We understand that we are the bleeding edge of a civil rights struggle that has been made central to the broader far right project of stripping away basic protections for all of us. We will respond appropriately. We will give no ground on truth or dignity. Nobody is expendable or too inconvenient.
Just an impromptu reminder that there are a lot of organisations out there who are dedicated to fighting for the civil rights of all LGBTQ+ people and refuse to appease transphobic bigotry. We will not grovel. Will not indulge in both-sidesing. Will not apologise for demanding our rights.
But because they have stuck with that absurd day-one line even as it drifts further and further away from the reality of their own policy analysis just means that they are unable to say what they know to be true and explains their actions, which is that this is a complete mess legally & technically.
So one of the weird things about the political fight over the EHRC code is that the main GC attack line - that it's been delayed for political reasons - would be completely defused if the government just dropped the self-evidently incorrect claim that the SC judgement brought 'clarity'.
Wow. Imagine a government minister not setting a meeting with you despite asking for it. Couldn't be me. 🫠
The access these people have been given to power just feeds their entitlement.
While we are shut out from even influencing policy designed to harm us.
She knows as well as anyone that trans people have a human right to not be outed by data and GDPR/DPA'18 right to correct outdated information held on them, such as after changing sex. This is especially crucial because of science-deniers like her who would use our data to brand and persecute.
Screenshot from the article with a photo of "People protesting outside a Peter Thiel event in San Francisco. Photograph: Dara Kerr/The Guardian" and article text "A trio of self-described “satanists” dressed in black costumes with goth makeup walked up and down the line of attenders carrying a goblet of red liquid with a small plastic replica of a bone. “Will you bring our dark lord Peter Thiel this baby’s blood?” they asked. Then they performed what they called a “dark ritual”, dancing slowly in a circle to Mozart’s Requiem in D minor, which ended with them writhing on the city sidewalk, and yelling: “Take us to your personal hell … Thank you for being our dark lord.”
More of this please
Screenshot from linked article reading "What do Thiel’s lectures say? The Guardian is publishing substantial quoted passages alongside contextual annotations so that the public may be informed on what an influential figure in politics and technology was saying behind closed doors. He believes the Armageddon will be ushered in by an antichrist-type figure who cultivates a fear of existential threats such as climate change, AI and nuclear war to amass inordinate power. The idea is this figure will convince people to do everything they can to avoid something like a third world war, including accepting a one-world order charged with protecting everyone from the apocalypse that implements a complete restriction of technological progress. In his mind, this is already happening. Thiel said that international financial bodies, which make it more difficult for people to shelter their wealth in tax havens, are one sign the antichrist may be amassing power and hastening Armageddon, saying: “It’s become quite difficult to hide one’s money.”
I'm starting to think this guy might not be a genius..... www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...
This from the company founded by a guy doing a lecture tour about how woke global-government environmentalism is a sign of the literal antichrist and his skynet murder algorithms will save god's beautiful billionaires?
But no, people who don't want him to have their medical data are ideologues.
Screenshot of the article reading: "I also want to speak to the wider LGBTQ+ community, and to anyone questioning the government’s commitment. I hear those concerns. I understand why trust feels fragile right now. "
Trust went out the window a long, long time ago.
Do you think maybe he is worried that maybe being the quisling face of transphobia in Britain isn't good for his leadership ambitions?
Then fight for us. Cynically and self interestedly if you have to. Actual policy change, not words.
Not sure who thought this article would be a good idea. It is patronising, weasel worded, empty of any actual practical commitment or acknowledgment of harm or wrongdoing. It reads as "I know what you're going through and I'm doing it to you anyway." Who is it for?
Screenshot of the article reading "Growing up gay, I remember what it felt like to wonder if I would be accepted, whether I would be safe, and whether the world would make space for me as I was. That sense of uncertainty is something no young person should have to carry alone. I was lucky, I had the love, acceptance and support of my amazing family and friends to get me through life’s challenges, but that is by no means everyone’s experience. "
Genuinely ghoulish to try and hide behind being gay to justify being a leading part of the biggest rollback of LGBTQ+ rights in UK history. Most of us are gay too Wes and we don't pathologise our siblings, buddy up with the Anita Bryants of the world, fan flames of hate and restrict their autonomy.
