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.

1/ There are no TRAs - there is only political transvestism.

You cannot change sex, there is no Trans from one to the other.

There is no “right” to chemically castrate autistic lesbians and gay boys.

There is no activism when government, unions and companies indulge you. 2/ The whole thing is a fraud. A mimic. A unconvincing wig and makeup that doesn’t “pass”

There is only the politics of a transvestite that says women’s clothes worn by men

Have more rights than women wearing those clothes

This is an aesthetic and counter enlightenment creed

1/ An arch gendocrat ministers to the great unwashed from her literary festival with its gender neutral toilets and laments that we can’t find a sensible middle ground on rapists in women’s prisons, chemical castrated gay boys, mutilated autistic lesbians

theguardian.com/law/2025/may/2… 2/ This embodiment of privilege who expresses her dissent in spider broaches sits in a web the deep woke establishment and calls upon her under privileged lesbian daughter, the chair of the stock exchange to lament the fact more transvestite men are not on company boards

1/ Hello and welcome to BBC Villify, the entirely neutral show where we ask lesbians "how do you terfs sleep at night?", we're joined today by Kate Barker, CEO of the LGB Alliance

Kate: "Hello"

BBC Drone: "Do you understand some of our viewers will find that offensive?"

https://twitter.com/JournalismSEEN/status/1924402945547730968

2/

Kate: "We were elated at the Supreme Court Judgment, had the Scottish Government won, the protected characteristic of same sex orientation would be rendered meaningless, as it says at para 206 of the judgment"

BBC Drone: "Have you considered how sad transvestites feel?"

1/ Persons and organisations aggrieved by a Supreme Court ruling that protects women and gay rights are now actively weaponsing suicide narratives as a political expedient. Our National Independent Advisor, Professor Appleby is now routinely forced to ask them to desist. 2/ As Professor Appleby has repeatedly pointed out, what they are doing is extremely dangerous and highly irresponsible. This is because suicide can work as a contagion and linking it to particular political causes can result in a cause and effect relationship.

1/ Hello and welcome to the a neutral BBC show in which we discuss "Are terfs complete scum?". In this episode, we'll begin crossing live to a terribly sad transvestite (TST) who cannot play in women's sport because of evil terfs. I began with the question "are terfs evil?" 2/ TST: "Yes"

BBC Drone "How evil would you say they are?"

TST: "Very"

BBC Drone: "For balance, some of the evil terfs say women have higher injury risk when massive blokes calling themselves "Barbara" play sport, is there an epidemic of transphobia?"

TST: "Yes"