Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Boiler wrote: ↑Sat Dec 06, 2025 2:44 pm Was that deliberate?

Ha ha, well spotted. I've rephrased.

No, the bit I spotted was "You don't drive down a one-way street in the same direction".

Surely that should be "the opposite direction"??

Ah, sorry, I thought you were objecting to me talking about Falkner "going hard". Apologies for interpreting you at my level.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:01 am He's got a point that some people have gone mad after becoming very gender critical, like Sharon Davies. I don't know if that's true of Hadley Freeman.

Well she’s now decided ADHD is made up, so disappointingly seems to be going full Hitchens minor.

Doesn't change that what Maugham said was sexist. According to Maugham, Freeman should have stuck to writing about warm, fluffy things and not trans stuff or writing a book about anorexia.

I didn’t say that it did. But as Tubby said, he had a point. One that seems increasingly valid re: Freeman. She didn’t deserve to be patronised, but people with ADHD certainly don’t either.

That isn't a sign she's gone mad.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 1:27 am That isn't a sign she's gone mad.

Ok, agreed she’s not mad in the literal “has gone insane” sense. She’s just decided writing ragebait horseshit for right-wing rags for coins is a winner.

Personally I think being labelled as mad might be preferable.

Not to people who have genuine mental health concerns...

Malcolm Armsteen wrote: ↑Mon Dec 08, 2025 10:28 am Not to people who have genuine mental health concerns...

Fair point. Apologies.

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 7:50 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:01 am He's got a point that some people have gone mad after becoming very gender critical, like Sharon Davies. I don't know if that's true of Hadley Freeman.

Well she’s now decided ADHD is made up, so disappointingly seems to be going full Hitchens minor.

Streeting is preparing as party-leader in waiting.

How long must he wait for Kemi to step down?

Crabcakes wrote: ↑Sun Dec 07, 2025 7:50 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Nov 25, 2025 10:01 am He's got a point that some people have gone mad after becoming very gender critical, like Sharon Davies. I don't know if that's true of Hadley Freeman.

Well she’s now decided ADHD is made up, so disappointingly seems to be going full Hitchens minor.

Freeman's article sounds dire. I have no intention of going behind the paywall on the off chance that it's not dire. I think she fits the pattern, as you say.

But I will defend the review, in principle. I don't think Streeting should be leader, nor perhaps health secretary, but there is a group for whom he's a hate figure. I think many genuinely think he banned puberty blockers without any expert advice. (Whether that advice was right or wrong, I can't say, but I think it's clear that the medical establishment aren't particularly keen).

We're already on to "Streeting targets benefit cuts" headlines, when MIND among others have welcomed the review.

I think it’s the timing. As you say, a review in principle is fine. A review in our current times, where every group of miserable shits who has ever fancied turning the clock back on progressive policies feels emboldened, carries more risk of being skewed by the same.

Why though? The review isn't being carried out, as far as we know, by those people.

Various people, some lawyers, here talking about the WI decision. If I've understood it correctly, what the WI probably fear is being sued by men, rather than women, who might argue that they have to be allowed to join because trans women are allowed to join. Whether they'd win or not is a different question.

https://bsky.app/profile/legalclaret.bs ... 3tfyidlc2s

A case brought by Sex Matters v the Corporation of London for (continuing) trans inclusive policies in single sex ponds. The Corporation argue that they're acting in accordance with the previous legal advice until new legal advice comes in (due in March). I hope the judge tells Sex Matters they can wait for that.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... tead-heath

Isn't the original judgement that bodies can discriminate, not that they must?

That is certainly one perfectly plausible interpretation of the ruling. It is, however, not the interpretation the (now delayed) draft legislation seemed to land on, and is obviously not the one sex matters are trying to demand everyone adopt.