Very useful conversation from about 6.19 where - fair play to him - FW calls out Sophie for misogynistic comments and they discuss how SM is ‘very aware’ of the impact of his words.

All of this I hope to explore in other arenas and in detail. It simply cannot be right that the article 10 rights of one group are fettered on the demand of another group, which itself engages in harassment and abusive speech.

Either the Good Law Project knows nothing about the activities of the man they champion as a fragile and vulnerable victim - or they don’t care?

Which is worse? I hope 2026 will give me a variety of stages upon which I may publicly drill down into all of this.

If we don’t stop one group from enforcing its own hecklers veto, while simultaneously abusing and threatening others, this is going to cause significant harm - not just to individuals but to our trust in the organisations that allow it.

https://x.com/SVPhillimore/status/2005234108994404360

Because this is what is notable about this group. Euan Weddell had a clear legal means of protection against my alleged harassment - a civil injunction against me using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Good Law Project however decided to spend its money over months drafting a complaint to my regulator.

This weaponisation of the regulatory process is of course clever. It puts them at no risk of having to prove a case, no costs of expensive court action but hopefully maximum stress and embarrassment to me.

It also means I attract the attention of disgraced transvestite former police officer Lynsay Watson, already subject to harassment complaints from at least 8 others. So I guess he does know his way around the Act!

Policing Panel! Luke Gittos is first. Changed his speech because of what he saw last night - footage of 2 police officers who ask a person ‘what’s that around your neck’ - a Star of David. Police say it risks antagonising protestors. Is it right to question someone about their religious dress? His original speech was mild mannered but now is time for anger #BattleFest
We have to say this ends now. The police don’t see how their power affects real people. See it as necessary step. Police have become an ugly beaurocratic machine.

Queue already massive! Looking forward to this. Amazing venue

The judicial review against the decision to register Gender Plus as ‘safe’ to give cross sex hormones to teenagers fails.

UK courts continue to ignore the massive Elephant in the room, which is the lack of evidence base for this serious and irreversible medical intervention for children. This is not a matter of reasonable difference of opinion or for private practice to profit from. This is not safe.

Link to substack in reply. open.substack.com/pub/sarahphill…

I am trying to listen to this as I mop the kitchen floor. So I must be a woman?

It gets off to a very poor start. Mostyn unctuously introducing HK as a ‘beautiful feminist’. Of course Charlie F gets no such intro. HK simpers. And then they are off, referring to the ‘Equalities Act’.

Not sure if I will make it through but by god this floor will be clean. At 6 mins in Mostyn confidently opines that this judgment only applies to 8k people with a GRC. The implications are of course much wider than this. Perhaps they will go on to talk of the problems caused by the Stonewallification of the law?

I had always thought Mostyn’s USP was a keen legal brain. It is not a sign of acuity to make such confident misrepresentation.

What a difference a few years make. Proper police presence for #LWS Bristol and very obvious who the police consider a threat. Police aren’t filming us

Discussion of the proposed new duty to promote EDI - to deal with failings at the Bar re recruitment, harassment and lack of inclusion. Do these proposals mandate agreement with contested principles?

Purpose of tonight is to set out a range of discussions.

Deadline to respond to consultation is 29 Nov. BSB rep begins by giving account of proposals and why we should support them. Consultation published at start of Sep, we are still consulting. We propose outcome focus - very different to current equality rules. Has been some improvements at the Bar re EDI but barriers persist re recruitment, retention, bullying and harassment.

About to deliver my talk at #GenspectLisbon on the Battle for Children’s Capacity - the intersection between paternalism and autonomy and the response of the courts. After hearing @BevJacksonAuth’s rage yesterday I am inspired to go a little off piste.

It’s not good enough to talk about some green shoots of optimism. The courts should never have allowed themselves to be captured in the way they were. Now Jesper Rasmussen ‘Raising Political Swords: how Denmark is Fighting Child Sex Change’

I can at least give Mr Fowles credit for his continued enthusiasm to beclown himself publicly. Will this article last longer than his other one I wonder?

First - it wasn’t a ‘gender test’. It was a test that showed Khelif had XY chromosones and was most likely a male with the DSD 5 ARD, where the male genitals don’t develop until puberty.

Our concerns were therefore not that he wasn’t ‘pretty’ enough to be a girl, but rather that as a man he was punching women in a combat sport. This wasn’t a case about discriminating against a ‘trans’ woman- it declared that this man was in fact a woman. In Australia, women no longer exist, we are entitled to be very concerned about this.

The child was five years old when she said she wanted to be 'non binary'.
11 years old when she wanted her puberty suppressed. For every.
the doctors say this could be ethical because its congruent with patient well being.

"When Phoenix was 11, they began puberty and became extremely distressed by development of their breast buds and anxious about menstruation commencing soon...." Happily Phoenix does not - yet - exist outside the minds of the doctors. But this train is most definitely coming down the track

"In this paper, we identify and analyse the key ethical issues relevant to Phoenix’s case, a hypothetical yet realistic case based on clinical experience. Phoenix’s request raises novel ethical questions which have not previously been analysed. The ethical issues associated with puberty suppression for transgender or gender diverse individuals have only been explored in the context of a time-limited first step in a two-stage hormonal treatment pathway for gender binary (predominantly male or female) adolescents whose aim is ultimately to commence testosterone or oestrogen,1 or for non-binary adolescents.2 Here we examine whether puberty suppression should be offered as a stand-alone intervention for non-binary adults (18 or over) who started puberty suppression as adolescents, to affirm their gender identity (defined below)."

