Профиль

The TFP Decepticons are so silly #Transformers #Maccadams #TFP #FanArt #Art #Maccadam

Looks like a double fusion cannon with a scope he can't possibly ever use

I'm gonna draw another Megatron in an evening gown... I may need to draw all the Megatrons in gowns and dresses now

Wait whut

A few people are very very upset that Star Trek has alluded to Doctor Who in SNW. Star Trek is a very serious franchise that should not have crossovers & should not have fun. Except for all the times it did.

My tribute to the awesome and hilarious G1 Megatron skin from the 2007 Transformers: The Game! This was such a fun extra unlockable, as well as being a totally unique design only seen in the game, and it deserves fan art. [More context below... 🧵] #maccadams #Transformers #FanArt #Art

Back in 2007, like so many other big blockbusters at the time, the first Bayverse Transformers movie got a videogame adaptation. And personally, I REALLY liked it! One of the best things about it was the unlockable G1 skins for Megatron, Optimus and others!

I will feely admit I'm not a fan of Enterprise seasons 1-2, but this is absolutely a highlight. Mike Sussman did a really good job. Suddenly the characters are a lot more competent and likeable compared with the norm, which is really appreciated.

I know, right? It's so gross

Of course the dropping of the big "N" is gross (probably not written with spite, it was the 60s, but dated horribly), but the leering gross horny tone is just off-putting.

This is... this is HORRIBLE. This might be the single worst and grossest written review of anything I've ever read. Good LORD. If this guy was born in a different generation, he'd have been an incel in the stickiest subreddits imaginable. I hate it so much. (Review of Trek from 1967, Shore Leave)

The offering of services exclusively on the basis of biological sex is indirectly discriminatory against trans people (people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment). This is only justifiable where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Summary: A women's single-sex service is required in law to exclude trans women. It may also be possible for it to exclude trans men. The Code of Practice suggests that in certain circumstances it may be indirectly discriminatory against women not to offer single/separate sex services/facilities.

Single/separate sex services can also exclude trans people of the matching "biological sex". Only where a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. So trans men can be excluded from a women's service. This is unlikely to be proportionate if no other service for those men to use.

You can only have a single-sex service where it can be shown to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. You do not have to show that excluding trans people specifically is proportionate, just all people of one "biological sex" (ie all "biological" males from a service for women).

What is a single or separate sex space/service? A service which relies on the relevant exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 under Schedule 3. In law, to rely on these exceptions you have to operate on the basis of "biological sex" – ie must exclude trans women from women's single-sex services.

A short thread explaining trans exclusion in the law, and the Code of Practice, in response to a load of questions 🧵 Obviously this is necessarily simplified. I cannot write a legal textbook on Bluesky.

AAH! THEY MOVED IT SLIGHTLY FORWARD!! RIOT! RIOOOOOOT!!! /j

... ...wut

🏳️‍🌈❓️