Screenshot of the article reading "But let me say this clearly: every trans person, every child deserves to feel safe, respected, and included in our society and in the health system that serves them. That is not up for debate. There will be disagreements of course. This is a deeply complex area, and people come to it with different perspectives and experiences."
"your safety and respect are not up for debate" he says, immediately debating the point
TL;DR - 'I'm crusading against your healthcare and letting your abusers and people who want you eliminated set the policy dictating your life, but I'd rather you didn't blame me for it. Also we're expanding our conversion-abuse-adjacent talk therapy offerings, YOU'RE WELCOME.'
Disgusting.
Do you want to be the planet krikkit from the third HHGTTG? Because this is how you get hactars.
Disappointing we couldn't get "moon's haunted." on the board.
People get mad when they are confronted with the fact that purportedly ‘objective’ scientific taxonomy is actually nothing but social convention as a matter of convenience for scientists. Nothing was learned or lost via recategorising Pluto; it was where to put different beans while bean-counting
It's a cruel joke to pretend what is being done to trans people is evidence based, and one cannot be in allyship with us while supporting that load bearing fig leaf over anti-trans policy. But if you'd like to hear more about why in a better, slower forum for it, do reach out and we can arrange it.
Using a photo of Ayn Rand as your pfp is the twitter version of aposematism. See rand, get rancid.
Jealous because the biggest crowd they can pull is when they get hundreds of hot queer counter-protestors drowning out the same three miserable gender conservatives holding protest signs about gametes in every city
Oh that's right! A secret minor vs major administrative sex distinction perhaps. Sounds like an awful cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah'.
I believe that is the secret fourth category of 'administrative sex', which is applied to any self-reported sex data, but it depends on who you ask.
In practical terms that's the result of their ruling on "biological sex", until a biometric definition is actually provided. But "biological sex" is not actually defined by the original birth certificate, it wasn't defined at all but was intended to refer to physical characteristics not legal status
But it was incoherent to start with so... 🤷
I'm not sure that's right, certificated sex and so-called "biological sex" are in the eyes of the SC the same for all cis people. The point of the term "biological sex" is just to say certificated sex (except for people who have GRCs) and frame this as a natural instead of legal distinction.
Also it's darkly funny that, in a government policy document listing key definitions, they could not offer a definition of biological sex, because the legal term has no definition, and there is no coherent binary definition of sex in science. Is it clear yet the supreme court were winging it?
Perhaps they did listen to our concerns, even if they never really replied......
transactual.org.uk/blog/2025/11...
A screenshot from the digital ID consultation document reading: "Sex or gender information In the UK, sex and gender data can cover three categories: ● Biological sex. ● Legal or certified sex. This is sex as recorded on your original birth certificate or as amended under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. In almost all cases, legal or certified sex reflects a person’s biological sex. ● Gender. A broad term that is sometimes used interchangeably with sex or when specifically referring to social rather than biological differences between sexes. It can also capture data that equates to biological, legal or certified sex. Information about sex and gender is not necessary for the intended purpose of the digital ID. Inclusion of this information would not enhance checks that the digital ID belongs to the person presenting it. Checks will be done programmatically and through biometric authentication, neither of which require specific sex or gender data. Additionally, digital right to work checks and many checks in the private sector (including Know Your Customer (KYC) and simple age verification checks) do not require the collection or sharing of information about a person’s sex or gender. Similarly, access to most public services does not require this information. In specific scenarios where sex or gender information is required, it is better collected and verified by other means appropriate to that scenario, rather than contained in the digital ID. For these reasons, and in line with data minimisation principles, we do not intend to include sex or gender information in the digital ID."
Amidst worse news, I'm very glad to see that the digital ID policy is steering away from including gender/sex data at all - this is the right move from practical and moral perspectives. That data is often wrong, leads to outing, harassment or exclusion, and not needed on any kind of ID card.
