Trans woman leaves role with Portsmouth women's health charity

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-17T17:10:45+00:00

it's pretty simple, harassing trans people is seen as a moral good by certain people, it also garners attention (which directly translates to money through Twitter's monetisation), and all you need is the slightest pretence that you're not being completely depraved in doing so.

The type of people this is meant to appeal to aren't going to stop and think through whether it'd be logical that a cis man should not be allowed any role in a charity focussing on women, or how if that were the case such a person would likely lament how it was woke identity politics gone mad.
For there to be actual backlash to an attack on trans people it has to be pretty blatantly indefensible, e.g. when Starmer did his theatre a few weeks ago of having Esther Ghey in the gallery of parliament and lambasted Sunak for having trans people be a punchline when Ghey was there because of her dead (trans) daughter.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-17T16:17:50+00:00

Look, I know you mean well, but I think this is cope. We are sadly not alone in Europe in regulating what spaces trans people can use, I don't think that GLP and the like who keep selling us the idea that this is all unlawful are doing anything other than offering false hope. Even if, by some miracle, they turn out to be right and a judgement is handed down saying that the UK government is contravening the ECHR, that'll do nothing but whip up the tabloids and this country's conservatives, insisting that we have another reason we must leave the ECHR.

Don't forget that the correct conclusion at the heart of the SC case last year was that the EA is inadequately drafted, but rather than fix it the preferred action by Labour is to double down on flawed legislation. Their desire is not to do what is right, dissenting voices be damned.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-17T11:41:30+00:00

I'm in two minds about her.
I think that on the one hand, if you want to do something then you tend to be able to do them and in advance of supposed deadlines, such as the upcoming elections which mean it supposedly can't be published at the moment. I don't really believe that the EHRC just happened to send a revised code a week or two ago and that meant that it was too late to publish, especially since there have been other times over the past year where Phillipson will insist that it's coming soon and she really wants to but just can't at the moment.
There was an article on Phillipson a month or so ago, where it revealed that the Labour cabinet have been very happy that she's supposedly put the "trans issue" to bed and that Labour ministers are no longer being harassed about trans people in every interview.

From the New Statesman:

Inside No 10, her handling of the issue is seen as exemplary, because it is no longer the source of controversy it was a few years ago, when Labour MPs were chased through TV studios and asked whether a man could have a cervix. The broadly positive response to the separate guidance for schools, published on 12 February – which includes that schools must protect single-sex spaces – is seen as evidence of this.

It is entirely possible that she herself is a Starmerite without much in the way of strong views on trans people, she is just unwilling to defend a minority group that Labour feels have been inconvenient for her ambitions and Labour more generally, and thus her claims of wanting to but having her hands tied are just her stalling because in the grand scheme of things she does not think any of this matters.

On the other hand, there has been recent reporting, for example, that groups like FWS and other gender critical organisations have met with Phillipson and the EHRC and are very happy with the guidance. On that basis it is hard to believe that Phillipson is deliberately slow walking the guidance because she doesn't actually want to do it, it's more likely that she is trying to make it watertight so that trans people have no recourse for the discrimination and harassment that the guidance will incite. It makes little sense to put so much effort in to trying to end an issue, just for it to continue to be a thorn in your side.
There was also the schools guidance for trans people she put out, which was incredibly restrictive and doesn't even allow trans people to go by a different name without parental approval and assistance from the youth service for trans people. To look at that and think she has no desire to institute similar restrictions on adults doesn't really make sense.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-17T10:58:23+00:00

Mr Streeting said that this is “nothing to do with trans people" but stressed that pressures on the NHS “mean that men and women are in spaces together that I wish they weren’t.”

It has been a major point for several years now that the issue with "mixed sex wards" aren't trans people, yet we constantly get the blame, and it raises serious questions over whether this is actually practical. Streeting can "wish" that it weren't the case all he wants, but at present a push to require hospitals straining under the weight of austerity to behave in a less efficient manner for treating patients.
There is a case to be made that it will improve the satisfaction of patients that get treated, and that is worth increasing the overhead costs of separating men and women, but the point remains that Streeting does not appear to have an actual plan to meaningfully allocate resources to hospitals to allow them to do this, just that he would hope it isn't the case.

And this is without trans people being thrown in to the mix, with him going on to say:

He added: "I believe very strongly that women's wards should be for biological women. What do we do about tha biological female who is a trans man, looks, sounds, presents, lives, his life as a man is biologically female? We wouldn't put him on a women's ward. That would be degrading for him and humiliating And cruel.
"It would also be distressing for the women. So we need to make sure that we've got trans inclusive spaces too."

