Which Rights Do You Believe You’ve Lost, Then?

Last week’s supreme court ruling sent shock waves through the UK’s trans community. The unanimous judgment said the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs). That feeling was compounded when Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is preparing new statutory guidance, said the judgment meant only biological women could use single-sex changing rooms and toilets.

And apparently this is going to cause issues for those men who have been posing as women for years.  

The fear is back. The fear I had when I first started my transition in 1979, that people will hurt me,” says Janey, who is 70. She has been living “happily and independently” as a woman for nearly half a century. Based in London, she still works in the mental health sector and is part of a large and accepting Irish family. She is also transgender. “I still go into the women’s toilets at work, but when I open the door there’s that little voice inside me: ‘Will someone shout at me?’,” she says.

What are you planning to do it there? If it's just 'use the toilet', it's unlikely. If it's to pose in front of the mirrors for a selfie to show how you're in a women's toilet like so many of the exhibitionist freakshows on Twitter and Instragram, then no.  

Janey’s colleagues don’t know she’s trans (Janey is not her real name).

Don't they? I wouldn't bet on that. 

It’s the fragility of rights that scares her. “Just look at what is happening in the US – what worries me in this country is that it’s all about trans people now, but this is the start of something. Rights can be knocked out in a second.”

You never had a right to invade female spaces. You're a man.  

Diana James, 66, a domestic abuse worker, says the supreme court judgment has been “a tremendous shock” to mature trans women in particular. “These are women just living their lives, coming up for retirement, pottering around their gardens, and suddenly their safety and security has been removed.”

What about the safety and security of women who don't want them in their spaces, Diana? 

In the intervening decades since her own transition in the mid-70s, James has witnessed “an incremental increase in rights and understanding” for trans people. “The path forward wasn’t rushed but in gentle increments, so some people who had concerns could discuss them.”

And have them belittled and ignored in favour of the utter madness that has become the trans rights movement? Gee, thanks awfully... 

Christine Burns, a retired activist and internationally recognised health adviser, charts “a fairly straight line of progress” towards the passing of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, which allowed trans people to change gender on their birth certificate, marry to reflect their chosen identity and gave them privacy around their transition. That legislation “mattered so much to people” says Burns, while acknowledging that only a minority of the community have gone on to apply for a GRC.

Well, clearly it didn't matter as much as you thought. 

She points to another significant social shift in the mid-00s. “The oddity is that the Gender Recognition Act changed lives, but the emergence of social media made it possible for there to be a revolution in how trans people engaged with the world.”

And we saw how they engaged with the world and realised just what we were expected to invite into our private spaces. And a brave bunch of women went to the Supreme Court to put an end to it. 

More Huge Fines, Quicker!

And keep them coming until they learn!

Two academics behind a gender-critical film have taken legal action against their union, accusing it of discrimination and harassment after it campaigned on social media to stop the documentary being screened.

The film is part of a continuing debate about gender politics and free speech in UK universities. Last week, the University of Sussex was fined a record £585,000 for free speech breaches after a three-and-a-half-year investigation into the resignation of Prof Kathleen Stock, who was the target of protests over her views on gender identification and transgender rights.

O’Neill and Wayne, who describe themselves as gender critical, believe sex is a matter of biology, that it is impossible for a human to change sex, and that sex is important in a range of different political and social contexts.

Why are these beliefs 'explained' in the article as if they were fringe beliefs that aren't simply common to 99% of the population?  

They also do not subscribe to gender identity theory, “namely the belief that people are born with an internal sense of gender which may or may not correspond to their biological sex”, the documents state.

Again, just like 99% of the UK population.  

They claim these are protected beliefs and their union has discriminated against them contrary to section 57(2) of the Equality Act 2010.

The union is fighting back, of course. They've chosen a side, and it's one that hopefully will cost them dearly. 

The union – or respondent – denies it has discriminated against O’Neill and Wayne. Documents before the tribunal said: “The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and necessary in the interests of advocating the rights of others. Accordingly, the reason for any less favourable treatment was not the claimants’ gender-critical belief or lack of a belief in gender identity theory.” Denying harassment, the union’s defence stated: “The conduct of the respondent was to highlight its commitment to supporting its members that identify as trans or non-binary. The respondent’s conduct was proportionate and in line with its current support for its trans, non-binary and LGBT+ members.”

If this is your line in the sand, then I hope you have large coffers - it's going to be expensive.  

It's Not 'Seemingly Inaccurate', It's A Blatent Lie...

In a call for public assistance published this week, Surrey Police asked for help in locating Skyla Stone, a 49-year-old wanted for failing to appear in court.

'We are appealing for the public’s help in finding wanted woman Skyla Stone,' read the original appeal.

'She is described as a white, with brown hair and blue/green eyes and has links to Guildford.'

This is Skyla: 

Who's fooled? Certainly not anyone with eyes. 

