1/ Amnesty International produce a silly report in which gender critical organisations are libelled variously as conversion practitioners, "anti-rights" and anti abortion adjacent. This, from a charity who intervened unsuccessfully to supress gay rights in For Women Scotland. 2/ So there's no doubt about that matter, let's consider paragraph 206 of the Judgment. Amnesty were supporting the side that wanted to render gay rights flowing from the same sex orientation characteristic "meaningless", yet they now call others "anti rights"

1/ The Conversion Bill is going to hand Stonewall a financial lifeline writing policies for organisations. If it passes in this form, I predict they will market themselves as "experts" in producing policies for organisations so they can show they've taken reasonable steps. 2/ We should all be very worried about this. The Conversion Bill is impermissibly wide and vague for a criminal statute and the "actus reus" (the criminal law term for a criminal action) trigger is so wide it can be "any conduct".

1/ You and your mates have nothing to be proud of. Pride is now a pointless shell of what it once was and it succeeds today only in being an obnoxious display of false virtue. 200 children will be chemically castrated at the behest of this political movement later this year.

https://twitter.com/MayorofLondon/status/2073312189906039041

2/ Those children are likely to be majority same sex attracted and autistic, but you and your friends think nothing of the permanent, irreversible harm to them as you drivel on about being your authentic self and love winning over hate and all that crap.

1/ Graham's right, he's referring to a Judgment by the former President of the Family Division called Re J. It's available in the link below, in this case Gender GP prescribed a troubled girl a dose of testosterone so high she was at risk of sudden death

judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl… x.com/Glinner/status… 2/ Let's look at the case from a summary. You can see Gender GP was entirely negligent and allowed a potentially fatal dose to be prescribed after a consultation.

1/ Just collecting together my threads and YouTube video on the (pretty awful and quite strange) draft Conversion Bill, (I suspect there will be more and I'll add them here). First, here's my initial reaction to the general shape of the bill:

https://x.com/Jebadoo2/status/2070112521135050784?s=20

2/ Here's my YouTube analysis of the bill which is basically that last thread but narrated with a deep dive into some of the more obviously silly and wide provisions:

1/ In a criminal trial a jury can ask questions by sending notes to the Judge. Here are 10 jury notes that would derail a Conversion Practices trial:

"I am gender critical and do not believe in transgender identity which is just really gender identity, can I sit on this case?" 2/

"The Prosecution say the Defendant mother caused her daughter serious distress by not sending her to gender GP and this was controlling and economic pressure. I think she was just a good mum doing her best, can I acquit on that basis?"

1/ As the Conversion Practices Bill is primary legislation, section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires that it must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights. This is going to cause some issues with Article 8, the private and family life. 2/ The reason for that is the Bill is very wide and "any conduct" can be a conversion practice if it causes serious alarm or distress that has a substantially adverse effect on someone's day to day functioning. A depressed teenager denied puberty blockers could easily meet that.

1/ The conversion practices bell contains no statutory defences. This is unusual. Let us imagine a parent who wants their daughter to grow up to be a happy lesbian rather than to take puberty blockers and hormones. There is no defence of "her welfare was my paramount concern" 2/ That seems draconian. A parent in this situation would probably admit they intended by some act (like conversations about drugs) to cause their daughter not to have a transgender identity or believe she does. So the parent here admits the first part of the offence in clause 1

1/ Let's just compare the draft Conversion Bill with the Serious Crime Act 2015's offence of Controlling and Coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship offence to get a sense of the scope of the offence. You can see here that for CC you need some real connection. 2/ Now if you compare and contrast that to the Conversion draft bill there's no such requirement and there is no duty of care/proximity requirement at all. This is very wide for a criminal offence combined with the fact the offence can be "any conduct".

1/ As it stands, The Conversion Practices Bill permits a private prosecution of the conversion offence. I predict big trouble ahead here with various outfits like the Good Laugh Project and Stonewall weaponising this legislation and I'll explain why. 2/ First point to make is the default position under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 is that any either way offence can be privately prosecuted in England and Wales (but not Scotland). Now, you can see in s.6 there the CPS can jump in if they like and take over/drop the case

1/ We do have conversion therapy in the UK, but we call it "gender affirming care". 80-90% of the kids and teens that constituted the Tavistock cohort were same sex attracted

Today, Labour's announces their own section 28 to cement this vile practice with a "conversion bill" 2/ The first point is that offence includes "inchoate" offending (which means attempting).

As I read this, attempting to persuade your teenage lesbian daughter not to take testosterone is an attempt to cause her not to have a transgender identity, so that's that box ticked

1/ The 2012 Tavistock patient survey showed 80-90% of the teenagers there were same sex attracted. Something like 30% were on the autism spectrum. Staff at the Tavistock had a dark joke "soon there will be no gay people left". Senior leadership resigned because Mermaids ran riot

https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/2068246503265608115

2/ This is the real gay conversion therapy and it's the real drive to sterilise the autistic. In Hannah Barnes ground-breaking work "Time to think" she set out how ideology came first at the Tavistock and children were collateral damage. Now the government wants to repeat this.