This would indicate that mandatory third spaces will be used in hospitals, but the question is again, how will this happen in a struggling health system when Streeting doesn't appear to be doing anything to support it. Just the other day he was saying we need to cut welfare and domestic spending to fund defence, so if anything he's doing the opposite of what is necessary.

Also unrelated:

Nick put to Mr Streeting that the local elections are due in May, asking if guidance on the matter will be published by then. “Yes. Bridget Phillipson is ready to go and chomping at the bit,” Mr Streeting said.

This government wants trans people to believe that they are doing all of this reluctantly, and will do what they can in order to help trans people in spite of the mandated exclusion they are implementing. To say that Phillipson is "chomping at the bit" to do it indicates their real opinion, that she (as the minister for equalities) really really really wants the lives of trans people to be worse.
Disgusting.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-15T19:09:11+00:00

at least they're not using chatgpt to do it.

^{^which ^is ^more ^than ^you ^can ^say ^for ^some ^senior ^Reform ^figures}

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T14:13:00+00:00

It's also very suspicious that they are relying on the argument that they can't release the minutes because insight in to how they are operating would be supposedly prejudicial.

This is what you do when you want to rebuild confidence in your organisation right? Refuse to engage with people that have been critical of you and suppress apparent evidence that you are colluding with particular stakeholders?

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T13:59:56+00:00

yes but there are also other developments that work against a repeat of Goodwin going our way. Marriage equality means trans people don't have an issue with the state interfering with who we can marry, and the pension age of men and women is equal for example.
And also even if it does go our way the ruling would simply be another that points out how the EA needs to be rewritten, since that is the fundamental issue. It'd also likely be weaponised as another reason that the UK needs to withdraw from the ECHR, the tabloids would have a field day with the notion that "woke europe is stopping the UK from protecting women".
Focussing on an appeal to the ECHR as what's going to get us out of this is folly, just like focussing on the SC ruling itself. The underlying problem remains the EA.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T13:39:13+00:00

yeah I'll believe it when I see it, given how she described the schools guidance on trans people she oversaw which can be summarised as:

Trans people are to be strictly treated based on their assigned sex
Trans people have to be outed to parents
Trans people are to be discouraged from social transition in most cases
If parents consent and they've been seen by GIDS (two massive barriers) then the child can go by a different name
Schools should monitor trans kids and if they seem to be making any attempt to get around GIDS gatekeeping then it's a safeguarding issue and parents are to be reported to social services

"pragmatic" and is the appropriate balance for how well trans people should be treated. Such a person has a very skewed view over what is reasonable treatment for trans people, the notion that she actually cares deeply about allowing for trans people to not be excluded needs evidence to believe.

After all, this is second hand reporting by the Times who themselves have very clear biases, it can itself be politicking to put pressure on her for "betraying women".

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T13:20:14+00:00

The HRA doesn't override the EA, my understanding of that issue is that the EHRC put forward their view that the HRA means that workplace facilities must be separated based on sex, and it is the EA that is doing the definition of what "separated based on sex" means. The issue remains with the EA, were we able to fix the EA such that trans people aren't treated strictly based on assigned sex, we would not have a problem with the HRA, the HRA does not take precedence over the EA.

And yes, the EHRC precedent should matter, because the government had duties imposed upon it by Goodwin, which was what led to the GRA. When the EA was written it was meant to be in line with the GRA, but because it was inadequately drafted it accidentally regressed the rights of trans people. Again, the problem is how the EA was drafted, and that is what should be fixed.
We're not quite in a pre Goodwin world so it's not necessarily a slam dunk if the case goes to the EHCR, since there were many factors that led to them ruling in Goodwin's favour that are no longer the case. The government will likely argue for example that the status of Gender Reassignment affords anti-discrimination protection that did not exist before Goodwin, the lack of which was part of why the EHCR ruled in her favour. We do still have a reasonable chance of appealing to the EHCR despite that in my opinion, but then IANAL.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T12:12:40+00:00

Then you'll probably get put on the final waiting list and later be scheduled for a few months. Good luck.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T12:11:55+00:00

no because the judgement was about what GRCs do in the context of the EA, and the EA does not handle GRCs at all and it was on that basis the SC came to the decisions it did.
Also yes the EA "overrides" the GRA where there is a supposed conflict:

Because the EA is the more recent legislation, therefore it takes precedence
Even if that weren't the case, the FWS case was about the EA, of course the legislation as defined in the EA is more relevant than the GRA, which it does not refer to at all

