Sign in

mini "serving lesbian" d'nar

@drdnar.bsky.social
383 followers 616 following 3.2K posts

“Like, from their perspective, you’ve got gender going on, and you’re serving more ‘lesbian’ than boy.”

PostsRepliesMedia
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 25/08/2026
savage. absolutely savage. and accurate.
010
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 03/08/2026
It's unfairly hard to get people interested in Gilbert and Sullivan after you explain that every show has the same plot and same characters.
000
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
I was unable to find any ECtHR rulings on trans people and bathrooms. There is a ruling that putting the wrong gender on someone's papers is wrong. The Court perversely feels that WRITING the wrong gender for a person is a big human rights concern, but refusing to let them use any bathrooms is not.
000
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
para 26: "The focus of this appeal is not on the status of the large majority of trans people who do not possess a full GRC. Their sex remains in law their biological sex." WHAT. DOES. LEGAL. SEX. MEAN.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
para 14: "Whether Parliament intended a word to have a different meaning in different sections of an Act must be determined by looking at the context of the section in question and the Act as a whole." Ironically, they then reject the lower courts that did exactly that.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
It is VERY notable that they do not define "biological sex." They can't, because they'd run into the same issue everyone does: it's very hard (if not impossible) to define in a way that doesn't screw over some intersex people in a surprising and cruel way.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
The terminology section (paras 6-7) isn't bad. They could do to recognize the existence of the term "cis," and use gender assigned at birth to "biological sex." But it's not terrible.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
I didn't start this thread until halfway through the text. Time to go back.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
FWS even cites Goodwin (para 65): "In short, the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable." FWS then proceeds to state that trans people under EA2010 are not quite one gender or the other.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
In the view of the Court, being open to dating trans people automatically makes you legally bisexual. This is certainly not a view any trans person would take. It's a view I'm sure bisexuals would only express jokingly.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
In the view of the Court, lesbians aren't even ALLOWED to be trans-inclusive.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
In the view of the Court, PERMITTING trans people to play sports is discrimination against cis people. They go out of their way to rebut the idea that trans people should be included if there's no difference in athletic ability.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
In the view of the Court, it's not bigoted to kick trans people out just because you find their bodies disgusting (para 221).
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
In the view of the Court, telling trans people they can't use your gym's changing rooms is fine, and in fact letting them is discrimination against the poor, innocent cis people.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
In the view of the Court, telling trans people that they can't use any of your bathrooms isn't discrimination, or at least not legally-actionable discrimination.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
Moreover, many trans people just do not want to be required to be public about being trans in order for them to have rights. After FWS, the most pressing issues that need the perspective of trans people are ENTIRELY ones of discrimination – discrimination that FWS enables, if not outright requires.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
"Nothing in this judgment is intended to discourage the appointment of trans people to public boards or to minimise the importance of addressing their under-representation on such boards." Trans people are less than 1 % of the population. It's actually quite hard to statistically under-represent us.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
That's really rich, given that the Court didn't include the perspective of any trans people in THEIR deliberations.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
para 267: "There may well be public boards on which it is also important for trans people of either or both genders to be represented in order to ensure that their perspective is brought to bear in the board’s deliberations and in the organisation’s governance."
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
You can't refuse to hire someone because they're trans, but you can tell them that if they're accept the job, they won't have anywhere to pee.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
But given that they accept that excluding trans people is obviously a desirable thing, even that protection is so narrow as to be nearly entirely useless. You can't fire someone for being trans, but you can deny them access to your bathrooms and then fire them for taking bathroom breaks too long.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
This entire section is quite telling. They only discuss employment. That's it. It appears that in their view, the only discrimination of legal merit that trans people can face is in the context of employment. Perhaps they would also reject a restaurant saying, "We don't serve trannies here."?
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
para 248: "[A] biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people (whether with or without a GRC). We consider protection from both direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, and equal pay. "
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
"On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EA 2010 to mean biological sex . . . merits further consideration." Yeah, the EHRC is definitely extremely biased against trans people.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
"A biological definition of sex would require public bodies like universities to apply this category . . . to the analysis of data collected in fulfilling the Public Sector Equality Duty." This is again treating exclusion as obviously a good thing.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
