Arise, Go Forth and Conquer. In Praise of Sophia Duleep Singh. Part 1.
Update 577. Shero Special. #BeMorePorcupine.
There are still loads of important pieces on the momentous For Women Scotland judgment flooding in, so I am splitting this into two parts - the second part will look at other news. Part 1 is long, dear readers!!
Firstly, I am very grateful to all my subscribers but I note that only 3% of my subscribers are paid subscribers. I am, of course, especially grateful to my paid subscribers and to those who donate via buy me a coffee. However, it does take a lot of work to put together these updates so I would greatly appreciate it if you could consider becoming a paid subscriber for the cost of a cup of coffee per month 😊
We have been celebrating the great sheroes of For Women Scotland, namely Marion Calder, Susan Smith and Trina Budge. I look here briefly at a forgotten shero of the past who was an Indian Princess who became one of the leading Suffragettes. ‘Arise, Go Forth and Conquer’ is an old Suffragette slogan by the way.
These excerpts are taken from a website called Release Peace and a series called Women Who Changed The World. This article is by Isabella Ritchie.
Born in 1876, Sophia Duleep Singh was the daughter of Maharaja Duleep Singh and Maharani Bamba. Her father, Maharaja Duleep Singh was the last Maharaja (Indian prince), of Punjab before it was annexed in 1849…
Duleep’s father’s charismatic personality deeply fascinated Queen Victoria upon their first meeting in 1854. This brought him into her inner circle and awarded him an income by the monarchy. This meant that Duleep and her 6 siblings grew up comfortably enjoying the extravagant lifestyle of English high society. Named the goddaughter to Queen Victoria, Duleep spent her early childhood growing up on a beautiful estate in Sussex…..
Duleep returned home [ after a visit to India], motivated by what she had seen and inspired by her Sikh faith’s values of humility, compassion, and generosity. Sophia had seen first-hand the subordination that women were experiencing in society. …She recognized a parallel between the cries of her people and the suffragettes. She decided to join the Women’s Society for Social and Political Union (WSPU), a group fighting for women’s voices in society. Duleep quickly became very active in the public eye and was often spotted selling the Suffragette newsletter and shouting ‘REVOLUTION.’….
Friday, Nov.18, 1910, was a cold autumn day in central London. Headed by suffragette activist Emily Pankhurst, Duleep, 11 of the most celebrated suffragettes and hundreds of supporters, lead a march on the Houses of Parliament. They carried banners painted with phrases such as, “Arise go forth and conquer,” in protest of the government’s rejection of the first Conciliation Bill that would begin to award voting rights to some women. By this point, Duleep had become the modern equivalent of an international celebrity because of her social status and involvement in the suffragette movement. Although the women marched peacefully, they were met by 1000 policemen and violence and turmoil ensued.
The full piece is here:
https://releasepeace.org/women-who-changed-the-world-sophia-duleep-singh/
More about Duleep in Part 2😊
Thanks to three wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.
The For Women Scotland Judgment
Lots of good pieces are still appearing on the judgment. The judgment presents us with an excellent platform and now we need to concentrate on the implementation of the judgment.
The UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer took five days to comment on the judgment:
EDI Jester comments here ( and also comments on the NHS ‘Wheel of Privilege’ !!??):
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161901041
EDI Jester has also put out today’s Parliamentary Debate ( I haven’t yet watched it - all thoughts gratefully received):
My wife asked Grok how the judgment could be enforced and here is Grok’s answer (all thoughts on this especially from readers who are lawyers gratefully received). This should not be taken as legal advice, of course, but just suggestions as to how enforcement could occur:
In the UK, neither the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 nor the Equality Act 2010 directly create criminal offences specifically for failing to provide single-sex facilities in workplaces. However, there are nuances to consider, and certain actions related to these regulations could lead to legal consequences, including criminal liability in specific circumstances. Below, I’ll break this down clearly:
1. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
These regulations set out requirements for workplace facilities, including toilets and washing facilities. Specifically, Regulation 20 deals with sanitary conveniences, and the accompanying Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) recommends that employers provide separate facilities for men and women, except where facilities are in separate rooms that can be locked from the inside (e.g., gender-neutral single-occupancy toilets).