Following an approach by MailOnline, the force acknowledged on Thursday afternoon that it should have referred to the suspect as a transgender woman, effectively confirming the initial feeling among campaigners.

The post copied in Lisa Townsend, the Surrey police and crime commissioner, who acknowledged the seemingly inaccurate nature of the language used in the appeal.

'Seemingly'?  

'My views on the importance of language when describing potential offenders is pretty well known,' wrote Townsend.

'I will be making it clear to the Force that however well-intentioned this may have been, it is clear to everyone that this is a male, however they choose to identify.'

It's par for the course for our irretrievably captured police farces. They have become a laughing stock. And there's a serious aspect to this surrender to the trans cult too.... 

The government-commissioned report said the conflation of biological sex and gender identity has significant implications for clinical care, health screening and safeguarding, including the possibility that crimes might be misrecorded.

'The problems are everywhere, from NHS records that do not record biological sex to police forces that record male sex offenders as women,' said Maya Forstater, chief executive of the human rights charity Sex Matters.

'These corrupted data standards have been set by bureaucrats insulated from the impact of their decisions, and competing for Stonewall awards.

'The government should swiftly implement the recommendations of the review.'

Does anyone think they will? 

It Wasn’t ‘Smartphones And Online Spaces', It Was Parenting…

Under a Pink Sky is the story of two troubled kids – only one of whom survived to tell their story.

Yes, Reader, this is the news that the mother of Brianna Ghey has a book coming out, in her quest to become the new Doreen Lawrence. 'Under A Pink Sky' is the title, presumably because 'Screwing Up Your Kids For Dummies' was too on the nose...  

Ghey says there are so many parallels between her early life and Brianna’s. As a teenager, Esther Ghey was caught in a web of self-loathing. She had body dysmorphia, was desperate to be thinner, and told herself that nobody would ever love her the way she was. At times she was bullied; sometimes she picked on other children. Then she found drugs. She left school at 16 with no qualifications. “I had no self-worth because of that. I had no respect for myself, no respect for my body, no respect for my life, and that is such a sad, tragic, horrific place to be.” Brianna would go on to struggle with many of the same things: self-belief, school attendance, bullying. And while she was never hooked on drugs, Brianna was addicted to her smartphone and social media.

Incompetent screwed up parents raise incompetent screwed up kids. Is this really 'news'?

By the age of 20, Ghey was a single parent to two young children. She managed to get a house, hoped to make it a “safe haven” for her and her children, and failed miserably.

Shocker! Cue people saying she never had a chance to turn her life around. But wait! 

In her late 20s, now clean and a devoted mother, she started with a job as a cleaner at a car dealership before going back to college, initially doing an English GCSE. She did an access to health professions course, because at the time she wanted to be a nurse, completed a degree in nutrition at Liverpool Hope University, and eventually became a senior product development technologist for a food company.

But it made no difference in the end. 

For 14 years of Brianna’s life, she was Brett.

 No, he always was Brett. Allowing your son to don womanface doesn't make him your daught. Nothing will do that.

Through the book, Ghey makes a clear distinction. She refers to Brett as he, Brianna as she. Does it seem like two different people?

“It does, though that’s not necessarily because she went from Brett to Brianna, it’s just the natural stages of life. It was important for me to talk about Brett as well, because to understand where Brianna was at, you need to understand the whole life.”

I think we do. Poor child was doomed in the womb. 

What was Brett like? Her face lights up and her voice crackles with happiness. “Hyperactive, giddy, funny, always getting up to mischief. A cheeky little thing. Absolutely fearless. He taught himself gymnastics – he did backflips. I think of him bouncing around Asda, completely uncontrollable but also completely full of joy. And so kind. When he was young, he had an asthma appointment and as he was leaving he went to give the doctor a hug. He was so full of love. That kind of love started seeping away once I’d given him the phone. The impact the phone had on his mental health is stark. I believe it took my child away from me.” There’s a tremor in her voice, and Ghey starts crying.

You're blaming the technology?  Really? 

Brett had so many issues, she says – body dysmorphia and dysphoria, asthma, ADHD, appalling eyesight, autism (then undiagnosed).

Brianna was a mass of contradictions: desperate for attention in the digital world, but terrified of the real world.

Because he spent so little time in it, thanks to a mother who allowed him never to face reality. 

“My relationship with Brianna was so bad because all I wanted to do was help her, but because I wasn’t backing down, we were having lots of arguments.” Brianna became abusive and violent. When Ghey confiscated her phone, she punched holes in her bedroom walls.

“I saw how addicted she was to her phone through her behaviour,” Ghey says, “because I’ve been through it myself. Smartphones have been built to be addictive. Social media is built to keep you on there as long as possible. It’s the attention economy.”

And that's why you're writing a book. Don't decry the 'addiction of attention' while you yourself are shooting up on it.