iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

I'd add that FWS was about whether a trans person *with a GRC* should be treated as their “certificated sex” under the EA. Even the Scottish Ministers didn't argue that every trans person should be treated as their preferred sex. We've never had self-ID in this country. Despite what Stonewall said!

010

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

lawful EXCEPTION. That means ALL males can be excluded from a women-only service - however they identify, however well they do or do not 'pass', and whether or not they "feel they belong" there. Otherwise it is not a single-SEX service.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

1. You have avoided answering my point about your misinformation and misunderstanding of the law by making another point. 2. The guidance reflects the law. The Supreme Court established that sex in the Equality Act means biological sex. The EA permits lawful single-sex services - that is a

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

Imagine sitting through those meetings and NOT hearing the EHRC Chair saying explicitly: a) *services* need to be *provided* on the basis of bio sex (NOT people MUST use the service of their bio sex), or b) trans men can be excluded from female services committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence...

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

Niblett was spouting scare-mongering misinformation and using trans men to do so. She has been called out on this by trans men as well as GCs.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

They could also have pointed out that a trans man like the one in your picture can also be lawfully excluded from a female-only changing room, if women object. As could, of course, any 'cis' man 'pretending to be a trans man'.

101

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 11/09/2026

I would have loved a fact checker on PL. They could have pointed out that a trans man does not *have* to use female facilities; they are simply lawfully excluded from male facilities. The guidance recommends unisex, mixed sex or gender neutral options to be available.

200

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

I really am done with you now.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

I think we've established that “troll” is simply another label you're using instead of engaging with the substance. You are entitled to your opinion about my motives. You are not entitled to present your speculation about them as established fact.

200

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

That's precisely the point I've been making. As for “unquestionably a troll”, that's another assertion rather than an argument. What, specifically, have I done that makes me a troll? If your answer is “you discuss subjects I disagree with and won't accept my accusations without evidence”, then

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

So we've finally got somewhere. You now concede that the racism is subjective and that you don't know what is in my mind. In other words, you are inferring a racist motive from your interpretation of my comments, rather than identifying anything I've actually said that is racist.

200

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

bsky.app/profile/sids...

000

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

commentary while also believing that legitimate questions deserve investigation. If your argument is simply that anyone who takes an interest in this story must be racist because one of the people who publicised it is racist, then you've constructed a circular argument that can never be falsified.

000

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

And finally, you're still confusing two entirely different questions: whether some of the commentary about Arday has been racist, and whether the underlying questions about his academic record and appointment are legitimate. It is perfectly possible to condemn racist

200

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

too? Is the Guardian an anti-DEI publication? Third, the fact that someone you consider racist raises a particular allegation doesn't make the allegation racist, nor does it make everyone who examines the evidence racist.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

Second, this isn't a story confined to Cofnas or the “right wing”. The Guardian subsequently investigated and reported extensively on the allegations, and its own article quoted Black academics who said they believed there was a legitimate case to answer. Are they racist

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

First, the story did not originate with Cofnas. Times Higher Education had already investigated and prepared a story about the alleged plagiarism in 2025; that story was subsequently shelved after Arday's lawyers intervened. Cofnas's investigation was independent.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

So, your argument is: 1.Nathan Cofnas raised allegations about Arday. 2.Cofnas is racist/anti-DEI. 3.Therefore anyone who takes an interest in the allegations is racist/anti-DEI. That simply doesn't follow.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

No. My granddaughter is mixed-race. And, as I said, I abhor racism and call it out frequently. But continue to call me racist if it makes you feel better about having no arguments. We're done here.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

bsky.app/profile/sids...

000

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

If you want to accuse me of racism, identify something I've actually said that is racist and explain why. Otherwise, stop trying to psychoanalyse my motives to suit your own narrative and confirm your own biases, and address the substance of what I've actually written.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

Your assumption that my interest in Arday is somehow explained by his being Black is simply unsupported. You're imputing a motive to me and then using that invented motive as evidence of racism. Labelling me a “racist troll” is ad hominem, not an argument.

200

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

world and secured a major book deal was inevitably going to attract considerable interest. Had similar revelations emerged about a celebrated white academic — Richard Dawkins, for example — my level of interest would have been the same, probably greater.

310

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

own interest, or the media's interest, “massively outweighs” the merits of the story is purely subjective. I would say that someone who held a position at one of the world's most elite universities, became a celebrity academic, appeared on media programmes around the

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

I missed this response. Apologies. So let me address it. I took an interest in the Arday story because there are serious questions about the accuracy of claims made about his background and career, and because those questions are of legitimate public interest. Whether my

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

But you haven't. And you know it. At this point, there is only one of us looking foolish. And it is not me. bsky.app/profile/sids...

