1/ It is irrational for the Secretary of State to impose upon the EHRC what she knows is a laborious and time consuming burden to put off the politically inevitable. The Supreme Court has ruled men are men and women are women, whether Labour backbenchers like that or not.

https://twitter.com/akuareindorf/status/1984024920603652592

2/ What we have here is this. The Supreme Court has reached a clear judgment. The Secretary of State knows it is sensible but fears her backbenchers. The Government would rather not have this row so has decided kicking this into the long grass is politically expedient.

1/ As the bitter tide of gender recedes, @stonewalluk have some introspection and apologising to do. They called lesbians "sexual racists", they cancelled and pilloried gay men, they engineered modern gay conversion by preaching children had the wrong bodies....wrong for what? 2/ The answer to that was "the wrong bodies to be heterosexuals", because the 2012 Tavistock patient survey told us the 80% of boys and 90% of girls were same sex attracted.

They had the "wrong bodies" to be straight.

Stonewall pushed this. They aided and abetted this.

1/ What a bitter harvest it is to win the gender wars. What a many better thing it would have been to have been wrong. There’s no great joy to being a veteran and saying “yes, you did chemically castrate gay and autistic youth, we were correct”. How empty this victory is. 2/ To win and see the crushing defeat of political transvestitism, the desire to displace sex in law with a feeling based on clothing. To see your society challenged by a force that sought nothing less than to crumble the 4 walls of reality on the weak. Because that’s what it was

1/ It takes a rather implacable and sustained commitment to delusion to imagine that the socially necessary instances of separation of the sexes - a constant in one form or another in all human societies in history - is something we can just toss aside being better enlightened. 2/ It is said that when you look into the abyss it peers back into you, and so it is fighting litigious transvestites and their cadre of modern day clerics, only we are looking into a deeply stupid philosophy and it makes us stupid peering back into us. Blokes ain’t ladies.

1/ The redoubtable and unsinkable @SVPhillimore can look after herself, but she won’t begrudge me I’m sure adding a few words in the wake of the sinking ship good laugh project and their joke “journalist” trying to silence a woman in public life yet again.

https://twitter.com/svphillimore/status/1960814839431094494

2/ Let’s be clear on that point, while they’ve recruited some compliant they/them “journalist” who quotes her own employer in her copy (LOL), the good laugh project often go for women whether it’s the lesbians of the LGB alliance or sneering at Allison Bailey.

1/ Would be Intervenors in the Supreme Court must obtain permission by demonstrating they are raising significant points of law of public importance. Here permission was rightly denied because the SC does not entertain anecdotes or repetition.

theguardian.com/society/2025/a… 2/ In this misleading Guardian piece McCould singularly fails to say that both the Scottish Government and Amnesty were raising precisely the same arguments he wanted to make. Both were extremely well funded and his anecdotes would add nothing in law.

1/ Where does one start with this? Russel has nothing to say when the Scottish Government argued in the Supreme Court that the protected characteristic of same sex attraction should be rendered “meaningless”. That threat to rights didn’t bother him

theguardian.com/media/2025/aug… 2/ Of course had he said something, he would have incurred the wrath of his new overlords, so he unthinkingly rails against people who object to children being taught that somehow they have the wrong bodies and need chemical and surgical interventions.

1/ This point is really bothering me and it's one Sall brought up in her interview last night. There's something really very sinister in terms of access to justice about going after someone for laughing at a pretty laughable question while being cross examined.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1946893710408729081

2/ In the original Giggle v Tickle trial, Counsel for the Tickle asked a fairly odd question about someone selling merchandise arising from the case, it was a candle and the scent was said to be that of "sweaty balls". It was a strange line of questioning.....

1/ I’m with Sall on all counts here and I share her optimism. Submission advocacy on a dry point of statutory construction is not the same as jury advocacy, and her impressive team capitalised on their opponent’s overreach to cast them as the ideological partisans they are.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1953247088747393372

2/ Sall’s team refrained from rewriting the statute, they accepted they couldn’t change the fact the Gillard government put gender identity into law and so they pivoted to the “section 7D” argument pointing out the act allows for ‘measures” to ensure equality between the sexes.

1/ This is very elegant point about implicit / explicit repeal which is likely to play well with small C conservative judges.

It works like this : The Gillard Government removed the definition of sex from the federal discrimination act and inserted gender identity.

https://twitter.com/katkarena/status/1952515388388045247

2/ Now this is the central goal of trans activism, for gender identity to replace sex and for all sex based protections to fall away. This creates a sort of biological anarchy where women are defined as clothing and haircuts and lesbians can’t meet without males.