Criminal Offences:
Failing to comply with the 1992 Regulations can constitute a breach of health and safety law, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, breaches of regulations can lead to criminal penalties, such as fines or, in extreme cases, imprisonment (e.g., for serious neglect causing harm). However, there is no specific criminal offence tied solely to failing to provide single-sex facilities.
If an employer’s failure to provide adequate facilities (e.g., forcing employees to use inappropriate facilities) leads to harm or a significant health and safety risk, this could escalate to a criminal matter, but this would be under general health and safety law, not a specific offence for single-sex facilities.
Practical Implications:
The regulations prioritize privacy and dignity, and failure to provide separate facilities could be deemed inadequate, potentially leading to enforcement notices from the HSE. Non-compliance with such notices could then result in criminal penalties.
2. Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 governs discrimination, including provisions related to single-sex services and facilities. It allows for the provision of single-sex or separate-sex services (e.g., toilets, changing rooms) under specific exemptions, provided the restriction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (e.g., privacy, safety, or dignity).
Criminal Offences:
The Equality Act itself does not create criminal offences for failing to provide single-sex facilities or for related discrimination. Breaches of the Act, such as discriminatory practices, are typically addressed through civil law, such as employment tribunal claims or civil lawsuits.
However, certain actions under the Act can lead to criminal liability in narrow circumstances:
Knowingly or recklessly making false statements about the lawfulness of an act under the Equality Act (e.g., misrepresenting obligations regarding single-sex facilities) is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000.
If an employer’s actions in relation to single-sex facilities amount to harassment (e.g., subjecting an employee to a hostile environment based on sex or gender reassignment), this could lead to civil claims, but it’s not a criminal offence unless it escalates to other criminal behaviour (e.g., assault or public order offences).
Discrimination and Single-Sex Facilities:
Failing to provide single-sex facilities could be deemed discriminatory under the Equality Act if it disproportionately disadvantages a protected group (e.g., women) and isn’t objectively justified. For example, in the case of Earl Shilton Town Council v Miller, a tribunal found that inadequate toilet arrangements for a female employee constituted direct sex discrimination, but this was a civil matter, not criminal.
The Equality Act allows providers to exclude transgender individuals from single-sex facilities based on their biological sex, provided it’s proportionate and justified. Misapplying this exemption could lead to discrimination claims, but again, these are civil, not criminal.In light of the judgment Let Women Speak have updated their report which looks at single sex provision provided by the Police and the National Health Service [ see further below].
'Knowingly or recklessly making false statements about the lawfulness of an act under the Equality Act (e.g., misrepresenting obligations regarding single-sex facilities) is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000.'
The offence of knowingly or recklessly making false statements about the lawfulness of an act under the Equality Act 2010 is outlined in Section 112 of the Act.
Details:
Section 112(1) states that a person commits an offence if they knowingly or recklessly make a statement which is false or misleading in a material respect, and the statement is about the lawfulness of doing something under the Equality Act (e.g., misrepresenting obligations or exemptions, such as those related to single-sex facilities).
Penalty: Under Section 112(2), the offence is punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently up to £5,000 in England and Wales.
Dusty - I would add that, in workplaces and schools, use of women’s single sex spaces such as toilets or changing rooms by men or boys could lead to disciplinary action.
Let Women Speak have updated their guidance.
Police and the NHS single sex provision revised 2025 edition
Please send this around as best as you can.
We’re delighted to bring you a revised version of our 2021 report on single sex provisions in the NHS and police forces of England and Wales.
This updated report includes revised recommendations to reflect the landmark 2025 Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. This decision brings long-overdue legal clarity and affirms the principle that women and girls are entitled to same-sex care and safeguarding in public services.
