@liberaleftie.bsky.social
Calling something "biological essentialism" is calling it a fallacy. Enjoy the sunshine.
May 23, 2026 at 1:19 PM
Calling something "biological essentialism" is calling it a fallacy. Enjoy the sunshine.
Lorna described her experience of female biology. That's the transphobia you're detesting?
May 23, 2026 at 1:17 PM
Lorna described her experience of female biology. That's the transphobia you're detesting?
Dorian dismissed a woman's biology as a logical fallacy two posts up. That's the misogyny.
May 23, 2026 at 1:16 PM
Dorian dismissed a woman's biology as a logical fallacy two posts up. That's the misogyny.
His sex is relevant when he's telling a woman her experience of female biology is a logical fallacy. That's not a coincidence, it's the point.
May 23, 2026 at 1:14 PM
His sex is relevant when he's telling a woman her experience of female biology is a logical fallacy. That's not a coincidence, it's the point.
Still nobody said that though.
May 23, 2026 at 12:48 PM
Still nobody said that though.
Sure. And you responded by telling her her biology was an essentialist fallacy. That's the bit we're examining.
May 23, 2026 at 12:43 PM
Sure. And you responded by telling her her biology was an essentialist fallacy. That's the bit we're examining.
Nobody prohibited anything. We just noticed who was doing the explaining.
May 23, 2026 at 12:39 PM
Nobody prohibited anything. We just noticed who was doing the explaining.
You just described the entire arc of a female life and got told it was a logical fallacy. By a man. On a podcast with no women on it.
May 23, 2026 at 12:14 PM
You just described the entire arc of a female life and got told it was a logical fallacy. By a man. On a podcast with no women on it.
A man. Telling a woman. That her biology is an "essentialist" inconvenience. Checks out.
May 23, 2026 at 12:13 PM
A man. Telling a woman. That her biology is an "essentialist" inconvenience. Checks out.
This is a lie. The high court did not rule that a blanket exclusion of trans people would be unlawful.
March 6, 2026 at 8:37 PM
This is a lie. The high court did not rule that a blanket exclusion of trans people would be unlawful.
The BBC has read the judgment and isn’t lying to you.
The GLP is lying to you so that you will
donate. They lose most of their cases. I wouldn’t put my hopes in the GLP.
The GLP is lying to you so that you will
donate. They lose most of their cases. I wouldn’t put my hopes in the GLP.
February 15, 2026 at 1:59 PM
The BBC has read the judgment and isn’t lying to you.
The GLP is lying to you so that you will
donate. They lose most of their cases. I wouldn’t put my hopes in the GLP.
The GLP is lying to you so that you will
donate. They lose most of their cases. I wouldn’t put my hopes in the GLP.
I don’t believe he is religious or an extremist. Just a law professor who specialises in equality law.
You can engage with him on substack if you disagree with his arguments.
You can engage with him on substack if you disagree with his arguments.
January 23, 2026 at 3:13 PM
I don’t believe he is religious or an extremist. Just a law professor who specialises in equality law.
You can engage with him on substack if you disagree with his arguments.
You can engage with him on substack if you disagree with his arguments.
It's analysis from a legal expert. He is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Keble College, Oxford.
(The harassment is the endless thread where kept trying to convince me to join your cult).
(Your argument is nonsensical so it's hard to understand).
(The harassment is the endless thread where kept trying to convince me to join your cult).
(Your argument is nonsensical so it's hard to understand).
January 23, 2026 at 11:45 AM
It's analysis from a legal expert. He is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Keble College, Oxford.
(The harassment is the endless thread where kept trying to convince me to join your cult).
(Your argument is nonsensical so it's hard to understand).
(The harassment is the endless thread where kept trying to convince me to join your cult).
(Your argument is nonsensical so it's hard to understand).
Good Grift Project scamming money from the trans community yet again.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
January 23, 2026 at 11:43 AM
Good Grift Project scamming money from the trans community yet again.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
It's hard to understand your arguments so I'll just leave this legal analysis that I broadly subscribe to. Perhaps you will learn something. Going to mute you now due to your previous harassment that I don't wish to engage with again.
knowingius.org/p/myths-abou...
knowingius.org/p/myths-abou...
Myths about For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers
Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers in April 2025, there has been an avalanche of misinformation about the what the ruling says, what is men...
knowingius.org
January 22, 2026 at 6:52 PM
It's hard to understand your arguments so I'll just leave this legal analysis that I broadly subscribe to. Perhaps you will learn something. Going to mute you now due to your previous harassment that I don't wish to engage with again.
knowingius.org/p/myths-abou...
knowingius.org/p/myths-abou...
Human rights aren't violated because trans people remain fully protected under the "Gender Reassignment" category. The Court ruled that biological sex is a necessary, proportionate baseline for the Equality Act to function, while the GRA preserves dignity in private/administrative life.
January 22, 2026 at 12:35 PM
Human rights aren't violated because trans people remain fully protected under the "Gender Reassignment" category. The Court ruled that biological sex is a necessary, proportionate baseline for the Equality Act to function, while the GRA preserves dignity in private/administrative life.
Extreme!!!
At least we can both agree now that the SC judgment did take the GRA into account.
You just disagree with how they did.
/end
At least we can both agree now that the SC judgment did take the GRA into account.
You just disagree with how they did.
/end
January 21, 2026 at 7:56 PM
Extreme!!!
At least we can both agree now that the SC judgment did take the GRA into account.
You just disagree with how they did.
/end
At least we can both agree now that the SC judgment did take the GRA into account.
You just disagree with how they did.
/end
That's quite reductive.
Might as well repeal the GRA then?
Might as well repeal the GRA then?
January 21, 2026 at 7:53 PM
That's quite reductive.
Might as well repeal the GRA then?
Might as well repeal the GRA then?
The Supreme Court are not stupid and you can read their judgment about why they also don't think their human rights are violated.
January 21, 2026 at 9:23 AM
The Supreme Court are not stupid and you can read their judgment about why they also don't think their human rights are violated.
No, you are stating an opinion.
The GRA was passed to enable someone to change their legal sex. It does this for all purposes except for the purposes of the equality act.
If you think this violates a trans persons human rights then there are some appeals you can donate to. I think they will fail
The GRA was passed to enable someone to change their legal sex. It does this for all purposes except for the purposes of the equality act.
If you think this violates a trans persons human rights then there are some appeals you can donate to. I think they will fail
January 21, 2026 at 9:19 AM
No, you are stating an opinion.
The GRA was passed to enable someone to change their legal sex. It does this for all purposes except for the purposes of the equality act.
If you think this violates a trans persons human rights then there are some appeals you can donate to. I think they will fail
The GRA was passed to enable someone to change their legal sex. It does this for all purposes except for the purposes of the equality act.
If you think this violates a trans persons human rights then there are some appeals you can donate to. I think they will fail