wtffashionshark

Hallo Readers,

Sorry if some of you got an incomplete version this morning. WTF was so engrossed in writing she forgot to change the publication time!

Happy Easter, Happy Passover and the blog will be back on May 2.

Anyway,

Well, this is a mess. According to the UK Supreme Court, a man or a woman who has transitioned to a woman or a man may have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which means that they are now that gender “for all purposes”.  Except that Act itself excludes purposes excluded by other legislation. Including for the purposes of defining a man and a woman under the Equality Act 2010, the Act dealing with discrimination against people with protected characteristics, including the protected characteristic of sex and the protected characteristic of transitioning. And of sexual orientation.  Because “sex” means biological sex, not certificated sex.  So a biological man who is legally a woman with a GRC and a birth certificate saying she is a woman is not entitled to sit on boards with designated spaces for women, or to go into women’s changing rooms or toilets, or be treated in women-only hospital wards or join women-only clubs, including lesbian-only clubs. And nor is a biological man who does not have a GRC. And a a biological woman who is legally a man with a GRC and a birth certificate saying he is a man is not entitled to sit on boards with designated spaces for men, or to go into men’s changing rooms or toilets, or be treated in men-only hospital wards or join men-only clubs, including gay male-only clubs. And nor is a biological woman who does not have a GRC. So trans people are to be treated the same with or without a GRC but not as the man or a woman their GRC says they are. On the other hand, the Supreme Court says that trans people (with or without a GRC) are protected against discrimination because they are trans (another protected characteristic under the Equality Act). And if trans people are discriminated against because they are perceived to be male or female, even if they aren’t, they are protected against that too. So a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she has been less favourably treated because she is perceived to be a woman but is a biological man, even if she has a GRC which says she is legally a woman. And a trans man can claim sex discrimination because he has been less favourably treated because he is perceived to be a man but is a biological woman, even if he has a GRC which says he is legally a man. But a trans woman cannot claim she has been less favourably treated because she is a lesbian by other lesbians who have excluded her from a lesbian-only dating site or club because she is not biologically a woman even if she has a GRC which says she is legally a woman. But she could bring a claim for perceived discrimination because someone at work perceived her to be a lesbian and treated her less favourably. Got it? 

What happens next is unclear except that hospitals are changing the policy of treating patients in terms of how they present rather than  by their biological sex and the Transport Police have announced that now biological males will be searched by other males even if they have a GRC that says they are legally a woman and there needs to be a rethink about people’s dignity. But in the fight for trans rights, other people’s rights have been forgotten. The right of lesbians to associate with other lesbians without being labelled homophobic for not being attracted to men. The right of women to compete in sport against other women, and not those whose biological sex gives them an overwhelming advantage. The right of women to have women-only spaces where they can feel safe, including refuges and counselling centres for rape victims.  Yes, trans people should be protected. But so should those with other protected characteristics. Let us stop throwing names around in this horribly toxic debate and start remembering other people’s rights as well.

***************************************************************************

We start our review of the week’s witless wear with singer Harry Styles wearing vintage Jean Paul Gaultier and polka dot tights by Emilio Cavallini.

For some time now, Harry has been dressing like a total knob and he shows no sign of stopping. This outfit makes him look like a helping of mushy peas on top of a couple of swizzle sticks. What is particularly striking however is the way that his head seems to be superimposed on the outfit, like those figures you get at seaside resorts with the faces cut out, ready for the obligatory holiday snap.

Here we are in New York where we find singer Kesha wandering around New York in a remarkable ensemble.

She is wearing sunglasses in the rain, which is silly, a pair of what appear to be undersized men’s jockey shorts over white spotty tights and a pyjama shirt under a leather jacket. And to aggravate this serious set of charges, she has executed a grizzly bear and and is wearing two of its legs as footwear.

Now we are at Coachella, the ridiculous wank-fest in the California desert where near-naked celebs waft about for the benefit of the cameras while pretending to listen to music. It is as if someone stole half their clothes while they were off frolicking in the pool, leaving them in their swimwear with only a scrap or two of cloth to cover themselves. For example, take actor Taryn Manning (one of the druggies from Orange is the New Black). 

No really, what even is this? An orange thing like a string shopping bag over hideous jeans and a jacket and, for some reason, but who on earth can know what it is, a WW2 parachute harness. Simply frightful.

Now this is actor Colton Haynes, who seems to have spent most of his life in the gym, venturing forth in a cutaway vest exposing his bulging but burnt arms and torso and…. well, scroll down slowly and you will see…..

Yee Haw! Are they chaps? Or has he wrapped his sleeping bag round his legs to ward off the nippy night air? Either way, he looks like a right prat.

Also there was singer Cardi B.

She is in the desert! Why is she wearing a leather jacket and some sort of leather wraparound belt? Why is she wearing a jumpsuit with an abundance of tit that will cause her to run screaming to the pharmacy for a jumbo-pack of Canasten? And why does she have a pair of car-wash brushes on her feet? 

And here is she is again. WTF speaks of actor and bits-flasher Julia Fox wearing something dumb. Mind how you go with this one…..

Another one with the leather jacket and boots. Since when was a gusset appropriate wear for anything, even at Coachella? And why is she wearing a corset-cum-truss? But the worst is yet to come as she brings up the rear – literally – of this week’s nonsense.

One is so hardened to arse cheeks that they usually hardly trouble the scorer, but these ones have a thing hanging down from them like a piglet’s tail, which is frankly disturbing.

This week’s It’s Got To Go comes from WTF aficionado WTF from Islington who just cannot stand the new colour of President 47’s  face. I mean, WHAT???????  He used to be tangerine, then veered off towards rancid kumquat before embracing shit brown. But he has now literally gone more orange than an orange. First, look at him without makeup on the golf course….

For such a big hulk of a man, he looks curiously feminine, like a elderly headmistress in a MAGA cap. But now look at him in this week’s meeting with President Bukele of El Salvador in the Oval Office.

Sorry. No one has a face that colour. Absolutely no-one. Even an oompah-loompah would sneer at it. It’s Got to Go.

OK Readers, that’s your lot for this week. Please keep sending in your top suggestions for It’s Got to Go as well as your comments, which WTF much enjoys. You can follow me on @wtffashionshark.bsky.social. Let us meet again on Friday May 2. Be good x