We are proud to note that Standing for Women, now Let Women Speak, first called for this clarification back in our original 2021 report, when we warned that the widespread conflation of sex and gender was putting women at risk. While we welcome the Court's affirmation of sex-based rights, we must also highlight that many NHS trusts and UK police forces continue to operate under unlawful or confused policies—policies that routinely fail women by prioritising gender identity over sex, and that deny female patients and detainees their right to request female staff. This updated report sets out exactly how these institutions must now bring their practices into line with the law.
Kellie-Jay Keen
Here are Times Radio interviewing Helen Joyce of Sex Matters.
Great piece on Gript News from their editor, John McGuirk where he looks at the implications for Ireland:
A momentous victory for women in the UK
17 April
Last year, at the Battle of Ideas in London, I had the immense pleasure of meeting (and drinking with, several nights in a row) Marian Calder, pictured centre above. Marian is the co-founder of For Women Scotland, victors yesterday in a UK Supreme Court case which has finally clarified that law over what a woman is: Now, and henceforth, a woman is an adult human biological female. The verdict was 5-0, with no judges in dissent. A momentous outcome.
Anyway, back to Marian: She will forgive me I hope if I share some hopefully pertinent and non-patronising observations.
First, that she and her dozens of colleagues in For Women Scotland are amongst the bravest women you could hope to encounter. Irish people cannot fathom, I think, the sheer entrenched power of the SNP Government in Scotland at the time when Marion and her colleagues began their fight to have women recognised as, well, women. They have not just won a court case – they have taken on the entire Scottish, and then the entire British, establishment, and won. And in so doing they have shifted public opinion on the transgender issue almost one hundred and eighty degrees. They did so at considerable peril to their own reputations, careers, and even relationships with friends.
Yesterday, they won.
Second, that to this day, comparatively few people I think truly understand the scale of the radicalism against which they were fighting. Then First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon had her Government argue – and it continued to argue in court until very recently – that Scotland’s Gender Recognition Law (based on its Irish equivalent) meant that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate could “change their gender for all purposes”. That meant, in law, that anyone who said they were a woman was a woman. This is the law in Ireland as I speak: Tomorrow, I might legally transmute my sex with a piece of paper and do nothing else, and I will be a woman in law. I could change nothing about myself and be counted a woman for the purpose of political quotas. I would be entitled to demand equal access to women-only spaces. I would have a legal right to be considered a woman for the purpose of accessing the local changing rooms in my gym (if I were the gym-going type, that is).
According to the Scottish law, and the Irish, the words “man and woman” have no meaning at all, beyond being a label that we choose to apply to ourselves. Say you are a man, and you are one. Say that you are a woman, and you are one.
Third, that the demands of For Women Scotland – and indeed a great many other campaigners in this area – are not remotely extreme. They do not seek to wish transgender people out of existence or deny somebody the right to choose their own name or wear the clothing they desire. In that sense these are women of the mainstream: Have the freedom to live your own life as you desire, they say, but don’t take the piss.
Thanks to yesterday’s Court ruling, “live life as you wish but don’t take the piss” is now the law of the land in Britain. People who are trans are still entitled to ask others to maintain the polite fiction that they have changed their sex. The vast majority of people, I suspect, will be happy to maintain that polite fiction – probably even more so now that the court has ruled as it has and maintaining that fiction is no longer a direct threat to women’s rights.
All that Marian Calder and her colleagues wanted – ever – was a recognition in law that women are born, not made, and that they are biologically distinct from men. That is a recognition that they now have. They have fought a good fight, and won.
But what about Irish law? In Ireland, that fight remains unwon, though there are some – like the Countess – fighting it still. The good news is that while UK laws do not apply in Ireland, we maintain a common law jurisdiction which means that Judgments of the UK Supreme Court, while not Irish legal precedent, will and must be given due consideration as important and notable cases by the Irish courts. Should a similar case end up before the Irish courts, yesterday’s judgment will carry weight in the deliberations of the judges.
