Hampstead Heath’s trans rules ‘treat women worse than men’ - "In written submissions for a hearing before the High Court on Wednesday, Tom Cross KC, for the charity, said: “In providing the service on terms or in circumstances which permit the opposite sex to enter the bathing ponds, the admission rules treat individual women less favourably than men because an individual woman is at greater risk of suffering the detriment of her privacy, dignity or safety being compromised than is an individual man.” He said the City of London had been allowing people who identify as transgender, which includes people who were “genderfluid, gender queer or non-binary”, to use the single-sex facilities since 2019."
Apparently they are not asking the bigger question: why is a swimming area being segregated by sex? They're not swimming naked
JK Rowling attacks Labour for blocking new trans guidance - "JK Rowling has condemned Labour for blocking new trans guidance protecting women’s rights to female-only safe spaces. The Harry Potter author highlighted the front page of Friday’s Telegraph, which reported that Bridget Phillipson is stopping the publication of the guidance for public bodies and businesses. The Women and Equalities Secretary has failed to sign off the proposed rules, which would protect female-only spaces, more than three months after receiving them... The author also criticised a Labour post on the social media website setting out how the party aimed to protect children from misogyny and abuse. It said: “Every parent should be able to trust that their daughter is safe at school, online and in her relationships. With Labour, they will be.” Rowling said: “As you’re fighting to remove our daughters’ rights to the privacy and safety of single-sex bathrooms and changing rooms, while poised to allow the unethical puberty blockers trial, perhaps children should be protected from @UKLabour.”"
Stand aside, Phillipson. The law is clear - "When is a Supreme Court judgment not a Supreme Court judgment? When it is treated as optional by those who once celebrated the authority of the courts as sacrosanct. When Baroness Hale and her fellow justices ruled that Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful, progressives across Britain hailed the decision as a triumph for truth, democracy and the rule of law. The judgment affirmed a fundamental constitutional principle: that Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and hold the executive to account must not be overridden for political convenience. The Supreme Court was lauded not merely as an arbiter of legal disputes, but as a guardian of democratic integrity. Yet that reverence appears conspicuously absent in response to April’s Supreme Court ruling that, under the Equality Act, “sex” refers to biological sex... In a statement submitted to the High Court, Ms Phillipson argued that banning trans women from women’s lavatories would also imply that women could not take their infant sons into changing rooms at swimming pools. She further suggested that the guidance fails to accommodate “common sense” scenarios, such as pregnant women choosing to use men’s toilets to avoid queues in theatres. She even went so far as to ponder whether a peripatetic female massage therapist who only provides massages to women could make an exception for a man with whom she has a pre-existing professional relationship. This is palpable nonsense. No reasonable interpretation of the guidance – or of the law – would prevent mothers from accompanying young children, nor would it criminalise pragmatic, informal decisions made in everyday life. These examples function less as genuine concerns and more as rhetorical devices designed to sow confusion about what the ruling actually entails. But there is a deeper contradiction at play. The government claims to be pursuing a serious crackdown on violence against women and girls, repeatedly asserting that it stands firmly on the side of females. And yet here we have a senior cabinet minister accused of “using every excuse in the book” to delay or dilute a Supreme Court ruling that explicitly affirms women’s sex-based rights. It’s as disingenuous as proposing to teach boys about respect for women in schools while continuing to provide room and board for migrant rapists entering the country illegally... Reports suggest the delay may be politically motivated. Ms Phillipson was, at the time, vying for the Labour deputy leadership and may have feared a backlash from LGBT activists and party members. If true, this would represent a deeply cynical calculation: subordinating legal clarity and women’s rights to internal party management. Ms Phillipson’s position has been set out in more detail in her intervention as an interested party in a High Court case brought by the Good Law Project, which is challenging an interim version of the EHRC guidance. The organisation, founded by Jolyon Maugham, the KC who once killed a fox while wearing a kimono (him, not poor Reynard), thinks the Supreme Court ruling violates the Human Rights Act, arguing that the right to a private life includes the right to access single-sex spaces reserved for the opposite sex. So much for women’s privacy! In court papers lodged in November, Ms Phillipson agrees the guidance is discriminatory, arguing that the Supreme Court ruling was primarily about maternity rights, and insists there are already “many entirely plausible exceptions” to single-sex provisions. But that is not what is really happening here. What we are witnessing is a coordinated effort by Labour MPs, peers and pro-trans lobbying organisations to frustrate, weaken or overturn the practical consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision. It is the same constellation of activists who previously attempted to have Baroness Falkner removed as chair of the EHRC with a dodgy dossier of spurious complaints. Although Baroness Falkner has since stepped down after a review by an independent legal expert cleared her of any wrongdoing, she has been forthright in her criticism of the government, arguing that it has “abandoned women and feminism.” She previously noted that while parliamentarians are entitled to raise constituents’ concerns, it is wholly unacceptable to undermine the integrity of the judiciary or the independence of the regulator charged with enforcing equality law."
