Here’s a little story about what it’s like to go on @BBCWomansHour. I’m afraid it’s not a happy one. I’ve come away with a poor impression of the integrity of everyone involved in the show. But there’s still time for them to redeem themselves… 1/9
Last Wednesday, I was interviewed by Nuala McGovern @bbcnuala. She started by asking me about the Supreme Court judgment in FWS. I explained that what the court had ruled was that, for the purposes of the Equality Act, trans women are men. 2/9
Two days later, Anita Rani @itsanitarani interviewed Sacha Deshmukh of Amnesty. She put it to him that I had said the Supreme Court ruled that trans women are men. 3/9
Sacha replied that what I had said was wrong. That the Supreme Court ruling had related only to the Equality Act, and not to other laws or “gender” in society more widely. But THAT IS WHAT I HAD SAID! 4/9
Anita returned to the question of what I had said a little later, and again Sacha claimed that I had misrepresented the judgment by saying it was about laws beyond the Equality Act, and about society more broadly. AGAIN, MISREPRESENTING ME. 5/9
Anyone listening to my interview would understand that my claims about the judgment related to the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act. But anyone who had not, and who listened on Friday, would get the false impression that I had misrepresented the judgment. 6/9
I have been in communication with the producer of Woman’s Hour since, who at first was unwilling to accept that there was anything to see here. After some back and forth, there will apparently be a “clarification” during today’s programme. 7/9
But I fear that what will be said or implied is that I WAS UNCLEAR, when I wasn’t. What happened is that I WAS MISREPRESENTED. What’s needed isn’t a CLARIFICATION, it’s a CORRECTION, and it’s not of my words, it’s of Anita’s and Sacha’s. I also think I'm owed an APOLOGY 8/9
So tune in at 10am – Baroness Kishwer Falkner is on, apparently – and listen for what they say. If they don’t admit to misrepresenting me – or worse, if they misrepresent me again – I will be making a formal complaint. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the most irritating thing about transactivists is the way they think everything is all about them. I don't call trans-identifying men men in order to harass them - I do it because THEY ARE men, and I'm not willing to be bullied into pretending they are not. 1/6
As well as doing it because the ordinary way to use words is to describe the facts I see, I do it because these particular facts matter. If I call a trans-identifying man - Robin Moira White, say - a woman, it's harder to say why he should stay the hell out of women's spaces.2/6
Of course this isn't harassment! It's not conduct, or a course of conduct, towards the trans person at all - it's just me speaking standard English & declining to accept the imposition of someone else's quasi-religious observances, thereby indicating a belief I do not share. 3/6
Just listened back to the recording of myself on @BBCWomansHour - happy enough with it (though blackshirts not brownshirts 🤦♀️). I wasn't well-prepared to be asked about Robin's most stupid point - that because people sometimes bring a child of the opposite sex...1/5
into loos with them [???] checkmate transphobes. As I said - it's quite different to bring a minor of the opposite sex into the loo with you than to allow adults of the opposite sex in - a friend messaged & said she'd consider allowing Robin in if he brings his mum 🤪2/5
If I had been ready, what I would have said is this: one of the most loathsome things about transactivism is the way it weaponises women's needs and vulnerabilities against us. It's women who do most childcare, and are most likely to have to bring a child to the loo with us 3/5
One of the stranger things about getting involved in the sex'n'gender stuff is discovering that some law firms, and lawyers, invent both facts and the law. I'm so puzzled at how anyone is willing to be their paying client. 1/5 rollonfriday.com/news-content/e…
This piece describes law firm Brabner's initial take on the Supreme Court judgment in FWS: "The case in question arose from a challenge brought by a transgender woman who was seeking to compete in elite-level women’s sport", hallucinated the firm. 🤪2/5
It then moves on to two serial offenders: Robin Moira White and Jolyon Maugham. RMW says: "refusal to accept a trans person's gender identify [probably supposed to be identity]" constitutes transphobia - which would now appear to catch the justices of the Supreme Court. 🤪🤪3/5
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
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