But as yet, nobody has brought this to a head in Ireland, where we have already had at least one case of a very violent and misogynistic man being accommodated in a women’s prison because he claims to be a woman and the law says his claim is enough to make him one. Our politicians – those in office – are substantially the same politicians who brought this situation about. They are unlikely to reverse it in the short term.
We need a Marion Calder of our own, in short. And no, that person is not Enoch Burke.
I will leave you with this thought: For Women Scotland pursued their case through the courts, hired good lawyers, and won. They fought strategically, and relentlessly, and at great risk to their own reputations. And not once in that fight did they find it necessary to breach a court order, or shout at a Judge. There’s a lesson there.
Dennis Kavanagh has done an excellent piece on his substack in tribute to the lesbian groups who intervened and explaining the significance of the judgment for lesbians and gays.
In praise of the lesbian interveners
How the LGB Alliance, Scottish Lesbians and the Lesbian Project defended gay rights in the Supreme Court
Apr 21, 2025
There’s something of a dubious historical legend that the 1885 Criminal Law amendment Act only criminalised gross indecency between men and not women because Queen Victoria flat out refused to believe lesbians even existed. Whether that old story is true or not, the lesbians interveners at the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers could be forgiven for already feeling similarly forgotten and erased as various powerful bodies, from blue chip banks on the right to trade unions on the left fall over themselves to express concern over the ruling and express solidarity with the opponents of the lesbian interveners. This will come as no surprise at all to anyone suffering the slings and arrows of the gender wars and particularly lesbians who have so often borne the brunt of an all out assault on homosexual rights. From the “cotton ceiling” to Nancy Kelley describing them as “sexual racists” to incursions by men to their speed dating events, lesbians have been the canary in the coal mine for gay rights and so it is perhaps elegant that it was the lesbian interveners in the Supreme Court who struck such a decisive defensive blow.
A “meaningless” end for the same sex orientation protected characteristic
Allow me to explain what gay rights would have looked like had For Women Scotland lost their appeal. In the first place, the protected characteristic of same sex orientation would no longer exist as we understand it. Instead of simply meaning homosexual orientation, homosexuality would be downgraded as simply one form of the Same Sex Orientation Protected Characteristic and it would sit alongside a theoretical class of people who the Scottish Government believe are attracted to confidential government issued certificates. That is how high the stakes were in this appeal. The prospectus of the Scottish Government was nothing less than the annihilation of same sex orientation in law. As the eminent Dr Michael Foran has previously commented on this matter, this would transform gay and lesbian anti discrimination cases. It would mean the body of case law that said that lesbians and gay men are attracted to the same biological sex was wrong and cases of direct discrimination would become indirect discrimination.
The full piece is here:
On his substack The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins lists those who, in the light of the judgment, should apologise. In my opinion there are also those who should be prosecuted…hopefully we will get to that.
Will the Supreme Court gender case victors get the apologies they deserve?
Apr 18, 2025
This article appeared in The Spectator’s Coffee House on 17th April 2025.
Those who have won a great victory after years of struggle are entitled to enjoy a modest triumph, a single victory lap. But to crow too loudly is unseemly, and it is the mark of a small victor to pursue former opponents vindictively, taking vengeful advantage of new-found power to do so. An ugly object lesson is the small-minded man gleefully dominating American headlines today: a walking, talking, strutting, preening definition of how not to behave in victory.
On 16 April, in London, the Supreme Court handed a stunning victory to those – mostly women – who have endured vilification, ruthless, relentless, sustained and vicious persecution, because they stood up for the obvious truth that a woman is an adult human female: the self-evident fact that a “trans woman” is a man, even if most have been too polite to say it in so many words.
The victors, and those of us who supported them, should not, and I think will not, turn on our opponents now licking their wounds. In particular, following the gracious lead of Lord Hodge, we should go easy on trans people themselves, who may be feeling forlorn if not worse. Even if we think them deluded, the deluded deserve sympathy. No decent person despises an anorexic who looks in the mirror and sees, contrary to all objective evidence, obesity. We should treat with the same gentle consideration the dysphoric who sees in the mirror the wrong genitals: who sincerely believes they were born “in the wrong body”, even believes, in honest befuddlement, that “trans women are women”.
