "women" -- i.e., adult human males. Which is a biological impossibility: absolutely no human qualifies as both male and female. Though those Justices, clearly a biologically illiterate bunch, are just as bad -- some 85 uses of the incoherent and inconsistent "trans woman" and "trans women":
SCJ: "A person who is a biological man, i.e. who was at birth of the male sex, but who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is described as a “trans woman” ...." [6]
Some remedial courses in both basic biology and logic -- for those Justices, the Telegraph, and many other so-called journalists -- are clearly in order. And likewise the anathematizing of "trans women" in favour of "transwomen".