1/ At the heart of Giggle v Tickle is a somewhat absurd question, “what are the consequences of removing sex from the federal sex discrimination act 1984 and replacing it with gender identity?”. So far the answer is basically “nothing good”.

https://twitter.com/salltweets/status/1879449789991133680

2/ As matters stand in Australian law, sex is not immutable and can be changed in law without resort to even a gender recognition certificate equivalent because of the wide and circular definition of gender identity. Appearances have more rights than bodies.

1/ The Peggie tribunal is an important moment in isolating the bourgeoise character of gender madness. This came from the ivory towers of Berkeley via well fed otherwise unemployable DEI drones and cheered on by the equally unemployable gendocrats of Stonewall. 2/ This fundamental clear truth - that you are more likely to believe in gender identity if you are a fox killing former tax silk than an A&E nurse with a heavy period who simply needs a space free from note taking transvestites looking and logging offence is spoken not enough.

1/ The quintessential failure of the political moment is the bourgeoise supremacy over reality. You can call it the rise of the lanyard class, you can call it the DEI sector being welfare for the middle class, you can call it sneering remainer or the trans kid fashion accessory. 2/ You can call it any one of these because this is not a single point ok political reality, it is an obnoxious constellation of adolescent grievances. That’s why if you know their view on climate change you know their view on Gaza.

1/ A most unusual statement. Despite protesting they have no capacity to steer public opinion, NHS Fife try to do exactly that with an overly long ramble that varies between outright mendacity and “we’re saying this but not quite saying this libel”. This is called “being cute”

https://twitter.com/forwomenscot/status/1946242933964877859

2/ The barely veiled suggestions that the estimable Sex Matters (1) conceal their membership of that charity or (2) are in some way culpable for online discussion are well over the very edges of what can be taken seriously. Particularly given the absence of counter balance.

1/ Some things you only miss when they're gone. Today marks a serious challenge to our constitutional inheritance of the great leveller - trial by jury. Alarmingly, the foot in the door is this - that sometimes justice is "outside the understanding of the general public". 2/ This is a politically incendiary statement, and let's strip it back to what it really means, what is being said is that normal members of the public are too thick to do justice in complex trials and that the rarefied world of professional judges is to be preferred.

1/ More student politics here from a parliament increasing characterised by such. Nowhere in this amateur hour attack job on the EHRC are the rights of women or LGB people considered, despite the fact these rights were in the balance in the Supreme Court. It's trans all the way.

https://twitter.com/tonyvaughanMP/status/1940402198426382457

2/ Let's set this in context. This letter is a continuation of a Stonewall attack line on the EHRC and Baroness Falkner because they don't like the fact she actually stands up for women and homosexuals. They never have and this letter smells of Stonewall.

https://x.com/Jebadoo2/status/1661438130157748248

1/ Not only does Milton Keynes Pride (lol) completely write out gay men from this piece of American history, it also completely ignores the UK’s own history. Homosexual acts between males were decriminalised here in 1967, so two years before the Stonewall riots.

https://twitter.com/mkpridefestival/status/1938887971211714915

2/ This inability to realise you are not in fact an American is a pronounced tendency among the gender addled. You see it in their language from “y’all”, “bathroom bills” to “trans folks”. These highly derivative thinkers simply consume and regurgitate US culture.

1/ To hear the language of “choice” embraced by the student politics left is strange. Historically, it has always been the right who talked about the choice to educate privately or pay for health cover etc. The left responded by critically pointing out not all have equal choices

https://twitter.com/dignityindying/status/1937564082791489685

2/ Figures of substance on the left like Gordon Brown get this, writing here he said: “there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available.”

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

1/ The contemporary gay rights industry is going to have to have a long hard think about whether this transvestite has crossed a line here. You idiots just gave an award to a bloke who supports a regime that hangs gay men by the neck or forces brutal genital mutilation on them.
2/ I'm prepared to have this out Mano e Mano. If you lot on the gender side support Jonathan Willoughby, please use that team Iran hashtag and let us know proudly that's who you really are. It's pride month after all, so stand up proudly for those homophobic values.

1/ A betrayal that would make Judas blush. The anti-gay @stonewalluk maintain their open door privileged access to the seat of power in the UK, and they complain that the Supreme Court says homosexual means same sex attraction and lesbians can form their own associations.
2/ They claim the state has re-designated sexual orientation, but conveniently forget they are guilty of precisely that crime when they tried to re-define homosexuality as "same gender" attraction (but note, not for straight people). This is from their glossary.

1/ The gender elites aren't cut out for brinksmanship. Liverpool Pride ended their sponsor relationship with Barclays Bank over a row in which BB said they would obey the Supreme Court ruling. They were counting on BB to buckle, but they didn't reckon with commercial reality.
2/ Barclays, faced with a choice between "pay enormous sums in damages for breaking the law" and "keep a bunch of idiotic gendocrats happy" obviously chose the former, they were always going to, and only their foolish opponents would think the rule of law was somehow optional.