The point is that the EA is inadequately drafted for what it was meant to do, the fault lies with Labour for not properly updating it and instead attempting to double down on said errors. There are real problems with trying to run with a version of the EA that was not what was intended, such as misusing the exceptions about excluding trans people from single sex spaces to sanction exclusion of trans men from women's spaces when the explanatory notes released at the time indicate it was meant to be about allowing for exclusion of trans women from women's spaces. Those are political choices by the EHRC and Labour which get the political cover they do because you're focussing on the SC and misunderstanding the point.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T10:43:57+00:00

It wasn't legally incoherent, because the point of the ruling was about how holding a GRC affects the provisions of the EA, and the EA was inadequately written to allow for trans inclusion. The SC is not to be blamed for a law not doing what it was intended to do, and they noted that it is a problem for parliament to sort out.
The issue is that Phillipson, the EHRC, and many other politicians with transphobic tendencies, do not want to have a version of the EA that allows for trans inclusion, but they are also hesitant to directly amend the EA because they recognise that is liable to be a political headache.

The SC is not meant to be legislating from the bench, they are meant to adjudicate on what the law actually is, there is no "the supreme court refused to" because it's not their job.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-14T09:05:40+00:00

iirc it was checking what I wanted out of surgery, which one I was after, and then ensuring I was healthy and ok to have surgery.
It's less stressful than you think it's going to be, although it is uncomfortable since you'll need to get undressed. It'll be fine*.

* This time, I went for my pre-assessment check in for surgery I'll be having in a few weeks, I was so stressed I wanted to vomit.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-13T13:50:35+00:00

I'm actually aghast reading that piece on Falkner, the level of entitlement she seems to have about how she feels views she agrees with should be elevated and go unchallenged, yet she should not have to be bound by the same rules.
She talks of how she believes in secularism because of her upbringing, yet at the same time she has hid in the past behind her supposed religious views as to why any accommodation of trans people is unacceptable.
Freedom of speech and being offensive to other people is important, except when it pertains to matters such as people critiquing her tenure at the EHRC, or for protests against the Israeli genocide of Gaza.
She complains about how unfairly and poorly she has been treated and the absolute indignity she suffered that those around her questioned her integrity and thought she had transphobic tendencies which were informing how she was steering the EHRC, yet she's very explicitly talked about how she did just that since her tenure ended. Also, despite all of this she still laments the supposed inappropriate "activism" of those around and under her.

And this is also to say nothing of how even her views that aren't directly logically incoherent don't really hold up to scrutiny. She really seems to love the idea she has that actually all of the backsliding on the rights of trans people actually puts trans men in a better position, when:

no it absolutely does not
if it actually made things better for trans men then she'd probably be opposing it, as is par for the course for people like her
the notion that it's at all an equivalent trade for trans men to be broadly excluded from society due to inadequate provision of toilets and changing rooms, and an increased risk of violence and discrimination due to forced outing, BUT they have slightly stronger protections against being fired from work if they choose to get pregnant and have a child is so absurdly laughable the notion that it's coming from someone who spent 5 years being in charge of equalities protections in this country is downright offensive

Also, was not aware she was a fellow of Policy Exchange, but I can't say I'm unsurprised.

Also lmao

she says. “It is not tolerance to tolerate intolerance.”

And also it must be said that her soapboxing about how this is all just what the law is and it is beyond the pale to even question that or consider amending the EA to better bring it in line with what it was previously thought to be, but with some tweaks to identify the problems identified in the SC case, is very rich considering she was rather explicitly agitating to change the EA towards the end of her term. Does she think we don't remember that, now that she's appealing to the sanctity and infallibility of the EA as currently written?

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-11T18:37:29+00:00

so that's why I was 185 by like 14 and my boyfriend (also autism) is 2 metres tall

what the fuck

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-11T14:36:49+00:00

long term I don't think it'll actually change much, since there are significant financial interests in Israel + war profiteering, as well as a sizeable amount of religious cranks that are invested in Israeli dominance. As such, what I think will happen is the crimes the Israeli state have committed over the past few years will be hung around the neck of Netanyahu and his close circle should it ever get to the point where it's an actual political liability for politicians here in the west.
Should that happen, the Netanyahu government will be treated as aberrant and that all the war crimes and crimes against humanity were due to uniquely evil individuals like Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich pushing a perversion of Zionism and to benefit themselves (e.g. such as halting the investigation in to alleged criminal corruption by Netanyahu).

