LOL the failure isn’t mine

I think I see what you’ve been trying to communicate now.

as I said – they are saying one thing and doing another.

Well the problem is you didn’t say that. You seemed to assume that readers would understand what you meant without actually saying it:

my main point - that the EHRC is purposely pushing anti-trans advice to government bodies and dubiously using the SC’s verdict as vindication to do so, despite the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything.

Notice that this sentence does not mention anybody “saying one thing and doing another”. The critical part is that with “the SC’s verdict not actually changing anything” you’re presumably referring to what the commissioner said in the article and what you wrote at the start of your first comment but you never made that link explicit.

My assertion that your repetition of what the commissioner said undermined your main point was based on my understanding of what you had written, not on what you had meant but never made explicit.

I know what she said

I’m confused then. Why did you state, at the start of a load of criticism, exactly what the woman in the article stated, without mentioning the fact that you were repeating what she was saying? What was the purpose of putting that at the start of your criticism?

This bill amendment that was submitted, but thankfully didn’t pass

“to summarise, Amendment NC21 to the Data Use and Access Bill would require sex to be defined as “sex at birth” for all identity verification requests.”

From what I can tell, this isn’t about creating a registry of trans people, this is about collecting “sex at birth” alongside other data for any “identity verification requests” which might occur. Also, without looking into it, I would expect any provided data would have to be deleted when it was no longer needed, in line with existing data protection legislation.

• The Cass Report, a review of the science of trans studies the government bases many of its decisions on has been widely criticised by the international community. It was also found they tried to deliberately ban any subject experts from weighing in on the report during its construction.
• The EHRC and other government bodies frequently consult trans hate groups while preventing any trans person from weighing in on decisions about them
• Last year, the UK government banned the use of pubertymight blockers for adolescents, saying there is an unacceptable health risk to them, when in fact the risk is minor at best and witholding them is much more damaging to trans people (high suicide rate, for example).

None of this is about creating a registry of trans people.

I don’t understand how you went from this stuff you’ve linked to, to a registry of trans people. Where did that come from?

Will the government spend money wisely on this project or syphon off millions to corrupt contractors?

I’m confused. Isn’t syphoning off money the whole purpose of a government? Why would they spend money wisely?

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point

I notice you’ve completely failed to address my main point - that the woman in the article said exactly what you said at the start of your comment. (Which undermines your main point.)

I know it wasn’t the head of the EHRC that spoke in this instance

I’m glad to hear that.

And every effort is being made to pass more laws to make things worse, such as making registries of trans people

I’m curious about this, could you possibly provide a source?

The supreme court were very clear that their ruling was not a reduction in trans rights, but a clarification of existing legislation.

That’s exactly what the woman is saying. Did you read the article before commenting?

It’s pretty clear that the EHRC is purposely misrepresenting the SC’s conclusion

This was not the EHCR, this was the EHCR commissioner talking in a personal capacity. (As was made very explicit in the article.)

nonpeople

O_o

deleted by creator

4K/UHD discs need to phone home in order to get decryption keys on a per disc basis

Is that true for hardware players? I’ve only seen people talking about software players like Power DVD having to get keys from the Internet.

4k players

Are you talking about software players or 4k decks?

there is simply too much at stake

OUR MONAYS!1!!!

Why would JP Morgan Chase – or any bank – leaving the UK, be bad?

Asking to reference a lack of ambiguity

I haven’t asked to reference a lack of ambiguity, I’ve asked for a reference to some source showing “the rest of the media and even fararge” see things the way you do, as you claim.

You haven’t provided any reference to back up anything whatsoever you’ve said in this thread.

After I have posted multiple explanations

As I said, your explanations are irrelevant to me. They’re full of holes. From my perspective, you’re not a rigorous thinker. The only thing that will convince me is some other source which clearly shows that the agreement is referring to domestic sales. Without that, all I see is noise.

I ment you are seeing ambiguity that is not there.

I disagree.

The rest of the media and even fararge in another news article last night.

I haven’t seen any of that. Other people haven’t experienced the same things you have. Other people don’t have the same knowledge you do. That’s why it’s on you to back up what you’re saying by showing others what you experienced (read, watched, whatever) so that they can verify that what you’re saying is true. It isn’t on other people to experience their life the way you experience yours and you can’t assume that they do.

They see no abniguity in this meaning

Reference?

And you you did suggest a meaning, when you openly interpreted the article as a good benefit of Brexit.

I initially interpreted the article differently to you but I didn’t make any explicit suggestion of what “dynamic alignment on EU food standards” means. You did and continue to.

So you invested that meaning to make your rather pathetic point about the deal matching some Brexit benefit.

I don’t even understand what you’re claiming here. I haven’t made any point about the deal “matching” some brexit benefit, whatever that means.

I made a very clear pretty close to ELI5 maybe 10.

I’m not asking for you to explain anything. I’m expecting you to back up what you’re saying with references to information elsewhere. This is how rigorous debate and communication works. This is basic stuff. If you can’t back up what you’re saying then don’t bother saying anything, you’re just making noise.

Unless you have some source which clearly states that “dynamic alignment on EU food standards” relates to domestic sales then to me, what you’re saying is just an unverified guess. An opinion. Of no value. Noise.

You are asking for ambiguity

Eh?

You have to be pretty fucking stupid to keep insisting that dose not relate to domestic sales.

I haven’t insisted that.

What the fuck else do you think standards aligned actually means.

I’m not making any claim about what it means, you are. It’s on you to show that what you’re saying is true.

Alignment of UK food standards.

Doesn’t contain the words “domestic sales” and is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Means our own standards must continue to meet the EUs.

I couldn’t find any explanation of what this means, or the text of the agreement. How have you determined that “standards” relate to domestic sales?