So let us not name and shame. I shall call out no specific names in accusation. But I think apologies are called for, and there may be some out there who are big enough, gracious enough, to come forward.
Were you one of those students who mercilessly hounded Kathleen Stock out of the University of Sussex? Now would be a good time to say sorry. Were you one of those who threatened the life of JK Rowling? Or who threatened someone less able to look after herself than that redoubtable hero of our times? Were you one of those actors who owe your moment of fame entirely to her writing, who turned on her in your sheep-like devotion to a passing fad? Or were you one of those Hollywood airheads who bent to the prevailing political wind? Well, it isn’t prevailing any more, but mightn’t it have been a good idea to think the matter through in the first place, before joining the Gadarene stampede? In any case, a gracious apology wouldn’t come amiss.
The full piece is here:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-161606520
Scottish Green MSP and Deputy Convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, Maggie Chapman has accused the Supreme Court judges of “bigotry, prejudice and hatred.” This has led to an extremely strong response from the Scottish Faculty of Advocates:
22 Apr
To:
Karen Adam MSP, Convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Maggie Chapman MSP, Deputy Convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee
Dear Ms Adam and Ms Chapman
I write on behalf of the Office Bearers of the Faculty of Advocates, all of whom have agreed to what follows. As you know, Faculty is the representative body of the Bar in Scotland. It does not get involved in politics. But for 500 years part of its role has been the protection and advancement of the Rule of Law. Fundamental thereto, and in line with both the Latimer Principles and the Goa Declaration on preserving and strengthening the independence of the Judiciary, is what Faculty considers to be its duty to speak out in defence of the judiciary when it comes under attack: especially given the constitutional restrictions which prevent the judiciary from defending itself publicly.
In light of the above, it was with considerable concern and dismay that we read reports of Ms Chapman MSP addressing a public gathering in the wake of the recent ruling in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. In video footage which is circulating widely online, she is seen to condemn what she claims is the “bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court”.
These are appalling comments to come from any elected politician. They are all the worse when they come from someone who holds the post of Deputy Convenor of the Scottish Parliament's Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee.
It really should not require to be said, but the Supreme Court – indeed, all judges – are in post to apply the law. They do not take sides. They decide without fear or favour, consistently with the judicial oath. For Ms Chapman to claim that they were swayed by “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” is outrageous. We are talking about the apex court of these islands, in this instance made up of a bench which included two of Scotland’s finest legal minds, as well as two women. No sensible person could read their dispassionate analysis and conclude that they were swayed by such matters.
The atmosphere following the ruling in FWS is toxic. Not only do comments such as these – which as they stem from an elected politician and Deputy Convenor many will take seriously – fail to respect the Rule of Law; not only do they constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary (s.1(1)(a) of the Judiciary and Courts (Scotland) Act 2008); but they go further than that, and create a risk of danger to the Members of the Court themselves. This behaviour is irresponsible and reprehensible.
Faculty has previously required to speak out in light of political attacks on the judiciary and legal profession. It did so when the Court of Appeal was, in light of its ruling in the Brexit case, described as “enemies of the people”. It did so when the previous UK Conservative government repeatedly attacked so-called “activist” lawyers. It did so very recently, in support of the American Bar Association in the wake of attacks on the judiciary in the US. We are absolutely certain that Ms Chapman agreed with Faculty’s stance on those occasions. This is no different. Indeed, in attributing such emotive descriptions as “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” to the judges of the Supreme Court, Ms Chapman’s attack is far worse.