The Law is only sacrosanct when it pushes the left wing agenda
We can’t fight terrorism if we’re scared of being called Islamophobic - "In case she’s actually dense enough to believe such drivel, I suppose we’d better explain it to her. Women don’t object to a mother bringing her infant son into the women’s changing room, for a very simple reason: there’s no risk of being sexually harassed by a toddler. Therefore, they don’t feel uncomfortable undressing in a toddler’s presence. Whereas they do feel uncomfortable about being made to undress in the presence of an unfamiliar adult male. Hence the demand to exclude all adult males, regardless of how they identify. Otherwise, any man with dubious intentions can gain access to a women’s changing room simply by claiming he’s trans. He cannot, however, gain access to it by claiming he’s only two years old. This would be a rather more difficult trick to pull off. If Ms Phillipson still can’t grasp this point, perhaps I’ll try telling her that I’m only two years old, and see how she responds. “Aw, aren’t you a little cutie! Especially with that adorable stubble!”"
MrMenno 🇳🇱🏳️🌈🎶 on X - "Because we see the misogyny, the homophobia, the medical harms to children and adults, how rights are being eroded and erased, how policies / laws / institutions are being corrupted, how people are being harassed / discriminated / hounded for speaking out against it, how it's utterly bonkers and deranged. And how the way you try to make mint out of this madness is simply evil"
Father’s anger at girl’s potentially fatal testosterone dose - "The child, who was 15 at the time, was given the prescription by the private GenderGP clinic after one online counselling session... Family court documents show that GenderGP prescribed a 15-year-old such a high dose of testosterone that she was at risk of sudden death. Asked about the case by Jo Coburn on Times Radio, GenderGP’s founder, Helen Webberley, said: “I don’t know this case and it’s not my patient.”... He describes how — in his view — his ex-wife weaponised gender medicine to cut him out of his daughter’s life, how his daughter went from being sectioned for anorexia to being affirmed in her trans identity by all the adults in her life except him, how she was given a prescription for testosterone after one online session with a counsellor, and how this was injected by her local NHS GP with no blood tests or clinical evaluation. An independent expert, the endocrinologist Dr Jacqueline Hewitt, told the court that the teenager — known as J in the documents — was “at risk of sudden death” because of the thickening of the blood caused by testosterone. She said that in 20 years she had never before seen such a massive dose of testosterone administered to a young person. John points out that the risks were exacerbated by a family history of heart disease... J was diagnosed with autism aged 13. At 14 she was sectioned because she had become severely malnourished. John suggested the patients on the anorexia ward should not be allowed phones but was told by a psychiatrist that it was their human right. “One of the main reasons they’re in there is because they picked up all this stuff on social media,” he says... They would also link up online with “ana-buddies” who would give them targets. If, for example, they failed to avoid eating for three days, they would be given a forfeit."
Luckily she was prescribed testosterone, or she would be dead, because it's literally life saving (despite no evidence for that)
evan loves worf on X - "My point of view is that accepting trans people into society is more important than any sport"
Thread by @xwanyex on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "People will make fun of this, but it actually distills the argument down to its essence. I would not, for example, rework society to make life easier for trans people. I would just accept that trans people are probably going to have more difficult lives than average. Note that we’re not talking about any kind of abuse here. I’m not suggesting that you should mistreat people or humiliate them. But if a trans person says, “I would really like to play on the girl’s softball team and it really hurts me that I can’t and this is going to be something that causes me pain for my entire life“ then I would look that person in the face and say, I’m sorry, but the answer is still no. I don’t actually care about making you comfortable to the exclusion of all other considerations. It’s good to frame it this way. It’s good to have this argument directly. At the end of the day, this is the actual argument. “I believe we should do whatever it takes to make trans people feel accepted in society” vs. “I don’t.”"
Jeff Nelson on X - "It is an important life lesson for children that YOU adapt to society, you don’t expect society to adapt to every thought you have. That sometimes this is “unfair” because that’s the way life is. Usually they learn this when they try to declare ice cream is a healthy breakfast"
To put it another way, the "right" of MTFs to pretend that they're female and take part in female sports overrides the right of females to reasonably fair competition and safety, the reasons for which sports are sex-segregated in the first place (feminist delusions about better performance notwithstanding)
Rona Dinur on X - "Ethics, once considered a leading philosophy journal, now appears to be lining up a barrage of papers solely devoted to genderist nonsense, and sadly is heading down the same path that journals tend to take once they reach this point"
Brandon Warmke on X - "Our journals are now home to a debate between those who think gender should be abolished, those who say they/them should be used for everyone, and those who think public affirmation of one's chosen gender is very important. How progressives end up settling this is anyone's guess."
Thread by @wesyang on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Colorado just passed a law forcing every private insurer in the state to cover the cost of cheek implants, lip augmentation, nose jobs, and breast implants (among other elective cosmetic procedures) for one group of legally privileged people -- men who claim to be women and women who claim to be men. It's literally against the law in Colorado not to force every insurance customer to bear the cost of the elective castration or nose job of any man who claims to be a woman... A man gets breast implants covered by insurance because for him it is lifesaving and medically necessary care. A woman getting breast implants would be merely cosmetic."
Of course, the TRAs who claim cosmetic surgery is "gender-affirming" won't call for it to be covered under this law too
WomenAreReal on X - "Coates says here we are not worth talking to. Then Klein keeps pushing him to acknowledge the millions of us who don’t think men can be women. Coates doesn’t seem to be able to really face the face that the majority of Americans are not on his side. He resorts to the politeness argument."
wanye on X - "Here you have two people at the absolute top of liberal intellectualism who think the debate about trans people comes down to whether they are, “human beings who deserve humanity.” What are you supposed to do with this? How can you have a real debate with people who simply refuse to debate the actual questions?"
Brad Pearce on X - "this has always been such a bullshit bad faith argument, wtf does "right to exist" even mean in this context. They certainly have the same general legal rights as anyone else, bearing in mind half the shit they want don't constitute "rights" in any normal sense."
Errabundo on X - "It's the narcissistic argument. "Not actively doing things for me is attacking me". They have this base idea that everybody has a duty of care towards them, and if you are not fulfilling it you want them dead. The narcissistic argument explains so much of the woke left."
Andrey Vlasov on X - "I've always read it as them building the groundwork for claiming that anything less than universal basic HRT counts as genocide."
Myshkin on X - "Democrats always retreat to the magic phrase "just be kind." As if there were no tradeoffs, no difficult questions, no conflicting interests, no OTHER groups who are in increased danger as a result of their policies. And despite it all the spell keeps working on their base."
"Humanity" means being allowed to do whatever you want, trampling over female rights
Chief Nerd on X - "🚨 NEW: Jimmy Kimmel mocks RFK Jr for restricting gender-affirming care for minors, saying it “almost never happens” Literally thousands of children undergo these procedures every year"
Canada’s Statistical Agency Wants More Details on “Nonbinary Children” - "The federal statistical agency published “gender-identity” data for people 15 and older in 2022. But many Canadians may not know that it has also collected this information for children aged 0 to 14... the authors claim that “children and youth are often assumed to be cisgender [identifying with their biological sex] . . . from birth until they ‘come out’ as a different gender on their own accord.” They cite a study that purportedly demonstrates that “children aged 18 to 24 months are developmentally capable of recognizing gender norms and expressing gendered behaviours in visible ways.” But the study and the broader developmental psychology literature do not say that toddlers “recogniz[e] gender norms.” What they actually show is that children begin developing the ability to distinguish males from females—based on perceptual cues like faces and voices—between one and two years of age. This has nothing to do with recognition of a subjective inner sense of self. Later in that paragraph, the Guide claims that “Children may mimic gender norms and roles learned from people in their environment, assert their desire for certain clothing, hair styles or other accessories and choose to play with toys that match their gender identity.” Apparently, the authors believe that if toddlers play with a doll or a truck, they are expressing their “gender identity,” and that adults should interpret such behavior as a window into the child’s internal psychological state. Things become even more speculative from there. The Guide’s authors claim that “transgender and non-binary children may recognize and express their gender to others from as early as 2 to 3 years old.” But the studies they’re gesturing at show nothing of the kind—in reality, they report the ages at which parents socially transitioned their children, not when children formed a stable internal sense of identity. A three-year-old boy who prefers his hair long is not announcing that he is a girl; rather, parents who “affirm” their boy as a girl for such reasons are revealing their ideology. Next, the Guide turns to the concept of “gender.” The authors claim that it is “normal” for a child’s gender to change over time, and that “children do not experience undue harm from exploring their gender in ways that differ from their assumed gender or sex at birth.” But while most forms of imagination-based play are normal and harmless, like pretending to be a superhero or one’s favorite Disney character, in today’s clinical and educational environment, “gender exploration” is often paired with “social affirmation,” which in turn often begets puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. One of the Guide’s most remarkable sections concerns data collection. Statistics Canada admits that “gender identity” data for children under 12 comes mostly from proxy reporting—parents or household members declaring a child’s “gender identity” on the child’s behalf. Rather than viewing this as a limitation on its data’s reliability, the Guide treats it as a fixable flaw in parental judgment. It suggests that proxy data may be distorted because “the gender of a child is often assumed based on sex at birth.” At the same time, it notes that some parents now label their infants as “non-binary” by default until the child says otherwise. Instead of concluding that gender identity is unmeasurable in very young children, the Guide suggests that providing parents with “gender diversity information . . . from birth or an early age” will produce more reliable data. Throughout the document, the authors suggest that public resistance to or skepticism about concepts like “gender fluidity, cisnormativity . . . and transnormativity” is a result of misunderstanding, and that this ignorance is fueling legislation concerning pronoun usage, access to “gender-affirming health care,” and sports participation. The Guide also asks respondents whether they anticipate a “negative reaction from certain groups” if gender-identity data for young children are published, again implying that such a reaction would be rooted in prejudice. What the Guide never addresses is its central conceptual problem: the idea of a “transgender” or “non-binary” child, which depends on the false belief that everyone has an innate, internal gender identity separate from their sex, and that this identity is discernible even in babies and toddlers. Yet no compelling evidence supports this claim. What activists interpret as signs of an internal gender identity—preferences, behaviors, personality traits—all reflect normal variations among boys and girls. Nevertheless, the Guide proceeds as though the innateness of transgenderism were a settled matter—as if labeling an infant “non-binary” were as scientifically valid as recording his or her birth weight. When a national statistics agency adopts contested metaphysical beliefs as objective data points, it does more than mismeasure reality—it distorts people’s perception of reality. And these perceptions shape school policies, medical guidelines, and government programs. Statistics Canada is not just proposing to publish data. It is proposing to institutionalize an ideology that pathologizes ordinary childhood behavior and funnels children toward social and medical transitions. The Consultation Guide reads less like a technical survey than an ideological document attempting to create the very phenomenon it claims only to want to measure."