The EHRC is implying that making trans exclusion easier is objectively a good thing. Again, what is the point of anti-discrimination law?
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
". . . a trans woman with a GRC can access a ‘women-only’ service. The service-provider would have to conduct a careful balancing exercise to justify excluding all trans women. A biological definition of sex would make it simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women."
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
The anomaly is in your perception. If a trans man has gone so far as to acquire a GRC, he definitely isn't going to want to ADVERTISE being trans by applying to a women-only position! You're giving them rights they don't want.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
"Currently, trans women with a GRC could benefit from ‘women-only’ shortlists and other measures aimed at increasing female participation. Trans men with a GRC could not. A biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly."
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
Whoever at the EHRC wrote that is either denser than a neutron star or intentionally came up with the dumbest example possible to make it look ridiculous.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
This has to be the dumbest line in FWS: "As things stand, a women’s book club (for instance) may have to admit a trans woman who had obtained a GRC. On the biological definition it could restrict membership to biological women." It's a BOOK CLUB. WHY DOES IT MATTER?
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
Of course that's not what would actually happen. What would actually happen is the "proportionate" exception clause kicks in. The gist of FWS is that trans people aren't legally any gender at all and so are excluded from all gendered categories. Except pregnancy, the thing that all trans men love.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 15/07/2026
What happens if you apply para 221 to dating service? It sounds like they'd be required to be treated as men, so a straight woman might find herself sitting across from someone who could not possibly be seen as anything other than another woman.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
A trans man with a cis women can be rejected from a lesbian group because he LOOKS like a man (para 221), while also being excluded from a straight group because the couple is LEGALLY gay.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
FWS means that trans people and cis people in relationships with trans people can't legally join gay OR straight organizations:
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
The law clearly states the opposite: from the passage of GRA2004, a cis man can explicitly marry a trans woman because the union is recognized as legally heterosexual. FWS reverses this and says that EA2010 was meant to make them legally homosexual, despite gay marriage then being illegal.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
Obtaining a GRC used to require divorcing your spouse, because at the time of the GRA2004, gay marriage was illegal. Gay marriage wasn't legal until years after EA2020. This argument means that there was a time where a "legally heterosexual" couple could not marry.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
"[S]ome trans women with a GRC become legally lesbian, and some trans men with a GRC become gay men." Well that's certainly how they view themselves. Moreover, this changes the legal orientation of cis people in relationships with trans people.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
"As things stand, protections in the EA 2010 for pregnant women and new mothers fail to cover trans men who are pregnant and whose legal sex is male." The obvious interpretation is that pregnancy protections depend on the pregnancy itself.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
para 247: They start quoting the EHRC.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
Yes, that's anti-discrimination working correctly.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
"To exclude trans women with a GRC from the boxing competition, the organiser would have the additional burden of showing that it was necessary to do so in the interests of fairness."
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
I would hazard a guess that few, if any, trans women with a GRC still have testosterone. There's plenty of studies showing that the strength difference is entirely (within the margin of error that can be studied) due to hormones.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
"However, if average women as a group for comparison with average men for the purposes of section 195(1) includes trans women with GRCs the differences in strength, stamina and physique between the two groups may begin to fade."
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
They haven't heard of the term "cis" either. Perhaps they've bought into the idea that "cis" is slur. It's literally just the linguistic antonym of "trans." The opposite of trans fats are cis fats. Cis is usually considered to be implied, but sometimes there's a need to specify not-trans-fats.
120
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
The constant parenthetical re-explanations of what trans people are is so condescending. Not just to trans people, but to all readers!
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
para 228: I can't tell if this is saying that trans people should be included or excluded from single-gender schools.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
Personally, before drinking a magic gender-change potion, I would want an assurance that there's also a magic potion that cures endometriosis. Or at least that this world also has surgeons that can do hysterectomies.
100
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
I'm sure there's quite a lot of trans women who would love different parts if conferred /by magic./ However, they feel their desire for different parts is outweighed by the expense, pain, exceptional difficulties, and risks of surgery, and so choose never to pursue it.
110
mini "serving lesbian" d'nar @drdnar.bsky.social · 14/07/2026
As an aside, I think it's worth pointing out that there's a considerable difference between wanting different anatomy and wanting surgery. Surgery is a very difficult and expensive thing, even when you don't have to pay for it yourself (e.g. time off work, postop supplies).
110