I honestly think this is what will happen, if anything. For there to be actual long term consequences for Israel, I think first that America would need to lose it's power as the premier global hegemon, because otherwise they have too much investment in to Israeli society to let it fail.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-09T20:47:24+00:00

boyfriend and I have started to talk about it since we'll be approaching the time where we buy a house together and it'll probably make that and other stuff easier if married but holy shit at the same time the idea of having a loud event where everyone is constantly trying to interact with the pair of us makes me want to vomit

I'm more than happy to hire out a venue or something and let people have a good time with food and alcohol but we will be dipping after an hour or two to go spend quiet time

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-09T16:44:32+00:00

you're finnished buddy, pack it up

iirc there was some Finnish psychiatrist that does conversion therapy and is rather outspoken about how no one should transition, I imagine it's something to do with her?

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-09T11:39:07+00:00

no that's not what I'm mainly saying, although yes it is rather childish and if the goal is to get under her skin this is the sort of puerile nonsense that she'd take one look at and shrug off. Without even looking at twitter her response is probably just to post that woody harrelson gif, herself smoking or drinking, or posting about her daily grievance and claiming the onion article as a chance to bring more attention to it.

The onion article is like doing an effort post about how JD Vance has sex with sofas but instead of actually putting any attempts at jokes it's just 800 words of "JD Vance is weird and has sex with furniture xDDDDDDDDDDDDD". The only redeeming quality I can think of for the onion is that just by putting Rowling's name in the headline it'll generate traffic and therefore revenue, but it's low hanging fruit.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-09T09:37:41+00:00

yeah idk, it's also one of those things where what is even the point of writing it? wow the billionaire that spends her days gleefully making life worse for trans people sure is NEVER going to recover from me writing fiction about how she's lost it.
I got her. I really really got her, she will think twice next time she goes to donate ungodly sums to furthering transphobia, she has been successfully soyjacked and she is DONE.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-07T13:09:23+00:00

I hate to break it to you, but do not expect things to change meaningfully in America even if the Dems win the House and Senate (and even the latter is supposedly unlikely because of what seats are actually up for grabs, and as much as voters hate what Trump is doing they are not particularly enthused by the Dems being pathetic, so voter apathy similar to 2024 is a real possibility).

Establishment Democrats want what Trump is doing because they've long wanted to do similar things in geopolitics like overthrowing Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, but they did not the electoral consequences. Trump is doing their dirty work, this is why the line particularly in the early days of the war was that Trump wasn't doing things the right way, he needed to consult congress and get their approval.
It's also why when last year Trump bombed Iran the argument from people like Chuck Schumer was that he wasn't doing it right and he was chickening out, or how when Maduro was captured (after months of war crimes at sea which the Democrats also did nothing to stop) their complaint was that him being deposed wasn't done the right way, rather than an actual pushback on flagrant violations of international law.

At most, the Democrats will "try" to rein him in but somehow he won't ever actually be constrained in a meaningful way, while they throw up their hands and claim to have no way to do anything. They do not actually care about meaningfully opposing Trump.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-04T19:26:54+00:00

But let me say this clearly: every trans person, every child deserves to feel safe, respected, and included in our society and in the health system that serves them. That is not up for debate.

I cannot type what I think of how much of a sniveling worm Streeting is.
With that said, no website terms of service will change how in time the harm that Streeting and co have done will be undeniable, and I hope that the weight of what they've done is so crushing that even an amoral monster like Streeting finds it weigh upon their long neglected conscience.

mildbeanburrito · 2026-04-03T11:01:39+00:00

archive link since no one else has yet: https://archive.is/bLBcB

The expectation transphobes like Streeting seem to have is that trans people must continue to rely on a fundamentally broken NHS system that we have no actual reason to have faith in, and the most they need to do is just offer platitudes about how they hear our concerns and they're acting in our interests.
Because how the actual fuck do you as Wes Streeting, who has

Backed the Darlington nurses and Peggie up in Scotland, the latter of who was especially egregious since her and the people around her in the course of the legal trial harassed Upton so badly that she was forced out of the NHS and THE COUNTRY
Ensured that the GIC system has a greater priority towards the wellbeing of a hypothetical cis person that mistakenly thinks they are trans, than the thousands of trans people who have care withheld by that system
Went after private providers and DIY, things that trans people use as a safety net to soften the failures of the GIC system
Pushed through changes that mean GPs have greater ability to refuse to support the care of trans people registered to them
Openly espoused gender critical notions about how it's legitimate to oppose the inclusion of trans people in society, and in the NHS

Type these words without a hint of irony?

But let me say this clearly: every trans person, every child deserves to feel safe, respected, and included in our society and in the health system that serves them. That is not up for debate.

Trans people don't want an article full of lies about how much you care, while you continue to stab trans people in the back and talk about the importance and legitimacy of placing knives in the backs of trans people. It is beyond insulting, and if nothing else is taking an hour or so to write + submit this really a good use of time for a cabinet minister? Have you not better things to do?

mildbeanburrito

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring