Careful What You Wish For!
Update 597. Trans Toddler Special. #BeMore Porcupine.
Parliament in using the words “man” and “woman” … referred to biological sex
For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 para 265(ii).
Repeal the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
Remove ‘gender reassignment’ from the Equality Act 2010.
Get rid of DEI.
I explained the new Dusty’s Film Series here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/empire-of-light-dustys-film-series
Please let me have any suggested additions. I have been updating it with additions so this is the latest list for you to double check. Please bear in mind the original series of films.
Next up is The Dark Knight Rises.
I am featuring this not because of Batman but because of Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman ( played by Anne Hathaway). She betrays Batman but then saves him ( and then they get it together 😉). We like our heroes flawed, don’t we! And talk about a strong female role!!
Christian Bale is Batman.
Ben Mendelsohn is Daggett.
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.
UK - The Data (Use and Access) Bill
One piece from the latest Sex Matters newsletter (16 May).
Maya Forstater writes:
For me, this week has been all about the Data Bill. Although when you meet people in person you can almost always tell what sex they are immediately, if official documents (and apps and online identity verification) are able to present people as the opposite sex it can be difficult for service providers and employers to know what to do. Paper documents such as passports are already misleading, but the Data Bill will make this worse. The legal framework will require users of digital verification services to trust information from government sources over their own eyes, and over a straightforward question requiring an honest answer.
The bill is in its final parliamentary stage, during which it ping-pongs back and forth between the Lords and the Commons and they try to resolve their disagreements.
Back in November, Lord Arbuthnot first sounded the alarm that the government’s plans for digital identity would amount to gender self-ID by the back door unless safeguards were included to differentiate between sources of government data on sex that are accurate (such as the birth register) and those that are not (such as the Passport Office and, shockingly, the NHS).
Amendments to address this were voted in by the Lords in January and then out by the Commons in March. A new Commons amendment was debated at the beginning of May, but rejected by the government. On Monday the Lords debated the issue again and reintroduced safeguards. On Wednesday they were removed again in the Commons. It is going back to the Lords on Monday.
The debates have revealed a state of utter confusion in many quarters. But the government has also made some important concessions, to which we can hold it.
On Monday the Minister for Science, Sir Patrick Vallance, admitted that passports do not contain accurate, reliable information about whether someone is male or female, and said they should not be used as proof of sex for any purpose where that data is needed.
On Wednesday Chris Bryant, the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, who is leading for the government on the bill, said:
“I assure the House that if the Government were to identify an instance in which a public authority was sharing with digital verification services gender data that was mislabelled as biological sex data, we would respond appropriately.”
In answer to a question the previous day from Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Ludford about why sex data has been allowed to be inaccurate for many years, Sir Patrick Vallance had answered:
“I am afraid the fact is that it was accurate for 15 years because there was a muddle about what was being collected. There was no requirement to push for biological sex, but that is the case now.”
This is an extraordinary statement (so extraordinary that many people thought it was a typo). The minister is claiming that it was not a breach of data-accuracy rules to mix up male and female in government datasets before last month, because until then no one knew what “sex” meant. This is simply wrong. Sex was not invented by the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, or by the Equality Act in 2010, or by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago. It is and always has been an important fact about a person that matters for their family and private life, for healthcare, for social care, for sexual consent and sexual orientation, and for moving around the world in relation to other people. The data has not in fact been “accurate” for the past 15 years, but was corrupted well before that.
The government must stop gaslighting us on this. The Data Bill is back in the Lords on Monday.
Dusty - I have had a look at the enormous and waffly impact assessment on the Bill and I have honed in on the very short piece about the Equality Act. There is no mention of the Supreme Court judgment. There is no acknowledgement that the Bill may lead to an obvious breach of the Equality Act. Instead equality concerns are passed over extremely quickly. I wonder if there is some potential angle for challenge here? All thoughts gratefully received.
Here is the relevant part of the Impact Assessment.
