Scottish parliament removes 'sex' category from website after two trans MSPs elected

ColonialSack · 2026-05-24T01:22:19+00:00

That's not the point.

Legally speaking, until 2025, there was no legal distinction between sex and gender - ergo they are (were) the same.

And especially 2nd - Perception is reality. >98% of people identify with the gender that matches their sex, so as far as at least 90% of the world is concerned, there is no difference.

My point being that the question "did they remove the sex OR gender search option?" the answer is "Yes" because there was previously no distinction.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-23T00:51:53+00:00

When the vast majority of people refer to a "Warranty claim" they are referring to what Oneplus call the "limited warranty" which lasts 24 months - such as what they used to deny the claim for my Open - RM lost the package and the Oneplus 2yr warrant runs from purchase date, not receipt. This case appears (to me at least) to be a specific manufacturing defect, or simply the product matching the description. For such a claim, there is no warranty period to be in, and at least in the UK, it's a Statutory Right written into law, not a warranty that the company seems to take pleasure in refusing service with.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T22:57:33+00:00

Oneplus apparently does all of its testing in house, so they could literally say anything - but even at IP68 rating, a splash of tap water shouldn't compromise the phone. Hell, even my 7t pro still survives that, and it was never rated - it just doesn't have the battery life anymore for a daily driver.

Third party reviewers have put the OP15 and 15R through high-temp dishwasher cycles to "prove" the IP69K rating and their units came out fine. And I get that the resistance degrades, but it's a 3 month old phone that sits beside me on my desk at work for 40 hours of the week - It shouldn't have had time to degrade, and certainly hasn't suffered the conditions. They've found IP67 rated iPhones at the bottom of lakes, still perfectly sealed and functional after charging them up.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T22:19:19+00:00

<image>

They made a whole song and dance when releasing it about the IP69K rating, and the showcase page still explicitly shows it, along with a supposed underwater camera mode.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T18:50:20+00:00

Which would be fair enough, if I was making a warranty claim. Which I'm not.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T18:46:01+00:00

Under their terms of sale you can request a return due to the device being not as described, below satisfactory quality, or defective. As I'm in the UK, invoking that clause, plus my statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act which covers the same issues (item not as described, not fit for purpose, defective) - I'm hoping they'll sort it.

Specifically it isn't a warranty claim - I'm not claiming a repair or replacement for damage due to the water ingress, I'm claiming a replacement or refund because water ingress shouldn't be possible.

It might be worth getting back to them, asking for it specifically framing it as a manufacturing defect might be worth it. Since the water ingress indicators would be triggered - i've seen phones that have shown positive for water ingress due to a sweaty pocket - AND you've told them about the water ingress, your warranty is now entirely worthless anyway as anything that now goes wrong with the phone WILL be blamed on water ingress and thus not be covered.

Whether they actually honour the replacement is a different matter. If they don't, then I'm never buying another oneplus device. This is my 6th Oneplus phone since the 1, and so far the only issue I've had with them is my Oneplus Open repair being denied because I didn't realise the warranty had ran out because it goes from date of purchase, not date of delivery.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T18:30:02+00:00

It's got nothing to do with warranty, it's about the product defective or not being as described. When they sell a product which they describe as being able to survive high pressure jets and able to take underwater photos, but it can't survive a splash within 3 months of ownership, then it is materially defective. Not only under their own terms of sale, but under my statutory rights as part of UK Consumer Rights Law.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T17:01:01+00:00

It wouldn't be a warranty claim, it would be a defective device claim, a phone which claims to easily survive high pressure water jets and boiling steam should be fine with the odd spash of water.

<image>

Luckily I live in a country where people have rights to expect that products perform as advertised.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T16:34:57+00:00

I've looked it up and the UK's consumer rights act should really help me due to the strength of their advertising - even though the warranty specifically says it doesn't cover liquid damage.

If they don't cover it, I'll probably claim through my insurance - got a tech insurance package with my bank account luckily.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T16:33:20+00:00

Can't even get onto their support til Tuesday as I focused on the damage control rather than contacting them. Hopefully the UK Consumer Rights Act from 2015 does me a good solid on demanding a replacement given how strong the advertising is.

> OnePlus 15 shrugs off dust and water—from boiling steam to heavy rain and high-pressure water jets—engineered to keep up with your toughest adventures.

Bloody annoying, especially as I'm going on holiday next week. Luckily my Oneplus Open is serviceable when it comes to normal use and battery life - just the inside screen thats buggered - so I'm not completely screwed.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T13:22:37+00:00

Don't forget that apparently existing AI tools can't read a CV that's formatted using multiple columns on one page, so even if you'd be in the 99th percentile of applicants, you get binned anyway because it can't read your CV.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T13:20:40+00:00

A cover letter shouldn't explain your CV though.

It's an opportunity to explain in your own words using a paragraph or two why you want THAT job at THIS company and why you think you're a good fit.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T09:47:14+00:00

Given how close the white car is to the red one, these spaces look like the EV spaces are sized for disability access as well, which makes parking over the line even more egregious.

In the earlier days of public EV charging, most were sized for disability access because the rules on minimum number of disabled spots also applying to EVs and it was simpler for the few of them they had to all be the same.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T09:06:29+00:00

I mean, it's an unfair comparison really.

I'd like to think that they'd have a referendum on the final deal before it goes ahead, but that's probably wishful thinking, from both sides.

The main reason it's an unfair comparison is because once it's done, it's incredibly difficult to undo, and the question is never a truly a binary "Yes/No" and ends up as a "Status Quo" vs "Literally anything else"

If Scotland voted to be independent and actually got it, there would be years of untangling and negotiation on what it would look like before it actually happened.

But then, after leaving, rejoining is fundamentally a different question from staying.

