Yesterday and today I gave some longer interviews to several news organisations live from the Supreme Court in Westminster, and then from their studios, about the historic Supreme Court judgment in the case of @ForWomenScot - a thread. 1/6
First, the Daily T podcast, with @CamillaTominey and @kamalahmednews - Julie Bindel @bindelj and Emma Hartley @hartleythinking were also interviewed 2/6
Then around the corner to the @spectator offices, where Michael Foran @mforan and I did a joint interview with Lucy Dunn 3/6
Then I schlepped over to London Bridge for The Story podcast - a lean-back listen that gave me a chance to slow down and reflect on an amazing news moment that's been a long time in the making (audio-only link) 4/6 shows.acast.com/storiesofourti…
Just because I feel like it, I'm popping the excellent piece in the @thetimes which has some great quotes and photos of a historic day, including me and @MForstater - believe it or not, we didn't set out yesterday morning to match our outfits! 5/6 thetimes.com/uk/society/art…
And then, this morning I talked to @FraserMyers of Spiked from the comfort of my own home. My goodness, the bags under my eyes! Oh well - I still enjoyed it, and I hope it was still coherent! 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since the amazing, wonderful judgment this morning, I and my colleagues have been running around, giving interviews, talking to journalists who have FINALLY woken up to the fact that the law has been misrepresented and misunderstood for years. 1/6 spectator.co.uk/article/suprem…
We haven't had a moment to breathe. And I still can't quite believe it - this judgment couldn't be a more resounding endorsement of the arguments we and other women have been consistently making, that you cannot protect everyone's human rights... 2/6 telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/1…
...if you pretend in anti-discrimination law that humans can change sex. That pretence harms women's rights, and especially lesbians' rights. The Supreme Court came to the right decision - the one that makes the law clear and simple to apply... 3/6 sex-matters.org/posts/updates/…
When I heard that a researcher for John Oliver had been emailing campaigners for women's rights to ask biased questions about trans-identifying men in women's sports, I thought the researcher (a trans-identifying man) simply HAD to be freelancing. 1/3
It was beyond belief that Oliver would seriously spend time on yet another idiotic defence of men cheating (only a few, most oppressed minority, women should just be kind) IN THE WEEK THAT TRUMP DECIDED TO DESTROY THE WORLD ECONOMY, AMERICA FIRST. 2/3
I guess I still underestimate just how much some men hate & despise women, & how many women will clap along because they despise women too, or simply in order to suck up to men. A mistake I'll no doubt make again. Anyway, my contempt for Oliver has increased even further 3/3
I've seen scepticism about whether OLF really tried hard to find someone to debate me. Believe me - they tried. One of those invited, Constantine Sandis, said he wouldn't share a platform with me, and was instead given a separate event - it's tomorrow 1/9 oxfordliteraryfestival.org/literature-eve…
In the same venue, the Sheldonian. He's sharing that platform with Sophie Grace Chappell. I hope their moderator provides some pushback. But I'll note that the moderator is, like both panellists, a man, so this is a manel talking about a subject that largely affects women 2/9
In discussion about the event with OLF I said I wasn't willing to appear alongside people I regard as malevolent clowns. That wasn't my precise wording - I believe I said "no monkeys, only organ-grinders". What I meant by that was - only serious people. 3/9
Unless unis want to keep paying millions to lose employment cases and pay fines to the OfS, they're going to have to recognise they've been asking the wrong legal commentators for advice. People who miscategorise everything. 1/6 timeshighereducation.com/news/trans-pol…
They think protections against workplace harassment are restrictions on academic freedom and free speech - when actually those measures are ESSENTIAL to protect the academic freedom and free speech of staff & students with unfashionable opinions. 2/6
They think speech codes that penalise staff & students with lawful but unfashionable positions are harassment, when actually those measures are unlawful restrictions on academic freedom & free speech - & unlawful belief discrimination to boot. They have it all back-to-front. 3/6
There have been 3 interviews in the past few days of interest to observers of the Gender Madness. The differences are instructive.
Let's start with @Docstockk in the Sunday Times (share token). 1/12 thetimes.com/article/2ca519…
It's really well-written & gives some fab quotes that make the subject come to life, plus some new details (I _really_ want to meet the military historian who stood up for her - I want to shake his hand). It is also legally accurate and insightful on what might happen next 2/12
Next, @ProfAliceS in the Sunday Telegraph. (Sorry, I don't have a share link.) Again super well-written, great quotes and a clearly strong grasp of the wider picture. I love the quote about how much Alice cares about questionnaires. 3/12 telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/3…
This horrific crime of vigilantism has rightly been seriously punished. Judging from the reporting, it may have been preceded by a very serious sexual assault that was never reported 1/14
In UK law “sex by deception” is sex that isn’t consensual because you deceived your partner about a fact so important the deception removed their free choice. This may “vitiate consent”. The law says lying about your sex can vitiate consent 2/14 bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…
If the reporting is accurate, a trans-IDing boy deceived a 2nd boy into thinking he was a girl, & performed oral sex on him. When the 2nd boy realised he’d been deceived, he & friends committed a near-fatal vigilante attack on the trans-IDing boy 3/14 mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/t…