Impact on Equalities
521. Ministers are required, owing to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, to have due regard to the public sector equality duty (PSED) when exercising their functions. The PSED requires the Minister to pay due regard to the need to: a. eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act; b. advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and c. foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
522. Analysis of these considerations has been undertaken and the Government’s does not consider that any potential negative impacts of its proposals for individuals with protected characteristics are disproportionate. The Government has also appropriately considered the need to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
523. There are a limited number of areas, where the Government has identified a potential risk of an indirect negative impact. These are set out below. In each of these cases, the Government has identified mitigations to be put in place to reduce this impact; and/or believes that any impact is proportionate to legitimate policy aims, and is therefore justified. Consequently, the indirect impacts do not amount to indirect discrimination.
524. Smart Data aims to improve equality, but there is a risk that vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and digitally excluded, may not fully benefit. Vulnerable consumers, who face challenges in engaging with markets, may be particularly at risk of being left behind. To address this, various measures are proposed, including demographic analysis, targeted interventions, and further research. These initiatives built on research commissioned by DBT249 o help ensure that Smart Data schemes are inclusive, with a focus on trust, consent, control, and support, to prevent worsening inequalities and help all consumers benefit from innovative services.
The For Women Scotland Judgment - The Aftermath
Sarah Phillimore on her substack is concerned that the enormous pushback means that we have much more fighting to do.
If LawFare has failed, can the Rule of Law survive?
The reactions to the Supreme Court judgment about the meaning of 'sex' in the Equality Act, makes me worried for the rule of law and how long we will have to fight.
May 15, 2025
April 16th 2025 should have been the glorious culmination of a seven year battle to restore women’s rights to single sex spaces and associations, along with the freedom of us all to talk about it, with the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland v the Scottish Ministers. The rule of law would prevail and sanity would be restored.
But even my seven year exposure to the dishonesty and viciousness of many gender ideologues to any attempt to reign them in, did not adequately prepare me for the backlash to the judgment. I am now concerned about where we will actually go from here and what we can do now, given that even a judgment from our apex court appears to leave so many unmoved.
There have been some attempts at critical legal analysis. Michael Foran has written a detailed response to Crash Wigley’s criticisms of the ruling on the UK Constitutional Law website. It was particularly good to see Strathclyde University offer a right to reply to Naomi Cunningham after it published a blog from Emeritus Professor Kenneth Norrie which attracted much critical response, not least because he could not correctly identify the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. His use of language showed precisely where his ideological bias lies and I share Cunningham’s disquiet at his use of ‘chutzpah’ and ‘shame’ to describe grass roots campaigning groups.
This was at least an attempt at some analysis, even though Cunningham’s conclusion seems spot on
“The legal reasoning in Norrie’s blog post is surprisingly weak. In fairness to Professor Norrie, it should be remembered that this is in the nature of a “first pass” at a substantial Supreme Court judgment in an area of law in which he is not a specialist. What is more disquieting is his approach to a conflict between men’s wishes and women’s privacy, dignity, autonomy and safety which displays a tender empathy for men who want to be women while stereotyping women’s meticulously evidenced objections as feigned or hysterical. Norrie’s call for kindness is in truth a thinly disguised demand for submission.”
But the reactions of many more were to reject any attempt at legal analysis, instead to go straight for the hyperbolic disavowal, rejecting the Supreme Court judgment as morally questionable.
I said in the Comments to Sarah’s piece:
A few thoughts.
I noticed that Helen Joyce, in the Woman's Hour interview, suggested that a man deliberately invading women's single sex spaces despite this judgment might amount to sexual harassment.
In the alternative, encouraging or assisting someone to commit a crime, or intending to do so, is illegal but the problem is this is not a crime. Therefore I have for some time argued that it should be made an offence for a man to deliberately enter a woman's single sex space ( which would also sweep up all those encouraging him to do so). I suppose that would have to apply to larping women as well though, of course, it is the men who are the real problem!
