Rachael Padman (she/her) 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈 🇬🇧 🇦🇺

Actually, now I think about it, the black stuff is probably absorber. You are not letting us see the circuit underneath, which would give it away. Some combination of directional couplers to give sum and difference, or in-phase and quadrature components.

(Going to be really wrong!)

They look like SMA connectors, guessing 3 ports in and 3 ports out, probably designed to be used at cryogenic temperatures.

And I guess the black material is ferrite.

But now I'm stuck. If just 3 ports, I'd say a circulator. I don't recall anything quite like this from when I used to do this...

I should have looked more closely...
But yes, you're right, they don't mean it. Or that Downing St Pride Party could never have happened that way.

Now consider the US, where servers are allowed a conscientious objection for not serving alcohol to a person they *think* is pregnant.

No one there would regard that as the least bit socialist.

Would have been more persuasive (of the target audience) if they had said of "trans and gender non-conforming -- i..e those who might present in non-stereotypical ways -- people"

I think we need to run with that "know far more about the topic than he does" quote. Anyone want to mock up yet another meme, like the old one for Helen Joyce, and post-Peggie one for Forstater?

I have known several fathers who thought that was an "at worst". 😊

But seriously, yes, the TERFs have an amazingly gendered set of expectations. Quite what the "F" in that acroynm represents, baffles me

"should"? According to whom?
Morally, they should keep on doing what they've been doing.
As far as I can see, legally, ditto.
According to Falkner, Reindorf et al: yours is the only possible interpretation.

Are they allied to the LGBA I wonder?
I am deeply suspicious, ab initio, of any organisation that presumes to speak for trans people, but doesn't dare include a T in its name.

Today in “Dudes Rock”:

A dude playing Dire Straits’s “Sultans of Swing” guitar solo on…a recorder.

I'm guessing not a few dads have taken daughters into the ladies, as the lesser evil, too. And not been stopped or questioned.

Could we persuade people that Bronwyn has been overlooked?

Oh let them rage and let them ring,
For I am out of everything
Alone amongst the clouds....

Seriously: if it makes them happy and distracts them from looking for real legal issues, so much the better.

This is a very unusual example (now it has been edited) of a headline which is NOT a QTWTAIN.

Or of a QTWTAIY I suppose.

Oooo Kaaay.
I see where you're coming from, as they say. I'm just thinking which of the various E/H/R/C anagrams might actually have a power equivalent to the "notwithstanding". I guess what you are saying is it'd have to be written into the Convention itself.

Fortunately, it isn't. Yet.

Carrion don't care...
Red Kites used to be very common in London, and served a valuable social function.

Quite hard to decide whether it's that or chainsaws (a lot of both where I live). But in both cases, electric seems a lot better.

(EHRC I *think* you mean)

IME, the cats think it's breakfast time pretty well all the time after midnight. If you get up early -- yep, breakfast. Get up on time? Where Have You Been? Want to get up late? Let's go wake her up and make her life unbearable until she feeds us....

But those typos are clearly NOT a legal reason to overturn the judgment at appeal.

If it makes them happy to think they are, then more fool them. They will have to make a much better case than that.

I am not a lawyer...
But what's notable is that they are turning that one misattributed quote into a reason for the whole judgment to fall. Isn't it entirely normal for a judgment of this length to need corrections? There is even a formal process for recording them.

Well, if it makes them happy..

-- best way to resolve that, or whether it even needs to be in the EA at all.

You have me something else to ponder.

I agree completely that vegetarianism needs to be protected somehow. But to my mind, there is, or should be, no difference between "won't eat meat" and "can't eat wheat". A vegetartian who just doesn't want to eat meat should be as protected as one who believes it's wrong.

Not sure of the --

Someone else pointed it out a few days back... But things disappear so fast it's hard to give credit!

I don't suppose it will help if I say I did that nearly every day during Term for 25 years or so. Then I hit the compulsory retirement age, and now only do it to catch planes.

But *not* recommending rushing to retirement any faster than the usual rate of one year per year....

I recall discussion of Great Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Pastafarianism....

But IIRC it was mainly to allow ministers not to officiate at gay blessings or whatever....

The BBC style guide, under "g" for "gender" details how to report on trans people. I quote: "Transgender, or trans, is an umbrella term for a person whose gender identity differs from their sex recorded at birth. A person born male who lives as a female, would typically be described as a “transgender woman” and would take the pronoun “she”. And vice versa. We generally use the term and pronoun preferred by the person in question, unless there are editorial reasons not to do so. If that’s unknown – apply that which fits with the way the person lives publicly. If reporting on someone who is making their transition public, it may be appropriate to refer to their previous identity to help audience understanding. It may also be appropriate to refer to a transition to make sense of some stories. We should not include “intersex” or people with differences of sexual development as part of this group." For the last few months, you consistently avoid this usage. Instead of "trans[gender] woman" you say, sometimes several times in one article "a biological male who identifies as a woman". This is deeply offensive. It is apparently a response to April's Supreme Court ruling, but is not required by the ruling in any way. Your readers will not be confused by "trans woman". There are 250,000 trans and non-binary people over 16 in the UK who have answered the optional census question to say so, and probably many more in fact. Many of us are licence payers. Your consistent use of the "biological" terminology is harassment of those you are supposed to serve.

I have submitted a general complaint about the BBC's relentless dehumanising biological-ising of trans people

I think it is the first time I have ever seen anyone other than an HR lawyer draw the clear distinction between the Protected Characteristics and (non-existent) protected groups. I have tried and failed on many occasions to get it across.

Such a shame she is such a piece of work!

Trans people, same playbook....
They want the 1950s back.