robynrocks75.bsky.social
Not cis, just am. Politics, history, art, music, science. Things that make me happy, mostly dogs, Man Utd (usually) & cake. Personal views only. Retweets for interest not only endorsement.
337 posts
136 followers
311 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
And his lies??
comment in response to
post
I don’t agree with her decision because I don’t think the threshold of serious damage has been met. But your summary is, well, pants.
comment in response to
post
Love those leather jackets
comment in response to
post
It’s almost like Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Mental illness and coercive control. She should be charged with manslaughter.
comment in response to
post
No one.
comment in response to
post
🙄
comment in response to
post
Finally, high-resolution satellite images captured by Maxar Technolgoies on 22 June show six fresh craters - likely the entry points for US munitions - as well as grey dust and debris scattered down the mountainside - at Iran's Fordo enrichment facility after US strikes.
📷 Maxar
comment in response to
post
There have never been sufficient refuge services, IDVA advisors, children’s workers or MARAC places. The whole system is struggling due to lack of resource.
comment in response to
post
Shouldn’t shells be left in the sea / on the beach? I thought that was the ‘rule’.
comment in response to
post
🎯
comment in response to
post
Courtesy of post from @groomb.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
110°F is 43°C.
comment in response to
post
And you believed them??
comment in response to
post
He is absolutely repellent - he literally makes my skin crawl. narcissistic buffoon, endlessly entitled, corrupt, liar and grifter
comment in response to
post
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo 🐶
comment in response to
post
Indeed
comment in response to
post
Thank you. It makes sense of the detail which is often presented (as gotcha). And/or poorly answered.
comment in response to
post
What a beautiful interview - deeply moving 🥰
comment in response to
post
Nope - the judgement was about the definition of woman (& man) in the context of the Equality Act - biological sex. So a women’s group can only be for women. I posted the judgement earlier if u want more info.
comment in response to
post
Either way the recent judgement was about sex
comment in response to
post
It should be - in that the law has been clarified and the EHRC need to set out how that works in policy & practice.
comment in response to
post
The SC is not mistaken, it’s clear. gender reassignment & sex r protected characteristics (pc). In some situations rights have 2 b balanced & protected eg membership orgs- u can't have one on basis of two non-overlapping pc’s ie membership is contingent on being female OR trans-identifying male.
comment in response to
post
Know we can do better than that t**t
comment in response to
post
I didn’t take that from her evidence - the judgement makes clear than the rights of trans people through the protected category of gender reassignment remain.
comment in response to
post
You’re mistaken, this is not about belief. This is clarification that when the Equality Act refers to eg men it means biological men. Re the protected category of sex.
comment in response to
post
I promise - biological sex is not an irrational belief system.
comment in response to
post
It’s not, this is about sex as a protected characteristic.
comment in response to
post
I’ve posted rather than replied the judgement. My poor tech skills
comment in response to
post
Under the Equality Act 2010, a grp that chooses 2 admit women & trans identifying men - it can’t describe itself as single sex. call itself anything else - mixed sex, for everyone. It can prevent as they are legally defined terms. So eg women wld have right 2 challenge - breach of Act.
comment in response to
post
Ah I see. It’s not about GC belief it’s the law. So if it is single sex women only (for the purposes that are legitimate & proportionate)then yes it’s women only. No men or trans identifying men.
comment in response to
post
I’m not. Precisely the opposite- I’m saying that any group of people can set up any group they like. If it’s men only, then it is, women only then it is, mixed then it is. terms men & women have been clarified so if grp is mixed that’s clear & in any articles, publicity etc. & vice versa.
comment in response to
post
@gabyhinsliff.bsky.social most of comttee, particularly the chair, wr unprepared not reading - judgement, interim update or consultation. That said EHRC didn’t nail issues when was chance. Yes, ofc set up mixed women’s grp including trans identifying men. But know that it’s not women only. That’s it
comment in response to
post
Or indeed ‘anyone with a cervix’
comment in response to
post
Well, it’s marginally better than a ‘person with a front hole’. ffs