EXCLUSIVE: Docs Knew Gender Science Was ‘Shoddy,’ But Pushed Chemical Sex Changes On Kids Anyway | The Daily Caller - "Private emails from leaders of an influential transgender medical organization expose how ideology and consensus, rather than science, has undergirded the explosive growth of the child sex-change industry. The emails were revealed under Freedom of Information laws. As their gender clinic boomed with patients, University of California San Francisco (UCSF) medical directors Maddie Deutsch and Stephen Rosenthal acknowledged behind the scenes that research supporting child sex-changes was “shoddy” and fueling “predatory practices,” emails show... As a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, UCSF released 2,491 pages of emails. Among the revelations is that UCSF gave puberty blockers to children as young as nine. Puberty blockers are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of gender dysphoria. “There is something rotten in the state of California,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a press release. A May 2022 email obtained through the lawsuit accused Rosenthal and his gender clinic colleague, Dr. Diane Ehrensaft, of peddling “shoddy research” in a March 2022 op-ed published in the San Francisco Chronicle. The op-ed argued against legislative bans on child sex-changes and cited a highly criticized February 2022 study, authored by Diana Tordoff, as evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones significantly lowered depression and suicidality amongst gender-confused youth. The flaws of the Tordoff study were brought to the attention of Rosenthal via email. “You cite the Diana Tordoff study from Seattle Children’s Hospital as evidence of the ‘clear mental health benefits’ of gender-affirming care. Except that, apparently, that study says no such thing,” states the email. The name of the emails author was fully redacted. “The same shoddy research is wheeled out again and again,” the message continued. Rosenthal responded to the email by agreeing the study had “significant methodological concerns.” “I completely agree with you about the Tordoff et al. paper, and wish that I had realized the significant methodological concerns,” wrote Rosenthal... In September 2022, the Tordoff study was cited by WPATH in the SOC 8 as evidence supporting the benefits of child sex-changes. Rosenthal was the co-investigator of a long-term National Institute of Health (NIH) study led by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy on the mental health impacts of using puberty blockers as a treatment for gender dysphoria. Olson-Kennedy controversially withheld the results of the study, which showed puberty blockers did not improve mental health of gender-confused children, out of fear the data would be “weaponized,” according to reporting in October 2024 by The New York Times... Rosenthal explained to Deutsch in a November 2022 email that giving adolescents over age 14 puberty blockers as a monotherapy, meaning without additional sex hormones, put the bone health of teen patients at serious risk, emails show. “[SOC 8] also states there are not data to support use of GnRHa (as monotherapy) in someone older than 14 without posing a risk to bone health,” wrote Rosenthal. Rosenthal stated WPATH did not include a recommendation against the risky therapy in the SOC 8 because it “did not pass” the Delphi process, a method to establish scientific consensus used by WPATH to determine what was included in its clinical guidance. Under the Delphi process, WPATH members anonymously voted for proposed clinical recommendation statements, rating them on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Statements were included in the SOC 8 if at least 75% of voters rated the recommendation 7 or higher, according to WPATH’s website. WPATH’s use of the Delphi method was “deeply flawed,” Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director of Do No Harm, told the DCNF. “WPATH’s use of the Delphi process to justify its guidelines on gender-affirming care is deeply flawed — not because of the method itself, but because of who was allowed to define ‘expertise,'” Miceli told the DCNF. “When a consensus is built among ideologically aligned individuals who ignore conflicting evidence, the result isn’t science—it’s dogma dressed up as clinical guidance,” Miceli added. A draft copy of an SOC 8 chapter on cross-sex hormone therapy for children and adults showed 12 0f the 21 proposed statements that passed the Delphi process were rated by WPATH as having a “low certainty of evidence,” according to documents from Boe v. Marshall released by Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall. Even Deutsch expressed doubts about the credibility of the Delphi process... Deutsch was concerned the lack of protocols when assessing gender-confused patients would be “opening up the tap” to “surgery on demand.” “Will a surgeon themself be able to do the assessment if they so deem themself as qualified to do so? I am absolutely certain that, should this content remain as-is, within weeks of SOC8 release, there will be scores of new grad primary care nurse practitioners and PAs, who have completed 2 years of masters level training, identifying themselves as qualified to make these assessments and opening up the tap to what is effectively surgery on demand,” wrote Deutsch. Shortly after the SOC 8 guidance was published in September 2022, Deutsch announced in an email that the UCSF gender clinic would be immediately implementing the lowered assessments standards."
Stephen L. Miller on X - "It almost never happens and we have to make sure this thing that almost never happens continues to almost never happen."
About 22 unarmed black men shot by police annually is genocide, but 85 gender-affirming surgical procedures on minors in 2019 alone is almost never.
Once again, trans mania is the true conversion therapy