In these circumstances, we respectfully request Ms Chapman to reflect on her words, and whether they allow her to properly discharge her responsibilities as Deputy Convenor in line with the impartiality requirements of the Guidance on Committees issued by the Scottish Parliament. As to the former, we suggest that a fulsome and swift apology is warranted. As to the latter, and notwithstanding that the requirements apply only whilst acting in the capacity of Convenor, we suggest that her comments are not compatible with her role as Deputy Convenor, or, arguably, her continued membership of the Committee. In line with our own role, however, we leave that matter to Ms Adam and her colleagues on the Committee. In addition to the suggested apology, and whatever action is taken by Ms Adam or her colleagues relative to Ms Chapman’s position on the Committee, we suggest that, in order to restore credibility in that Committee, Ms Adam should speak out publicly in defence of the Court and of the Rule of Law.
Faculty very much regrets having to write this letter. However, Ms Chapman’s words have left it with no choice. Her behaviour in this instance is utterly beyond the pale.
We look forward to your considered reply in early course.
Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates
On his substack, The Secret Gender Files Malcolm Clark looks at misleading reports in the media but especially looks at Channel 4 and reveals how they came to shill for ‘trans rights’ all dating back to the death of a trans identifying male which turned out to be more complicated than was initially believed.
C4 Kills the Truth About the Supreme Court.
Channel 4's bias towards the Supreme Court's ruling on sex has long roots. In 2011 it agreed to act as a shill for the trans lobby after a "transphobic" murder which was nothing of the sort.
Apr 22, 2025
When the highest court in the land hands down a judgment after carefully considering a complex case you would think television journalists might listen and learn.
This wasn’t though the response of many journalists in the mainstream media who struggled either to ignore the judgment altogether or to be “even-handed” as they saw it by putting up critics to question the Court’s motivation. One of the most egregious examples of this was the coverage on Channel 4 News on the day of the ruling. The slant was shockingly blatant.
As a gaggle of trans activists, each more unhinged than the last, was encouraged to spout incoherent nonsense on a judgment about women’s rights it became clear just how deeply the channel’s journalists have been supping the trans lobby’s kool-aid.
The story of how much of our mainstream media arrived at the point where they could suggest a decision of the Supreme Court was misguided and “transphobic” is a troubling one. It features a delusional lobby group, a lawyer who liked to prostitute himself for kicks and a toxic love affair that ended in murder on the London Underground.
This process of cultural subversion began when Channel 4 became the first British media company to officially embrace the trans lobby’s agenda. A decision that would be touted as a model others should follow. Most duly did.
The subversion of Channel 4 could not have happened though without the active support of its leading journalists, none of whom would prove more enthusiastic than Krishnan Guru-Murthy.
In a recent interview Guru-Murthy revealed he counted only one politician as a friend.
A man who has been an unusually close intimate for four decades. When I tell you the name of that dumb, gay, trans-obsessed friend …the rot at Channel 4 will suddenly make a lot more sense.
On the day of the Supreme Court ruling which confirmed references to ‘sex’ in the Equality Act (2010) meant biological sex, not some fictional feeling in a man’s mind, I’ll admit I was a little emotional. Most of the women involved in the case are friends I’ve got to know over the last six long and difficult years. Friends matter…as we’ll be reminded when we come to Guru-Murthy’s….despicable friend.
The full piece is here:
On her substack, Culture and State Edie Wyatt discusses the judgment and possible implications for Australia. BTW I reported on the excellent recent Australian family court decision Re Devin here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-fiction-of-gender-dysphoria
Brava Grassroots Feminism!
What does the FWS win mean for Australia?
Apr 21, 2025
A landmark UK court judgment has confirmed that equity legislation should define women as a biological sex for the purpose of human rights protections. Any way you look at it, this is a significant win for “my side” as a gender critical feminist, in the battle of the TERFs Vs gender identity. But what will it mean for Australia?
First, let me pay tribute to the organization that is responsible for the challenge to the UK Supreme Court, For Women Scotland (FWS). FWS was founded in 2018 as a grassroots organisation for women. FWS three directors are Trina Budge, Susan Smith and Marion Calder, they do not receive any public money, but JK Rowling has donated to the organisation. The bulk of the support for FWS comes from regular women.
FWS was co-founded by the late Magdalen Berns, who has become a hero in the gender critical world for her common-sense feminist arguments against gender identity ideology and legislation. Small grassroots organisations like FWS have been the mainstay of women’s rights since the suffrage movements.
