Lesley Barnett @LJB140

So the Green Party also wants to remove the sex discrimination provisions for 51%+ of the population. Women, girls & people who are same-sex attracted. Consolidated in the 2010 Equality Act on the basis of sex. They are a regressive, sexist, homophobic, utter disgrace.

The Green Party @TheGreenParty

21 hours ago

Impractical, intrusive and inhumane - @rachelmillward responds to the ECHR guidance on behalf of Green Party leadership.

446 275 1K 139K 55

So the BMA also wants to remove the sex discrimination provisions for 51%+ of the population. Women, girls & people who are same-sex attracted. Consolidated in the 2010 Equality Act on the basis of sex. The trade unions are a regressive, sexist, homophobic, utter disgrace.

SEEN in Journalism @JournalismSEEN

a day ago

British Medical Association statement on the EHRC Code of Practice ‘We are deeply concerned about the potentially devastating repercussions of this proposal on trans patients’ access to healthcare, the ability of trans healthcare staff to conduct their everyday duties, and the

159 81 260 54K 26

Every MP who signs the motion tabled by @NadiaWhittomeMP to disapprove the “Equality Act 2010: Draft Code of Practice for Services, public functions and associations” is displaying embarrassing ignorance of the law - as well as profound disrespect for the rights of women and girls, and of lesbians and gay men. Do they even know that the “lesbian interveners” at the Supreme Court helped to secure the rights of homosexual women and men - which would otherwise have been lost? The Supreme Court established that under the Equality Act, a lesbian is a biological woman who is sexually attracted to other biological women. It rejected the vile idea that a man bearing a piece of paper with an F can be classified as a lesbian. That was incoherent, the court ruled. Not just incoherent but a homophobic atrocity. So thanks a bunch, Nadia et al., that you want to turn the clock back on that ruling. You know perfectly well (or am I assuming too much?) that the EHRC guidance is not the law. It simply helps service providers, associations and those overseeing public functions to apply the law. But it sends a signal, doesn’t it - it tells people where you stand. You stand in the mud. Your motion is not just a profound betrayal of so many of your constituents, it’s political madness. @Jonathan_Hinder is right: if you don’t snap out of it, the Labour Party is dead.

Well this is quite the roll of dishonour - MPs who don't understand that the law in question is the Equality Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. So who are trying to prevent statutory guidance on that law from being approved, because 🤷‍♀️ edm.parliament.uk/early-day-moti…

Ed Davey has written to Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson demanding she WITHDRAW official EHRC guidance protecting female-only spaces in toilets and changing rooms. Let that land. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission — a statutory body — has produced legally grounded guidance telling employers and public bodies that biological men should not access women’s single-sex spaces. This is not opinion. This is not politics. This is the settled legal position following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the meaning of “woman” under the Equality Act. And Ed Davey wants it gone. His stated reason? The guidance is not “compatible with long-standing British values.” British values. He used those words to argue AGAINST protecting women’s single-sex spaces. The same Liberal Democrats who lecture the country about tolerance, inclusion and human rights are now lobbying a Labour minister to tear up statutory guidance that protects every woman in Britain who walks into a changing room, a refuge or a hospital ward. This is not a fringe position within the Lib Dems. Their leader wrote the letter. The party has chosen its side. It is not the side of women. Repost if you think women’s single-sex spaces should be protected.

Ed Davey has urged Bridget Phillipson to withdraw EHRC guidance protecting women-only toilets and changing rooms—guidance based on the Supreme Court’s Equality Act ruling. Calling it incompatible with “British values”, he’s chosen a side. It isn’t women.

Not sure I could love Germaine Greer any more than I do. Everytime I watch this clip 💜💜 her a little more. For all the sex denialists this is the original critique of “gender”. Take note: Women are a sex class.

Hey @TomSteyer, my mother has also loved sports her entire life, except she didn’t get to play sports in high school because her school didn’t have any women’s teams. She’s only a few years older than you & was in college when Title IX passed. She became the captain of the first women’s tennis team at her university. My mom grew up watching her five brothers be celebrated for their athleticism. Meanwhile, she had no teams available to her. My mom is a naturally gifted athlete, but girls were expected to sit on the sidelines, cheer for boys, and never imagine themselves on the field. Then, after Title IX passed, everything changed. Her university formed a women’s tennis team. She tried out, made the team, and became team captain. That opportunity, delayed for years, shaped her life. It gave her confidence, leadership, friendships, pride, and a sense of belonging that had been denied to her simply because she was female. For millennia, women were kept out of public life, out of education, out of professions, out of the law, out of the vote, and yes, out of athletics, all on the basis of SEX, not gender. And now we are told by you, Tom Steyer, to pretend that sex is irrelevant. That male bodies pumped have no advantage. That girls should just accept losing medals, titles, records, scholarships, and privacy. That after centuries of struggle, suddenly the category “woman” is opt-in for any boy who wants in. But having inherited those rights from my mother and grandmothers who fought hard for them, I cannot and will not sit back and let you destroy them hard earned rights for future generations of girls.