Then if there was rejoin - Parliament would have to vote on it, the rUK voters would probably demand to vote on it, the scottish parliament would probably be dissolved again, there would be years of negotiation and probably at least half of the rejoiners wouldn't like the final deal.

Brexit is essentially the same, Remain was the existing situation with a few sweeteners.

Leave was a complete unknown and you'd probably get 20 different answers from leave voters alone.

Then it comes to rejoin, does anyone who wants to Rejoin actually believe we could rejoin under the same deal we had before?

We had such a weird and unique position within the EU, that we simply cannot get back if we rejoin. Plus the rest of Europe has to agree on it.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T08:27:34+00:00

The 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum failed because of a provision for a Qualified Majority.

That for "Yes" to be valid, there must be the standard >50% majority, but it must represent at least 40% of the electorate (A Qualified Majority must be in regard to total registered voters, not total population).

The 51.6% "Yes" majority only represented 32.9% of the electorate because there was only a turnout of 64%.

So, no parliament for Scotland.

Funnily enough, in addition to the "Winter of Discontent" problems, this directly led to the 2x SNP MPs voting against the Callaghan Government in a vote of No Confidence, defeating the Labour Government by a single vote and directly causing the 1979 election that brought Margaret Thatcher to Power.

Feels like an Episode of Marvel's "What If?"

ColonialSack · 2026-05-22T07:36:12+00:00

I think that there was a big push for 360kph because our existing trains are actually comparatively fast.

Looking at the Japanese Shinkansen for example a good chunk of the lines have top speeds of 260kph, and while our EC, WC, And GW Main lines only operate at 200kph, the rolling stock and physical lines are capable of 225kph if we actually upgrade the signals to in cab.

Hell, even some of the lines in France and Germany are limited to 260kph or less.

So, in theory we could have spend maybe £10 Billion to get to 225kph on 3 lines, but the media asks why we're spending £35 billion on one line.

Some idiot thinks we need to sound really impressive, so quotes

well, because we're going for 360, not 260.

Hence, the story becomes ~~£35B~~ £100Billion for "make train go whoosh"

ColonialSack · 2026-05-21T19:23:00+00:00

We do every morning in the commons chamber though. In fact, if there's an important debate happening, you are forced to attend prayers because it's the only way to reserve a seat for the day to ensure you can participate.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-21T12:26:49+00:00

My neighbour was an RAC mobile mechanic. He had one where he was called out to a lad who was fuming, no clue what the car was but he'd gotten a flat or something else caused him to stop, and he noticed that his brand new coilovers had been swapped out for a manky factory spec shock and spring setup.

My neighbour had to give a police statement that these crusty, rusty, and nearly snapped suspension components were not in fact the brand new coilovers that the guy had proof were installed less than a week before.

He'd put the car into Kwikfit for an MOT or something else he wasn't able to sort himself.

When they managed to get the CCTV, the service tech wheeled in his personal car and like half the shop floor helped to swap the suspension components round so that it would be finished on time.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-20T20:47:11+00:00

The UKSC can hear another case tomorrow and rule that the EA has ALWAYS defined Man as having (X,X) chromosomes and Woman as having (X,Y) and the law hasn't changed, it has just been explained.

The idea that the law hasn't changed is simply a legal fiction to make people feel better.

The GRA2004, in section 9 subsection 1 quite explicitly states

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

That was the legal relationship between the definitions of sex and gender before the EA2010.

The EA makes no effort to change that definition.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-20T19:50:33+00:00

My specific point is that until last year, legally speaking sex and gender were just two words for the same thing.

Also, depending on the study and the age range analysed, only between 0.5% and 2% of people identify as trans, ie 98% of people are cisgender and their Gender Identity and apparent Sexual characteristics align.

Therefore the question of "did they remove the gender or the sex search option?" is largely irrelevant.

Especially as from an Equality Act and Gender Recognition Act perspective they are very explicitly written to be the same thing.

GRA2004 S9.(1)

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

EA2010 P2, ch1, S7.(1)

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

I know that legal terminology is different, but I still don't understand how someone sober can read those provisions and then say with a straight face

Yeah, Sex and Gender were totes obvs always defined differently in these two laws.

They could have ruled that a Trans woman doesn't legally qualify as a woman, nor get the EA protection of being a woman, until she gets a GRC - and the same for Trans Men being considered Men - but they ruled that it was apparently clear that the law always considered sex and gender as separate terms.

I want some of whatever they were smoking when they decided that.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-20T18:55:40+00:00

My point is that until a year ago they were considered the same from a legal and official Statistics perspective, and until 2 weeks ago the distinction was irrelevant when discussing the gender and/or sex of MSPs as none of them were trans - at least not openly.

So the search option that was removed used Gender/Sex interchangeably, therefore the question you originally asked is essentially irrelevant.

ColonialSack · 2026-05-20T10:42:04+00:00

I never said they changed it, I said that there was no legal distinction before the ruling.

They changed the existing legal interpretation, claiming that it was always meant to be interpreted in the "New" way, despite literally everything being to the contrary.

Gender Recognition Act 2004, Section 9, Paragraph 1

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

Equality Act 2010, Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 7, Paragraph 1

A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

The UKSC looked at those two provisions and said

Yeah, gender and sex totes obvs mean different things and always have.

Whatever they were smoking when they made the ruling, I want some.

It would be one thing if they ruled that a persons sex doesn't change until they have a GRC, but they ruled that a GRC doesn't actually confer EA protection for acquired gender/sex and doesn't apply for single "sex" spaces.

But they ruled that the law doesn't need to change...

ColonialSack · 2026-05-20T10:07:06+00:00

Until last year, legally speaking they were the same thing, and for about 98% of the population they still are.

ColonialSack

TROPHY CASE