I met Marion Calder on my recent trip to the UK, and a more unassuming, friendly woman you are unlikely to meet. If you met Marion in the street, you would never know that she was going to be kneecapping a giant.
We must keep in mind that the UK decision was specifically in relation to the Equality Act 2010. This win is not everything, but it is very significant, given that equality law is where gender identity is being used to coerce women and men to deny their sex around the world.
Edie concludes:
The Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Anna Cody, has reacted to the UK decision by saying that "Human rights belong to everyone. Trans and gender diverse people should be safe, respected and legally recognised." The clear message is that sex has to be erased from law for “trans and gender diverse people” to live with a level of safety and respect. We are never given a clear definition of who these people are, or how the erasure of women will help them. All we are given, apart from social media blocks for being TERFs, is a word salad of regressive gender stereotypes.
If we don’t disband these useless human rights organisations, they will have to be made accountable to facts about human bodies and the people who walk around in them. We will only have success here with organised resistance by women.
Our fight is not against individuals, but an institutionally embedded, long-term population management experiment, an experiment that has to be made to fail. We can only make it fail by making it impossible to implement, we must resist.
If you are a woman worried about gender identity in law, please don’t assume the UK decision will trickle down to Australia. Connect with your local grassroots gender critical women’s organisation, you can do so anonymously, you’ll generally find out about them on the gender critical side of X, where you can also be anonymous. X is a madhouse, but it’s only among the lunatics that women can currently speak the truth in Australia.
With most of our politicians terrified of their own bureaucracy, it may be some time in Australia before sanity, but just like everything else in the history of women’s rights, it won’t happen unless we organise together and demand it, just as For Women Scotland has done. Brava For Women Scotland and Brava to their good friend JK Rowling.
The full piece is here:
https://msediewyatt.substack.com/p/brava-grassroots-feminism?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
On her substack, Yvonne Van Dongen mentions a couple of apologies…and then lists the guilty parties in NZ:
Anyone Can Make a Mistake
But not everyone is big enough to say sorry
Apr 20, 2025
I love John Boyne’s writing. His versatility, deft touch, humanity, humour. As soon as I begin a John Boyne novel, I relax, knowing I’m in the hands of a master. That man has never let me down.
Well that’s not quite true. He almost did in 2019, when he criticised Irish screenwriter Graham Linehan for standing up for women. Though I never stopped reading him, I was mighty disappointed. But then, almost five years after first laying into Linehan, he saw the light. In 2023 Boyne had the good grace to apologise publicly.
Now, following the landmark UK legal decision, he reposted his first apology and apologised again. Another heartfelt public apology.
With the UK Supreme Court ruling that woman means a biological woman, I'm reposting my apology to @Glinner, who's fought this fight for years at huge personal cost & been vindicated. I said it then, I say it now: he was right, I was wrong. Now Graham, let's have a new show.
Twice! What a mensch.
As well, this week feature writer at Scottish paper The Herald Mark Smith, on behalf of all the male politicians, activists and newspaper columnists like him who vilified women fighting for their sex-based rights, also apologised. These women are “now vindicated, victorious and rightly so. Which is lots of words when one will do: sorry.”
Love it. I hope this becomes a trend. Note to New Zealanders who went along with this gender mania: Now is the time to fess up and say you’re sorry before the wave crashes here. We may still have self-sex ID, still liberally dispense puberty blockers and still have a host of creepy government-funded charities peddling God knows what, but the undeniable truth is that you’re going to be mugged by reality. Because reality as simple as the sex binary has to win. You might as well argue against gravity.
The full piece is here:
https://yvonnevandongen.substack.com/p/anyone-can-make-a-mistake
On her substack, Sarah Phillimore welcomes the Supreme Court judgment but flags up continuing concerns in UK family court cases:
Lying to the court to trans a child
The Supreme Court judgement has raised hopes that this is the Beginning of the End for gender identity ideology, but its roots are very deep and children are most at risk.