Very clear and legally important. We lose sight of unlawfully discriminatory policies if we don’t measure sex data in accordance with the Equality Act

Professor Alice Sullivan @ProfAliceS

4 days ago

"Women must be properly counted amid sex data jumble" My piece for @TheScotsman on the Scottish parliament's decision to remove data on the sex of MSPs. scotsman.com/news/opinion/w…

6 160 482 23K 33

Here the union UNISON explains why it thinks the EHRC guidance - which has absolutely nothing to do with the workplace - is unworkable in the workplace. I don’t know what is more abysmal about this post: * the ignorance it displays; * the confusion it amplifies; * its contempt for women, lesbians and gay men who are entitled to single-sex spaces; or * its implication that trans-identifying men will not, and cannot be expected to, abide by the law. I used to be a strong supporter of trade unions. Workers need trade unions to represent them and to stand up for their rights. They don’t need - no one needs - this rubbish.

UNISON - UK's largest union @unisontheunion

7 days ago

🚨 Opposing the EHRC guidance – we need your voice MPs will decide on the guidance in the next 30 days — and we need to show them the reality We need you to tell us why it's unworkable and the real life impact it will have on you in the workplace 📩 Email us: [email protected]

2K 296 870 659K 104

Your focus is wrong. Your framing is ‘a row’. You balance ‘trans rights’ and ‘women’s rights’ as if they are equal principles. No - the question is whether sex and sexual orientation have legal status in law, or not. This issue requires harder thinking based on what you know (we know you know) to be a fact: that sex and sexual orientation exist in reality. There is a campaign to remove legal protections from these realities. That is what you call on your post ‘trans rights’. The BBC likes to treat the idea that one can change sex, and the knowledge that one can’t, as if they were both opinions of equal weight. It does this because it is afraid of gender identity activists. You know there is no middle ground. You are secure enough, and well informed enough, to say so, and to conduct interviews built on that. It’s your duty as a journalist to do so. It’s not to be minimised as a ‘row’. It’s a top down campaign to remove legal protection from sex and sexual orientation, and an active grassroots defence to prevent that happening. Trans-identified people have all the rights that everyone else has. They, plus allies, are engaged in a campaign fully to remove the legal status of two main cohorts: women and LGB people. Maybe on a teatime drive programme it could be argued that these things need to be simplified. Not on Political Thinking. Note: You shouldn’t adopt activist language as if it’s your own. ‘Be who they are’ ? - you can ask better questions than that. Mary-Anne Stephenson isn’t on one side of the debate - she’s a neutral expert. You don’t need to ‘balance’ her via questioning style.

Here is a brilliant explanation of UNISON’s empty gesture in opposing the EHRC guidance, which is not - repeat, NOT - about workplaces!

Akua Reindorf KC @akuareindorf

6 days ago

🧵 Why is @unisontheunion campaigning against the @EHRC's Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations?

69 344 1K 52K 51

Women make up over 75% of UNISON’s 1.3 million members What a disgrace of a union to act against the safety and dignity of its own members

UNISON - UK's largest union @unisontheunion

7 days ago

🚨 Opposing the EHRC guidance – we need your voice MPs will decide on the guidance in the next 30 days — and we need to show them the reality We need you to tell us why it's unworkable and the real life impact it will have on you in the workplace 📩 Email us: [email protected]

2K 296 870 659K 104

Change the law says Unison - presumably to dismantle women’s legal protections by legislating to enable men to self-identify into women’s facilities, services and sports. It’s a disgrace.

UNISON - UK's largest union @unisontheunion

7 days ago

🚨 Opposing the EHRC guidance – we need your voice MPs will decide on the guidance in the next 30 days — and we need to show them the reality We need you to tell us why it's unworkable and the real life impact it will have on you in the workplace 📩 Email us: [email protected]