Made it! Fought our way through the massive protests. #swansea - to the event that is causing ‘on-going’ distress to the LGBT AQIA ++++ 2 spirit community.





We missed the protester getting decked by security and had the swiftest G and T ever to greet the panel with rapturous applause

In a truly shocking judgment in the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre para 57 stands out for me - the response to a warm, empathetic email looking for a way forward

“Your email was humiliating, so I feel humiliated. I don’t want to have
any conversations about this with you.”

We have given power to the thin skinned, the narcissistic and the actively dangerous. How many judgements like this will it take to restore sanity? It should not have required ANY.

4102236 - Judgment - 14.05.2024 (redacted).pdf - Google Drive Para 75 - the point about giving primacy to one minority group inevitably means that others will suffer. Rights ARE a pie.

"There was a staff meeting on 7th July which the claimant attended which was about trans inclusion. There was no space for discussion about getting to the
heart of any of the issues but instead the meeting was essentially based on two questions around “how can we be better at being trans inclusive.” The meeting was very tightly controlled."

Gender identity ideology is a virus that eats the brain.

Nothing proves that assertion more neatly than this complaint and subsequent suspension from the @TheGreenParty of yet another member of @GreenPartyWomen. Remember ladies - the Green Party denies that your sex exists. Any plea for protection of same sex female spaces is a ‘transphobic dog whistle’.

This for me is the key quote from the GMN response to the proposed 'Conversion Practices' Bill, and why I think it such enormous folly to direct attention and vitriol to individual trans identifying men. This is an attempt to capture the entire criminal justice system.

I really hope people will use their finite energies and resources to tackle this, rather than just trade insults on line. This is most definitely not a drill.

"In requiring a court to embrace a politically contested concept where one side of the debate believes in the existence of that concept and one does not, the court becomes, in effect a religious court siding with those who have such a belief." While some are frothing about 'perverts' THIS is what actual politicians want to see made LAW.

"By way of example, a private counsellor who told a young patient to their professional view was that they were suffering internalised homophobia and manifesting a transgender identity as a result could in theory be prosecuted for a single activity intended and having the purpose of supressing a transgender identity. Given the interim Cass report[15] emphasises the importance of multi-disciplinary intervention, counselling and therapy, it is surprising that such services are placed in jeopardy of criminal prosecution."

As I go further down the rabbit hole with regard to how children are treated by those who insist that gender identity is the preferred organising category, I come across this interesting book from 2017. It’s basic premise is that trans children have always existed and denial of this is - of course - genocide. I had not realised this word had begun to misused as early as 2017, or that we could have such a thing as ‘procedural genocide’.

A ratio for the ages. And a further interesting evolution of the word ‘transphobia’. It seems to be evolving from a word that could have ended a career even a year ago, to a word that now provokes mockery or proud declaration.

Can you think of any other self-identifying civil rights movement that followed this trajectory? I can’t.

https://twitter.com/bbcmtd/status/1733774669432410445

But behind the justified anger something darker lurks. This man is not ‘trans’. He is part of a minority fetish called ‘sissy’.

Shout out to the Telecom Tower who saved my life in 1990 - guiding me back to Charlotte Street from Camden. Under His/Her/Their Eye

I remember once having a chat and a drink with what seemed like a very nice man, intelligent and educated with a lovely girlfriend. He seemed genuinely shocked when I said that if he got on a tube carriage and the only other person was a woman, she would be carrying out an… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… He was 6ft and sporty - he would be physically stronger than any woman on the tube, and a match for the majority of men. He had never had to see the world through this lens and hence never considered it, despite being a lovely bloke etc

Interestingly for @HantsPolice - who do not appear to have arrested @HarryTheOwl101 yet - are the number of views and likes on this. 23.7k people approved. That doesn’t make it ‘right’ - but it does pose an interesting question about the practicalities of criminalisation. Do you arrest everyone who likes and shares it? Or just a handful? Which ones? Why? What makes them criminally culpable and others not? Is it rather high time the police backed off from attempting to manage hurt feelings and offence?

If you will not define something, you cannot protect it. To say that everything is fine, sex has never meant anything other than birth sex, is to ignore the deliberately distorted drafting of the GRA and the use to which that has been put.

https://twitter.com/MelBr86336833/status/1662161603389685761

The GRA says that gender is sex and if a man choose a female gender he is of the female sex for ‘all’ purposes, save where exceptions apply, most notably in sports, inheritance of titles, and the title of mother.

This is unimpressive from @CollegeofPolice - gives reason for its new guidance on NCHIs as

"This followed a legal ruling that sought to strike a balance between freedom of speech and protecting vulnerable members of the public."

college.police.uk/article/record… When what you meant to type was 'this followed a decision in the Court of Appeal that declared our existing approach was unlawful'

It wasn't that you were 'unbalanced' - its rather that you didn't give any consideration to Article 10 at all - the 'victim's' perception was King.