Apr 21, 2025
On April 16th 2025 the Supreme Court ruled that ‘sex’ for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 meant biological sex, not ‘certified’ sex via a Gender Recognition Certificate. This was an extremely significant decision and hopefully will hasten the end of ‘gender identity’ as an organising category in society. But shortly before that judgement, came another from the Family Court to remind us that ‘gender identity’ has deep roots indeed and it is children who will remain on the front line.
The full piece is here:
Many people, especially women, have been cancelled or lost their jobs for saying what the Supreme Court has now confirmed has always been the law. Here is a good example on Anna Wharton’s substack, White Ink:
Silenced Then Suspended For Speaking Up
In light of the Supreme Court decision last week, a guest author essay from a woman who lost her job for stating what has now been clarified in law
Apr 22, 2025
…….
By Anonymous:
Three years ago I was in a job that I loved. I worked for a women’s rights organisation, one that provides frontline services to women in need of help, and I felt very lucky to be there. I headed up a department, my team loved me, my boss loved me, and the most important thing was that I believed in what I was doing. How many people get to say that they go to work everyday and know what they are doing is important, that it changes and impacts lives, and it is a cause they believe in deeply? I was one of the lucky ones.
But then everything changed. It started with a tweet, a trans woman demanding access to female safe spaces. The attitude was that women needed to shut up, to shove up, to make space for biological men and if they didn’t they were bigots. Simple.
But I knew it wasn’t actually as simple as that.
This was something that I was dealing with day in day out in my role at this well-known national organisation – the conflict between trans’ rights and women’s rights, and how spaces hard-fought for by women should be preserved solely for them. In my senior role at this organisation, I had seen for myself the results of male violence, I had seen how unsafe it left women feeling about males — any male-bodied person however they might self-describe — I had seen how traumatised they were. We would not be supporting these vulnerable women if we simply told them that they needed to ‘shove over’ and accept male bodies in their spaces.
‘Being kind’ might sound simple as a soundbite or a tweet, it sounds very good in theory, but in practice it’s a bit more complicated, and so therefore it followed that it wasn’t as simple as just saying women were ‘unkind’ if they didn’t just move over. If you are providing support services or safe spaces for women, any change in policy has to be underwritten in law, and no such changes had been established yet I could see organisations that were already making changes in their policy, lobbied by organisations like Stonewall, and from the outside it looked as though it had the potential to be really unsafe. The cart was being put before the horse so to speak, so many parts of society were being told that they had to reorganise, based on nothing more than a wishful-thinking interpretation of what the law already said, and therefore trans activists were getting more and more aggressive in their approach to moving into these spaces because they felt – and told others – they deserved them. But what the Equality Act did say was that women’s spaces were protected. Trans lobbyists argued that a woman was anyone who said they were one, whereas other people believed that the Equality Act referred to biological women.
The full piece is here:
https://annawharton.substack.com/p/silenced-then-suspended-for-speaking
Endpieces
I am splitting the endpieces between the two parts.
From Tenaciously
#BeMorePorcupine
#EndGenderAffirmingCare
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#FightForFreeSpeech
#NoMenInWomensSport
#LiveNotByLies
#WitchesRUs
#NHSTheGameIsUp
Thanks to you and your wife for all the legal/ technical breakdowns. There’s a ton of information here which I’ll leave to greater minds than mine to analyse.
Richard Dawkins…..I’m afraid I don’t care if my celebration of the result is undignified, we flippin well deserve a huge celebration. Nor do I think that the aggressive people on the other side of this debate should just get away with a quiet apology. They should be begging for forgiveness 😁, not that they will. I think we’re either going to see lots of reverse ferreting ( Starmer, Phillipson) or we’re going to see people digging in (Maggie Chapman 🤪). Billy Bragg’s gone very quiet.
Lastly, thanks for the really interesting story of Sophia Duleep Singh and the link to Release Peace. I’d never heard of either.
#KeepOnKeepingOn