For those defying the law in workplaces and schools where there are separate regulations, then there ought to be disciplinary action.
When such as the National Education Union make a resolution to defy the law ( https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/mans-hour-call-me-loretta?utm_source=publication-search) shouldn't that go to all the members and not just the executive board!!??
All thoughts gratefully received.
The full piece is here:
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/if-lawfare-has-failed-can-the-rule
There was an excellent Let Women Speak in Stoke Newington today with some great speeches. I am including it under this heading since many of the speeches relate to the Supreme Court judgment. A small group of (apparently impromptu) trans rights activists chanted ‘trans rights are human rights’ on a loop. Excellent piece at the end where Kellie-Jay goes up to them with the mike and camera and asks them to explain their arguments and they turn around and start retreating still chanting!! No debate on film😊
England - One Lesbian Space!!
Jenny Watson has been trying for a long time to set up a space for lesbians. Here is a report of her interview some two years ago with Andrew Doyle:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/fader?utm_source=publication-search
Jenny has been trying to rent a railway arch in London Borough of Southwark for a lesbian space. Here is her update on her substack:
We Asked Southwark Council for One Lesbian Space. They Lied.
Southwark Council said they don’t control the arches. They lied. We found the proof. Tomorrow, we bring it public.
May 16, 2025
When we asked Southwark Council for one empty arch to create a private, safeguarding-based lesbian space, they said no.
Then they said something worse:
“Southwark Council does not own or manage the railway arches in question.”
That line wasn’t a technicality. It was a tactic to avoid triggering their legal duty to respond properly under the Equality Act.
They thought that lie would kill the story.
It didn’t.
We’ve reviewed their planning documents.
We’ve traced their regeneration strategy.
We’ve pulled the policy trails they hoped no one would look at.
They control the arches. They have for years. And they’re still refusing to act.
The full piece is here:
UK - Amy Gallagher
It is amazing that the NHS are still holding out after the Supreme Court judgment. Amy Gallagher on James Esses’ substack relates how she was forced out of her job.
I Lost My Job For Mocking The Trans Flag
May 16, 2025
I can’t quite describe the feeling of having people you worked well with for years suddenly look at you like you are a monster. This is what I experienced just over a year ago when I was pulled into a meeting with my manager and asked to explain my social media posts, as though I had done something criminal.
I’ve been speaking out against gender ideology and critical race theory in the NHS for several years now, and I’m not unversed in the devastating effects and tyrannical nature of cancel culture. I had my first experience of it in 2023 when I was, just like James Esses, prevented from finishing my psychotherapy training course for disagreeing with progressive ‘woke’ ideology.
Despite the fact that I was doing well in my clinical work with patients (I was training at the now infamous Tavistock clinic), I dared to express my view that people should not be judged on the colour of their skin and advocated for the colour-blind approach to race. This was in opposition to ideas such as ‘white privilege’ and ‘white fragility’, which my training consistently pushed. I was subsequently deemed ‘unsafe’ to be with patients.
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, where I was working as a nurse, knew I had a social media account and that I had given interviews about the negative impact of DEI in the NHS. Unfortunately for me, the Trust became ‘Stonewall Diversity Champions’ in 2020 and had adopted a new transgender and non-binary policy. Consequently, when a patient, who described themselves as being both transgender and non-binary, complained that one of my social media posts on Twitter/X made them feel distressed, this was taken very seriously. My employer treated the subjective response of one individual as though it was conclusive proof that I must have done something terribly wrong. I was then informed that some of my work colleagues, as a result of this patient’s complaint, no longer felt comfortable working with me. It was happening again; hysteria and groupthink. I was being cancelled...again! I was swiftly stopped from working with patients and moved into an administrative role. It was devastating.
The full piece is here:
Free Speech - Kanye West
Lord Justice Sedley in Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] EWHC Admin 733:
'Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. What Speakers' Corner (where the law applies as fully as anywhere else) demonstrates is the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear.
