Reposted by Tom W
[job interview]
interviewer: so god killed all your kids?
job: that's right
Tom W
@thomaswilliams.bsky.social
415 followers 351 following 1.3K posts
On the quiet side. A bit peculiar. A good companion, in a weird sort of way.
On the quiet side. A bit peculiar. A good companion, in a weird sort of way.
![Email from Avon and Somerset Police to Kneecap legal team: "I am Senior Investigating Officer for Avon and Somerset Police's investigation into Kneecap's performance at the Glastonbury Festival on 28th June 2025. Following a review of the evidence, I have determined there will be no further action.
I would be grateful if you could communicate this to your clients, and/or advise me of an alternative way if contacting them.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Regards,
Detective Superintendent [Name redacted]"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:gksmwsy2s4gke7dr3msuyytq/bafkreibktbk4klg2aecbjn4yike7cpu27op56pvpkiwvic23ebu2hjq2xi)
![Before the Equality Act, trans people still had rights against discrimination. At the European Court of Human Rights, Goodwin v UK established the UK's obligations, which led to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 [GRA] providing that "Where a full gender recognition certificate [GRC] is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes *for all purposes* the acquired gender". Even before the GRA, it was held by the Court of Appeal in Croft v Royal Mail that "a permanent refusal to permit someone presenting as a woman from using female facilities could be an act of discrimination even if the person had not undergone final surgical intervention," meaning neither a GRC nor surgical transition was necessary for a trans person to be treated equally with someone else of their gender and use the appropriate facilities. It is also worth noting that the GRA requires that someone has "lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years" to be eligible for a GRC, and in practice this often means things like using the toilets and other facilities appropriate to that gender.
The effect of the Supreme Court judgement and the EHRC guidance are to say that far from being a forward-thinking and progressive piece of legislation, the purpose of the Equality Act was to strip protections from trans people, hollow out the Gender Recognition Act, and introduce a "bathroom ban" on trans people who had been using the appropriate facilities for decades - _and that no one realised or implemented this for over a decade_. If this had truly been the intention of the legislation, why did the government in the years immediately following this implement it in the opposite way?](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:sm5e43pxf5ktw5k5hqvdyw6k/bafkreibiilbhsv2u2xuvk5yu344tv2xpyv32io4iltf7nhl77gpmynvbqu)