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

You say I haven't answered your question. I say you haven't answered mine. The difference is that I have explained why your question is irrelevant; you haven't explained why anything I said is racist. You know that you can't back up your assertions. No wonder you hide behind silly insults and emojis

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

P.S. The source of the screenshots is not relevant. It is another distraction. But since you are clearly unable to google - Arday supplied these quotes directly to a number of newspapers asking that they were attributed to “a source close to”. Some did as he asked. The Mail chose not to.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

(Tip: ‘You criticised someone who is Black’ is not proof of racism and a row of emojis is not evidence). Otherwise, I think we are done here.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

accusation in search of evidence. If you make an accusation, the burden of proof is on you. If you can identify any posts showing that I am racist (which, in your words, would be “a convincing argument”), do so.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

You're still doing exactly what you've accused me of doing: avoiding the question. I have asked you to identify the allegedly racist thing I actually said. You haven’t. Instead, you have substituted increasingly elaborate demands that I prove a negative. That's not an argument; it's an

310

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

And I have been fighting racism, including the racist bullying of my own granddaughter, for years. I don't need to prove my anti-racist credentials by answering anybody's “show me where” questions on Bluesky.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

If you think my criticism is racist, identify what I have actually said that is racist and explain why. “You criticised a Black man” isn't an argument. And the string of childish emojis doesn't strengthen your case.

210

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 16/08/2026

I mirrored your question precisely to demonstrate how absurd it was. And you have demonstrated my point admirably by not being able to answer it yourself. The race of the person whose claims we have been discussing is completely irrelevant to whether those claims are true.

210

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 15/08/2026

Show me where you have accused anyone who isn't Black of being a 'Walter Mitty' and embellishing a lot of their backstory. I'll wait. P.S. It is Black, not 'black'. You are clearly a racist.

200

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 15/08/2026

The 'source' was HIM! Good grief, you really are thick🤦

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 15/08/2026

I have said nothing racist. And I have not expressed anything resembling rage. But nice, if rather obvious, attempt at deflection. You were unable to answer my question because your reading comprehension is clearly poor and you had not realised he was the 'close source'. Daft lad.

210

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 14/08/2026

Since the "close source" was actually him, I am still waiting for you to explain the difference between his words and .... his words.

100

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

Explain "the difference between his words and those of a “close source.”", Sam.

110

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 07/08/2026

And the whole Seven Up claim really *doesn't* matter to me that much. There are far more egregious lies he has told. I am just amazed, and amused, that you have bought his impossibly implausible explanation.

160

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 07/08/2026

Sam - it was a LIVE Zoom meeting! For Black History Month. Naidoo has just given a long introduction about how marvellous he is, what an inspiration etc. You *seriously* think she is going challenge him live, in front of others?! But, tellingly, they chose not to put it in the transcript....

140

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

Hi! Isn't it? Also.... all very amusing 😁

120

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

Girlguiding is a charity incorporated by Royal Charter "for the primary object of educating girls and young women" Associations can set trans-inclusive membership criteria but that doesn’t allow charity trustees to act outside their charitable objects. Girlguiding would need to change those objects.

081

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

be aware. Doesn't mean they would challenge him. Notably, that bit was left out of the transcript of the interview. Did anyone challenge his many other obvious lies at the time? No.

150

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

Don't be daft. Yes, 'progamme' is ambiguous. But 'follows you for the duration of your life .. at 7, 14, 21' is highly specific. What 'local community programme" - which he describes as a support network - 'follows you' at seven yearly intervals?? And of course those people would

1140

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

A very good piece from Okundaye. Those on the left, like @goodlawproject.org and all who signed their letter, would do well to read this and reflect. One minor correction: the plagiarism charges had not "originated" from Cofnas. www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/i-wa...

010

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

If you are going to provide a hyperlink to the Goodwin v UK judgment, maybe link to the right one? (Hint: It's Christine you want, 2002, not William, 1996) Not that most of your supporters are likely to bother reading an actual judgment but still - attention to detail and all that. You're welcome.

063

Sidsy @sidsy.bsky.social · 06/08/2026

"rightwing press & it's billionaire owner-class relentlessly pursuing its Trump-Musk culture war.." 🙄 www.theguardian.com/education/ng...

281