From the condemnation of Socrates to the persecution of modern writers and journalists, our world has seen too many examples of state control of unofficial ideas.'
Andrew Doyle reports on his substack about a song by Kanye West called ‘Heil Hitler’. Here is an excerpt of Andrew’s report:
Discussions about whether Holocaust denial can be concealed within humour will get us precisely nowhere. Of course antisemites can produce satire, but we can never hope to read anyone’s mind and the state should not be legislating on that basis. When it comes to free speech, intention ought to be irrelevant. In a truly free society, citizens must be allowed to deny the facts of history, even if such denial causes offence and distress.
Defending free speech means defending the rights of some of the very worst people. Uncontroversial ideas require no protection whatsoever. It is useless to claim to be a free speech advocate ‘up to a point’, because the ‘point’ will always be shifting according to subjective opinion. Once we abandon the principle of free speech in certain cases, we abandon it altogether.
Dusty - Obviously West’s song is utterly offensive but, following Lord Justice Sedley’s remarks, I believe it should not be closed down or cancelled.
All thoughts gratefully received.
The full piece is here:
https://www.andrewdoyle.org/p/banning-kanye-west-is-a-mistake
Australia - Girls’ Sport
Feminist Legal Clinic report:
‘It’s not fair’: Transgender girl smashes records at school sports day (17 May)
Parents at a private Catholic school in South Australia have voiced “anger” and “disappointment” after a transgender student broke a number of records competing against girls at a recent sports day.
Following last year’s sports day, the school took to social media to congratulate a number of students for breaking records, saying it was “not an easy achievement”.
The transgender student was singled out for setting a new under-13 female javelin record of 20.58 metres — smashing the previous record by more than three metres.
It did not make a similar post this year, sharing only the overall house results.
The father said usually the sports day notice would be sent out with all the winners “but it didn’t come out (this year) because this (child) won the majority of the events — running, high jump, javelin, discus”.
He stressed that he didn’t want the transgender student to “cop abuse” but said “we can’t allow this kind of stuff to happen, to change the whole school for one person”.
Another father, who has three children at the school, said “the entire day was marred”.
“Literally all day, it was all anyone was really discussing,” he said.
The school last year also began installing gender-neutral toilets.
“I have a daughter at the school and if (this child) is being freely allowed to go into the female toilets, you’re setting yourself up for lawsuits,” the dad wrote.
A Round Up Of Pretend Medicine
Great round up by Bernard Lane on his substack, Gender Clinic News of what I call ‘pretend medicine’ ( otherwise called ‘gender affirming care’) from around the world. I am just quoting one bit here about NHS England:
Put down the knife
French revolt; America's Cass report; Brazil's drugs of dignity; trans chatbots; Crenshaw's chainsaw; Trans Europe Express; antsy gender docs in NZ; Trump's whistleblower zone; FGM and gender clinics
May 16, 2025
…….
United Kingdom | Under new guidance, England’s NHS is to assess all gender-distressed minors for autism and ADHD, mental health, cognitive and physical development, school experience, same-sex attraction and family problems. Such issues raise questions about the cause of gender distress and the appropriate or priority treatment.
The new guidance for the NHS Children and Young People’s Gender Service has been reviewed by Baroness Cass and is expected to be issued for public consultation soon, The Daily Telegraph has reported. Dr Louise Irvine, of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender has welcomed the “proposed holistic approach and prioritisation of psychological interventions,” but says it is a “serious flaw” for the guidance to leave open the option of referring minors for cross-sex hormones.
The Telegraph has also recounted the story of a mother whose autistic son eventually abandoned an online-influenced trans identity. “If these tests [screening for autism] had been available to us on the NHS years before, we would have possibly saved our family thousands of pounds that we paid for private tests and therapy—and years of agonising heartache,” the mother said.
