1/ @SamFowles, you've written a libellous and legally incoherent attack piece on the gender critical cases in the UK and you should withdraw many of the suggestions you make and correct the public misinformation you've spread here. I'll identify precisely what I mean.
2/ This is a complete misstatement of the law and it's scurrilous for you to suggest any of the cases you list later involved the brave women concerned "attacking" anyone. As a matter of fact the Equality Act protects any belief that passes the Grainger test, not just GC views. 
3/ It is frankly absurd to compare UK law on free speech to the entirely unrelated question of gender recognition in countries that are not the UK. You may wish to read the Lady Chief Justice's recent comments in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division re political speech on this.
4/ This suggestion is unburdened by evidence and is wholly unwarranted. Frankly, how dare you, as Counsel publicly libel decent women like this. Maya, Allison, Rachel, Denis and Professor Phoenix have not publicly attacked anyone. You are lying. This is a lie.
5/ This demonstrates a complete, and I would suggest wilful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the cases. May I remind you in Bailey aggravated damages were ordered. That was no mere "error", that was the ET visiting egregious wrongdoing by an employer with consequences.
6/ Putting aside your disgusting and desperate comparison to anti-Semitism, in this paragraph you descend into ludicrous hyperbole. No piece of case law is affecting anyone's existence, it is frankly ridiculous to see a member of the bar making such a silly overheated claim.
7/ Housing male rapists in the female prison estate is a safety issue. Men in rape crisis centres is a safety and dignity issue. Men in female spaces is a safety issue. Further, I suggest you read @NoXYinXXprisons's research on the prison population.
8/ I notice here you fail to mention Bailey was entirely correct in what she said. The workshop's very title referenced "the cotton ceiling" which is a TRA concept for lesbians who maintain their same sex boundaries. How dare you not mention Allison was telling the truth.
9/ You don't mention here the ET found this comparison to be a wholly unacceptable instance of workplace harassment. Or that it featured in a long list of appalling behaviour by TRA staff. In failing to mention this, you again misinform.
10/ Legally illiterate again. I challenge you please to cite specifically in *any* judgment evidence for this ludicrous claim. I want the paragraph number and direct quote please you say justifies this. You cannot go round misinforming the public on law like this.
11/ Singling Maya out here is mendacious. This was a big issue. It was discussed by many including Emma Barnett on Women's hour. Graham merely pointed out that telling rape victims to "reframe their trauma" was wholly unacceptable. The stock attack is also misleading and silly.
12/ It is frankly ludicrous and misleading for you to frame the competing rights claims here as speech versus life. That is legally incoherent and you are simply inflaming matters for clicks. This is appalling behaviour to see from Counsel.
13/ In light of the above, I call on you to correct this misleading piece and apologise to the people you've named here for your gutter suggestions they have done anything other than bring lawful claims which were properly decided in their favour.
14/ Might I also point out Allison Bailey is another member of the bar and she is not here to defend herself. While you shouldn't be libelling anyone, it is particularly disappointing to see you attack Counsel in the way you have and I ask you to reflect on that.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
