Taking such arrant nonsense seriously

Written by

October 19, 2026

Much as I dislike agreeing with Conservative Anythings, they’re not wrong on this one.

(Anyway, as I keep pointing out, with more or less exasperation depending on circumstances, there’s always some overlap – some agreement with the Other Team and/or disagreement with Our Team.)

Part of the new @HMRCgovuk guidance: "Supporting trans and non-binary colleagues." It's despicable & ridiculous that our Civil Service is taking such arrant nonsense seriously. If we can't back out of this, the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment must be removed from… pic.twitter.com/keCu4KMEG6
— Conservatives for Women (@CforWomenUK) October 19, 2026

It always strikes me as more ridiculous than despicable, because I never can see how adults can persuade themselves to talk such silly gibberish. Why do managers of grown-up institutions like the Civil Service feel it necessary to blather about idennniny and genner expression and all the rest of it?

Comments

5 responses to “Taking such arrant nonsense seriously”

guest

Oct 19, 2026 12:40 PM

Even according to this definition everyone is non-binary.
Mike B

Oct 19, 2026 3:06 PM

My mother told me recently that a neighbor came over to show her photographs of her daughter’s . . . err, son’s . . . wedding. The son is a FTM (as the lingo has it), status of genitals unspecified, but Mom seems to think sshh–he has a vagina, because the service was a “pagan” service that include a “fertility ritual.” Why would they need fertility if sh–he had organs removed? Oh–I should mention, s/he married a man, full-out man, no fudging . . . but he’s a GAY man, Mom tells me. Mother wisely confided in me that she couldn’t understand why the gay man didn’t just marry a full-out woman if he’s that interested in reproduction.

They are now a married gay male couple. Supposedly. I’m fucking confused.

There’s something perverse about a gay man marrying a woman who poses as a man, to put it bluntly.
Freemage

Oct 19, 2026 3:15 PM

guest: This is my ongoing complaint about non-binarism. Every definition or explanation I’ve ever heard is either 100% applicable to every other human being on the planet, OR is utterly self-referential, boiling down to, “I’m non-binary because I say I am,” which is not particularly useful as a guideline on what it actually means.
Ophelia Benson

Oct 19, 2026 4:16 PM

Mike B, that is indeed extremely confusing.
guest

Oct 19, 2026 11:52 PM

Mike B, from what I hear it’s far more likely that the neighbour’s daughter married a straight/bisexual man who’s happy to humour his partner.