1/ Zack and pals are peddling the attack line “no jury convicted them of terrorism” to try to undermine the sentences in this case. Let me explain why this is fundamentally wrong. In a criminal trial the jury is the judge of the facts and the judge is the judge of the law.

https://twitter.com/zackpolanski/status/2065708249517617453

2/ What that means for practical purposes is the jury decides whether they are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved its case and the Judge decides issues of law like what evidence is fair to go before them. Law also includes sentence.

1/ I went to Parliament to watch the Women and Equalities Committee. The chair of the EHRC Mary-Ann Stephenson (MAS) and CEO John Kirkpatrick were giving evidence, the other adults in the room were Rosie Duffield and Rebecca Paul MP. Other than that it was the slow kid's table. 2/ This is the committee chair Sarah Owen MP, she is EXTREMELY fair unless you're Rosie or Sarah when she'll look at Nadia Whittome and mutter. She also thinks intersex means people are neither male or female and didn't like it much when the chair of the EHRC corrected that.

1/ When trans activists aren't harassing lesbians, one of their preferred tactics is to silence gay men

One such gay man, Associate Professor Dr. Foran of Keble College, Oxford has just had to cancel a lecture series because some people go to university to shout and not to learn

https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/2063649682425876769

2/ Associate Professor Foran is one of our foremost legal minds on the subject of sex and gender as it relates to equality law. He has a nationally significant mind and his work has been referenced in the UK Supreme Court by the Law Lords.

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/2016840948542521488?s=20

1/ Yet again, the BBC frame this issue as an emotive plea for personal liberty and understanding. This is legally illiterate and glosses over the fact that trans activists seek the complete destruction of the category of sex in law with all the implications that has. Such as...

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/2060300868898185232

2/ Women's prisons. Women's sports. Women's private spaces for the purposes of dignity, safety and security.

This has a knock on effect on gay and lesbian rights. If there's no coherent sex category in law, you can't have the same sex orientation protected characteristic.

1/ Transvestites have finally been told "no" today, and it's at least 10 year overdue. It's no surprise to any of us that the middle class sensibilities of the media want to focus on sad transvestites rather than raped women in shelters or autistic kids given puberty blockers. 2/ This extraordinary movement of men in dresses literally went to the supreme court and tried to render the gay/lesbian protected characteristic "meaningless" in the words of the law lords and ladies. They literally tried to get their rights by taking ours.

1/ Well, I've skimmed Giggle v Tickle and my conclusion is that the judgment is firmly in the category of being "a bit bloody silly". It is not normal to have Judges using activist language, but this judgment talks about cisgender and sex assigned at birth and the rest of it....
2/ What this case shows is that once you put "gender identity" into legislation you make it unlawful for people not to believe everyone has magic gender souls. That is a pretty extreme outcome and it's clear the case Forstater would have failed in Australia.

1/ Up until today it was unlawful for lesbians to have a lesbian only meeting in a publicly funded "pride centre" in Oz. That hasn't technically changed today as a matter of law, but the Federal Court has basically just said it bloody better change soon. By way of explainer...

https://twitter.com/ActiveLesbians/status/2044278912331764053

2/ The LAG are up against Australia's EHRC, the Australian Human Rights Commission. What you need to know about the AHRC is that they are gender loons who always prefer the interests of transvestites over the rights of lesbians. All you need to know about LAG is they're tough.

1/ I'm getting a bit sick of "anonymous government sources" (ie Bridget Phillipson's SPADs) writing off For Women Scotland as "culture wars". Let us remember the Scottish Government in FWS literally tried to abolish the legal category of sex and sexual orientation.

https://twitter.com/Cyclefree2/status/2043266611201618246

2/ Had they prevailed, gays and lesbians would have lost the right to single sex associations under the Equality Act, furthermore, gay and lesbian as categories would effectively be rendered "meaningless" in law (to quote the law lords).

https://x.com/JournalismSEEN/status/1914282322070733288?s=20

1/ Sen. Wiener cuts a haunted, panicked figure, like a man who's seen the ghost of Gender Future, but unlike Scrooge, there's no hope of some act of redemption or contrition. This is a man who prefers his collateral human damage to have no tongue, so he moves like a malfunction.

https://twitter.com/WomenAreReals/status/2041704794994446365

2/ The bitter harvest of gender, a crop Senator Scott did so much to bring about, was never going to be an easy or pretty affair for him. The shape of things to come was always going to be the innocent complaining of their own shapelessness. Cut to fit in to the point they do not