Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Dennis Noel Kavanagh Profile picture
Dennis Noel Kavanagh
@Jebadoo2
Director at Gay Men’s Network (@MensNetwork1) , garrulous male homosexual. Lawyer. https://t.co/0OGiPeWn12
17 subscribers
Nov 9 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
1/ To the doomsayers warning "don't attack the BBC, you will miss it when it is gone", I say this. It has been gone for me for years. It deplatformed my friends, it called me a bigot, it produced a gay male dating show featuring a woman. I will miss nothing of that when it goes. 2/ In LGBTWTFLOL politics we have this term, "forced teaming", it means conflating the political cases of homosexuals with transvestites. I will not be "forced teamed" again and be told I must shut up for the sake of my national broadcaster for some nostalgic love.
Nov 8 • 12 tweets • 4 min read
1/ I find this very difficult to accept as a justification for demonstrable BBC bias over gender and I think it underplays the role of fear of cancellation in favour of good faith. What I would say is this, in the first place, journalists accepting orthodoxy is terrifying. 2/ Second, I would say that accepting orthodoxy at a time when the Times newspaper was reporting that staff at the Tavistock had a dark joke that "soon there will be no gay people left" is particularly alarming because accepting orthodoxy here means ignoring or supressing critics
Nov 4 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
1/ In 2016 the Supreme Court ruled in a criminal case called R v Jogee. The law lords ruled that the law of murder had “taken a wrong turn” and too many had been wrongly convicted on the “joint enterprise” doctrine. Practice in the Crown Court changed the very next day. 2/ There was no guidance on the matter before it was expected to be applied (guidance did follow, but on the basis this had been the law since the time of the judgment) and there was certainly no impact assessment or that sort of thing. The law was the law.
Oct 31 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
1/ I would remind the Government that For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers is both a judgment about sex based rights and homosexual rights thanks to the work of the Lesbian Intervenors. Delaying action on this judgment is anti-gay rights. 2/ I'm referring specifically to paragraph 206 of the judgment in which the Law Lords find, as a matter of law, that the case of the Scottish Ministers would reduce the homosexuality protected characteristic to a state of meaninglessness. That is homophobic. Image
Oct 31 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
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. 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.
Oct 14 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
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.
Oct 14 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
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
Sep 1 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
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. Image 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.
Aug 27 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
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. 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.
Aug 18 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
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.
Aug 11 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
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.
Aug 8 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
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. 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.....
Aug 7 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
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. 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.
Aug 5 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
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. 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.
Aug 2 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
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”. 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. Image
Jul 23 • 11 tweets • 2 min read
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.
Jul 22 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
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.
Jul 18 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
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” 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.
Jul 9 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
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". Image 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.
Jul 2 • 15 tweets • 4 min read
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. 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.

Jun 28 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
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. 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.