Meanwhile, activist pressure has reportedly led to the NHS abandoning draft guidance that children under age 7 were simply too early in development to be seen by gender clinics, The Telegraph has reported under the headline “Trans toddlers’ allowed gender treatment on NHS.” There was no suggestion of any medical treatment, and commentators disagreed whether such early intervention was consistent with England’s Cass review or a gender-affirming subversion of it.
And see the reports below….
The full piece is here:
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/put-down-the-knife?publication_id=627677&r=1v403b
England - Trans Toddlers!!!!
Why are these gender clinics not closed down? Feminist Legal Clinic reports:
‘Trans toddlers’ allowed gender treatment on NHS (16 May)
The NHS is treating nursery-age children who believe they are transgender after watering down its own guidance, The Telegraph can reveal.
The health service was previously set to introduce a minimum age of seven for children to be seen by its specialist gender clinics, claiming anything less was “just too young”. [ Dusty - surely seven is also far too young!!! However, just close these clinics down!]
The limit was removed after the proposals were put out to consultation, with new guidance due to be published showing that children of any age are eligible.
However, a source close to the consultation process said NHS England had “caved to the pressure” of trans activists to remove the limits.
The children are not given powerful drugs such as puberty blockers at the clinics, but are offered counselling and therapy along with their family.
Up to 10 children of nursery age are being treated, according to new data, while as many as 157 children aged nine or younger have been referred to the clinics.
The exact number of under-fives was withheld in order to prevent them from being identified, but with 157 children under 10 waiting to be seen, it raises the prospect that dozens of under-sevens have been referred to the clinics as a result of the about-turn.
Source: ‘Trans toddlers’ allowed gender treatment on NHS
https://feministlegal.org/trans-toddlers-allowed-gender-treatment-on-nhs/
Joanna Williams on her substack picks up the story:
There is no such thing as a trans toddler
The NHS keeps putting the delusions of trans activists above the welfare of children.
May 16, 2025
…………………
These are small numbers, and the NHS’s defenders will argue it is good that families are receiving help and counselling. But no child is born in the wrong body. Not one single baby boy is actually a little girl. Because there is no such thing as a transgender child, there should be no need for medical referrals. Some parents might need reassurance that it’s perfectly normal for girls to play with trucks and for boys to dance around in princess costumes. But, as the NHS’s draft guidance acknowledged, this ‘is usually not indicative of gender incongruence’. A five-minute conversation might be appropriate, perhaps, but not a protracted counselling session.
What’s more, no child arrives independently at the conclusion that he or she is transgender. Infants not only lack the vocabulary, but they also have no conception that people might have a mystical sense of ‘gender identity’. Children worry they might be trans only when teachers, parents or online activists spread these ridiculous ideas.
The full piece is here:
https://cieo.substack.com/p/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-trans
Barry Is A Gonk!
In case you missed it, Barry Wall has become a Gonk 😂
https://substack.com/home/post/p-163758930
Endpieces
From Tenaciously
From Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
#LeaveKidsAlone
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#MenStayInYourLane
#KeepOnKeepingOn
#HoldTheLine
#KeepOnTerfing
#NeverSurrender
#NeverForget
#TruthWillTriumph
Another great round up Dusty. I love the LWS, full of good speeches, rants and KJKs mockery of the tras. Absolutely brilliant, I really enjoyed it.
Re the data bill. I’m no good on legislation but would a man who had changed his birth cert and used the app to claim he was female, in order to access female spaces, be liable to be accused of fraud? And he’d be breaking the law of course. What a nightmare for businesses which could end up being sued through no fault of their own.
There’s no such thing as a trans child and it’s time our public institutions such as the NHS and the BBC grew spines and stopped pandering to insane ideologues. If you create gender clinics then people will fill them and the road to mutilation and misery will continue. Put the money into mental health services and put this vile evil into the dustbin of history where it belongs as a warning to future generations.
Great joke Liz!