Stephen is wrong, Sonia is right, Frances is wrong, Sex Matters is right, Stonewall is wrong. Instead of just pleading my qualifications as Stephen does, I'm going to explain why.

https://twitter.com/stephenwhittle/status/1918788308001325564

(1) Stonewall is wrong to say that no one need do anything until new guidance is issued. The Supreme Court held that "sex" in the Equality Act means "biological sex". That has immediate effect even if the implications are wide and parts of the current EHRC guidance are now wrong.

Astonishing misinformation from Stonewall in the last 2 days.

(1) In a post on Bluesky yesterday Stonewall claimed that "It's important to remember that the ruling is not law as yet" - the opposite of the truth. (2) Akua Reindorf and others quoted the post both on Bluesky and on Twitter pointing out that this was completely wrong

A medical report from just one doctor (Harrop, Webberley, Kamaruddin); no need for approval from a panel; a "cooling off period" suggests day one rights. This is self ID. archive.is/G01rb Women who married a man will find overnight that they are married to a "woman" whether they like it or not.

Six weeks ago the Times reported that transgender judge Victoria McCloud was to "quit" to avoid politicising the judiciary. (1/n)archive.is/vr9wX It is now clear that McCloud is not quitting at all, but simply reducing sitting hours to work part time. (2/n)

(1) The purpose of the Equality Act is not to protect "marginalised communities" but to protect *everyone* in the fields in which it applies from discrimination and harassment. It is not a "loophole" that this protection also benefits people you don't like
theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loo… (2) The EAT did *not* hold that Maya Forstater's gender critical activism was a protected belief. It held that her *belief*, that sex is real and it matters, is protected. Manifestations of that belief, as with any belief, may or may not be protected depending on the facts.

I know you don't watch Casualty for realism, but last night's trans-rights-prop really jumped the shark. Noble trans woman wants to go on a women's march, but is told "her kind of women" (men) are not welcome. So noble trans woman RESPECTFULLY STAYS AWAY. 🤣🤣🤣 An evil male attacks the march, stabbing several women before escaping on foot. Luckily noble trans woman has been listening to the march on live feed (as you do) and realises evil male is running past him in the street, tackles him and saves the day, sustaining a neck injury in

Quick thread on the bus driver case (Fischer v London United Busways Ltd). Yet again a tribunal has failed to distinguish between a claimant having the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, and being male. The judgment is available here: (1/n)assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64e331ee… There has been some debate on here as to whether the tribunal was right to reject the Respondent's argument that the insult "wanker" is "gender neutral" (or "sex neutral" to be more accurate). (2/n)

I struggle to think of an "internal HR reason" that would justify the removal of books such as Trans by Helen Joyce. I am not aware of any case in which a trans person has successfully claimed harassment on such foundations, although it has been tried twice that I know of (1/6)

https://twitter.com/yorkshirepost/status/1688925016581410818

In O'Donnell v Times Newspapers (Edinburgh, 2019) the claimant's legal team told an excited BuzzFeed that they would make a ground-breaking argument that the *content* of the newspaper's reporting on trans issues constituted a harassing environment. (2/6) https://t.co/XGW3kj8y5ibuzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwi…

On 10 July, Nancy Kelley made a surprise announcement that she would be leaving Stonewall at the end of that month - just 3 weeks later. She said nothing about why she was leaving or what she would be doing next. Just 3 days earlier, Kelley gave an interview in which she spoke of the CEO role as her "dream job" and gave no hint of any plans to leave it. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that it was not Kelley's choice to leave the job.

Thank you Jonathan. I am now aware of at least 5 cases involving cancellation of a venue or services on religion or belief grounds, all involving local authorities; all involving either settlement or defeat for the defendants. Quick thread 🧵

https://twitter.com/Broonjunior/status/1584905006909722630

1. Lancashire Festival of Hope with Franklin Graham v Blackpool Borough Council. Ads for the festival on the sides of Blackpool buses were cancelled following a social media campaign by people who objected to the claimant's views (see screenshot).