2K 296 870 659K 104

Trans Rights: The Conjuring Trick at the Toilet Door The toilet debate is a conjuring trick. And it is time to name it as one. Scroll through social media and you would think the entire argument about the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC Code came down to a single question: which toilet does a trans person use? That framing is not accidental. It is a strategy, chosen precisely because it makes women's objections look petty and obsessive, reduces a sweeping legal settlement about women's fundamental rights to a single emotionally charged doorway, and keeps women permanently on the defensive. Here is what the debate is actually about. The ONS Census found that 0.54 per cent of people in England and Wales report a gender identity different from their birth sex. Within that figure, fewer than half have any outward transgender appearance. No medical treatment. No social transition. Self-identification alone. Roughly one in two hundred people. These people's rights matter. The right not to be harassed, not to face discrimination, not to be subjected to violence: those are absolute. But rights are not the same thing as demands. And the demand that fifty-one per cent of the population surrender sex-based protections won through a century of organised political struggle is not a rights claim. It is a power claim. On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that "woman" and "man" in the Equality Act refer to biological sex. Unanimously. Not a narrow majority. Every justice on the bench. The ruling also confirmed that trans people retain full legal protection under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Both protections stand in law. What the ruling refused to do was allow one to erase the other. The EHRC Code, now laid before Parliament, covers far more than toilets. It covers domestic violence refuges. Single-sex hospital wards. Communal changing rooms. Intimate personal care. Competitive sport. Women's right to meet, organise and associate as women. It states plainly that a service for women and trans women is not a single-sex service. That a refuge admitting male-bodied people is not a refuge from male violence. These are not cruel statements. They are logical ones. Nurses have been hauled before employment tribunals for understanding this. Working class women with mortgages and families, doing physical, demanding work, punished for knowing that a female ward means what it says. Anyone who objects is branded a bigot, a transphobe, a hater. The accusation is the weapon. And like all weapons discharged without discrimination, it has destroyed its own utility: words that once carried genuine moral weight have been debased into instruments of political enforcement, fired at nurses, mothers, lesbians, gay men and scientists for the sole offence of stating material reality. This is a liberal campaign. It is not a left-wing one. The left begins with material reality. Bodies. Class. Violence. Women are not oppressed because of how they feel about being female. They are oppressed because they are female. A left politics that cannot say what a woman is has abandoned women, not theoretically, but actually: in tribunals, in refuges, on wards, on sports fields, in the silencing of anyone who says out loud what most people know to be true. Read more here labourheartlands.com/trans-rights-t… #womensrights #womensrightsarehumanrights #transrights

@JournalismSEEN @CforWomenUK @PaulKnaggs Excellent article. @RachelTaylorMP I invite you to read.

Those who say the sex and gender debate is about “a tiny minority” are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s about a concerted attempt by activists, backed by governments, institutions, and NGOs, to deny that humans - like all other mammals - are either male or female. It’s about an attack on reality. If you can get someone to believe a man can be a woman, you can get them to believe anything. If people are threatened. fired, taken to court and convicted for pointing out that a man is a man, or that it is impossible to change sex, freedom of speech is lost and you are living under a tyrannical dystopia. It’s not about “a tiny minority.” It’s about all of us.

Dear Stonewall, You seem to have difficulty understanding your responsibilities. On 16 April 2025 the UK Supreme Court clarified the law as it has existed since 2010. It explained that the terms “sex” and “sexual orientation” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex. We all knew that and have been saying it for years, but you had been telling private and public sector organizations nationwide the opposite. You were once a well-respected charity, and we are - well, to a large extent women of a certain age. So these organizations believed you - not us. And even after they lost one court case after another, they carried on believing you. Because admitting you were wrong, and they were wrong, for years and years, is just too unpalatable. After the ruling, women around the country cheered and praised the heroic women of @ForWomenScot who had fought so hard to get this clarification. And lesbians around the country - and some gay men - cheered the lesbian interveners who had secured the acknowledgment - from the highest court of the land - that a lesbian is a biological woman who is sexually attracted to other biological women. We all knew this, but we were very very fed up with you lying about it. And now, you are apparently determined to go on lying, obfuscating, treating the rights of women - and lesbians and gay men - with contempt. But now, people are looking. They know you are no longer a respected charity but a group of charlatans. Lying to people about the law simply won’t work any more. You may not have been purchasing a luxury mobile home, a snazzy space telescope, or designer crystal salt and pepper grinders, but you have stolen the entire mission of what was once a respected gay rights charity and turned it against those for whom it was founded. And you will never be forgiven.

Women. If you care about your rights, already protected in UK law, do not vote Green.

Rachel Millward @rachelmillward

2 weeks ago

Today my heart is with our trans community, treated so abysmally in this country. Draft guidance means trans people are barred from services they could previously access & inclusive service providers will be at legal risk. Green Party statement: greenparty.org.uk/2026/05/22/sia…

0 324 2K 1.9M 102

The BBC’s failure to cover the GIDS scandal has been a serious dereliction of its public duty. After resigning as a governor of the Tavistock, I was involved behind the scenes in the 2019 Panorama programme on GIDS. The producer warned me I might be disappointed the programme would expose only one part of the scandal, not the whole story. That warning told me everything I needed to know about the BBC’s problem with impartiality on this issue. When Sue Evans and Keira Bell won the first judicial review, there was no serious follow-up from the BBC News, Woman’s Hour, or other major outlets. Nor was there adequate coverage of one of the most important findings of the Cass Review: the poor quality of the evidence base behind medical interventions for children and adolescents with gender distress. Instead, the BBC repeatedly broadcast positive stories about transition while failing to investigate the harms, uncertainties, and institutional failures surrounding this field. Sue and I have seen some of the casualties. Parents have been badly let down by professional bodies that lacked the courage or independence to challenge the affirmative model none of which received the scrutiny a public broadcaster exists to provide. With honourable exceptions in Newsnight and the Today programme, the BBC has failed young people, failed parents, and failed in its most basic public duty.

marcus evans @marcuse99903226

2 weeks ago

I investigated BBC capture by trans activists. It was worse than I thought thetimes.com/article/817e15…

10 87 375 75K 51