1/ Members of the jury, let us examine, if we may, the homophobia of Jolyon Maugham, the helium voiced man who likes to kill small animals while cross dressing in the shadow of his windmill.
Consider this if you would.
2/ Imagine you are a heterosexual man and father. Let us say you've adopted a position on trans and some gays disagree.
At this juncture you face a fork in the road any grown man might meet with equanimity
It's open to you to say "well, these are women involved in gay rights"
3/ You could think "Bev Jackson was at the original Pride, Kate Harris worked for Stonewall, Malcolm Clarke was a pioneer of gay rights at Glasgow University".
That's open to you. You could think that. You could watch their interviews. You could respect them.
4/ They're hardly given to hyperbole. Bev is always considered and compassionate. Judge for yourself. This is a women who fought for gay rights before this tax lawyer knew they were a thing. Hardly a hate preaching fire brand is she?
5/ What about Kate? Well, again, judge for yourself. You might think you see here a considered and composed senior lesbian in our movement who balances advocacy with deep, deep compassion.
6/ What about the absolute man, Clark. Well, listen to him yourself. Does this sound like a hateful man who should be legally driven from public life? Or does it sound like a veteran gay man who cares about the next generation?
7/ If you need more evidence how about Allison Bailey, I challenge you to find a woman of more gravitas, intellect and decency. Is this the rant of a hate preacher? Or is it a lesbian voice Joylon doesn't want to hear?
8/ Let us be clear. Heterosexuals like Susie Green at Mermaids and Joylon Maugham at the Good Laugh Project believe they should decide what homosexual voices are heard and which are harassed through litigation. It was him and his friend who cooked up this case.
9/ It is his fault Kate Harris was reduced to tears in evidence when the Mermaid's silk said in open court that some lesbians have penises. That is a sight unthinkable for any other minority. But that is his work. He decided to do that. He went after lesbians who say no.
10/ In so doing he is a virulent homophobe who attacks the homosexual right to political assembly and civic advocacy. He is a straight man who thinks he should have the right to say what gay people can think
11/ Us gay people have had enough of the gender abattoirs he supports where young gay people are told they need surgical correction. We have had enough of men like him telling us lesbians have penises and we have to get used to it.
12/ We are tired of his incursion into our minority group and his straight man command that we shut up if we don't agree with him.
No Joylon
That means no
You, in 2022 actively tried to silence gays - that makes you a late stage homophobe
13/ And that with be your political epitaph, you will be up there with Mary Whitehouse and Owen Jones as malign forces who told gays what to do and couldn't accept dissent.
14/ I very much hope you lose your case against the alliance after which your homophobic company should be investigated by the EHRC.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Well look. Here's the thing. There's no such handbook. And for us homosexuals, we are often different to other people and similar to each other. That doesn't mean we should be told or pressured into abandoning the sex we are. Before you leave something. Before you go...
2/ Always consider carefully what you're missing and consider more carefully why you're going. If you've come to the view you're entitled to be called she/her because you're not like other women, or you're leaving because you're different, that's a sort of forced exit.
3/ That recalls the old homophobic slur I used to get, "You're not a real man", in some ways, that's what's happening here, this ideology is denying the truth, that you are a woman, simply because you're different and don't fit in with stereotypes.
I understand this tweet from your account seeks to silence and exclude a lesbian voice from public debate on the basis she advances civic advocacy for same sex attracted persons and women. Your statement is libellous.
2/ As you will be aware, section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 requires an actionable libel to have caused "serious harm" to a claimant, (here Professor Stock). I refer you to paragraph 2 of your statement.
3/ The suggestion Prof. Stock campaigns against trans rights (while ludicrous) meets the threshold of "serious harm" as the sting of the libel suggests victimising a minority. This is quite unwarranted and omits clear evidence of KS debating matters in a civilised fashion.
This fleshy, lumbering, annoying, ever insistent thing which knocks around clumsily yet is capable of heroic feats of grace in sport or art or erudition
This visual thing
2/ This thing which moves on the moment away from threats or to meet them
This thing which is quick to move in all things, anger or reason
This man shaped-body
This is your lens
So when they, the other half of humanity speak
3/ And you listen through your man shaped view of the world and your man shaped body
And you are surprised they menstruate or miscarry in toilets
Or you hear their primal fear of walking home alone
1/ Q: "What's the one thing we're not talking about we should be"
A: "Homophobia, kids do not feel it's ok to be gay...I thought we were getting to a point in society where it was ok to be gay, kid tell us it's not, it's better to be trans"
1:06:35
2/ She could hardly have better credentials, could she she not? Jamie is married to a trans man. She says she is gay. She's previously "identified" as genderqueer. She practiced "gender medicine" for years. She speaks with authority about years of clinical gender practice.
3/ Hardly a screaming terf now? And yet, and yet, all roads leads to Rome, as sure as that is, she is led to quite the same place as I, an avowedly team reality adulty homosexual male who has no traffic at all with any of this gender voodoo which I regard as homophobic
1/ The inversion of language is always a pretty revolting feature of gender but the palpably false "genocide" claim is not just desperate, it's a projection from a force that wanted to existentially destroy women and homosexuals. If there was a "genocide", it was aimed at us.
2/ Homosexuals were summarily redefined by Stonewall as "homogendered". No vote. No referendum. Not so much as a "what do you think". Quite the opposite. Former CEO Ruth Hunt was quite open about the fact she knew we would hate it, but she didn't care.
3/ Consider those words. "It would be difficult", "People would lose". Yes. Well it was difficult for us standing up for the gay children and youth at gender abattoirs while you lot ignored that. "People would lose", yes, well plenty lesbians lost jobs. Gay men lost friends
1/ Oh come now, you're one to talk about obfuscation of language aimed at exclusion. Remember SW summarily redefining homosexuality as "homo-gendered" such that us gay men became a sub class of our own damned protected characteristic. This is a long overdue correction.
2/ The key difference is that this is change in the open, that stands in contrast to the surreptitious and incremental changes you and your unelected political party lobby for, like back when you campaigned to end single sex spaces. You know, like gay bars.
3/ You must at some point face the fact that yes, we do as homosexuals require spaces where there is a single sex boundary. We (in the case of lesbians) should be able to use hookup apps and say "female only", we should not be called "sexual racists" for so doing.