Going out like a Raspberry Ripple
Update 575. Young Terfs Special. #BeMorePorcupine.
HAPPY EASTER TO ALL MY READERS 😃 🥳 🎉 🎈
I think I have just about come down to earth after the For Women Scotland judgment - what a week!! 😃
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.
Normally I am going through the list in alphabetical order but, given it is the Easter weekend, I am pulling forward in the list The Long Good Friday (1980).
An East End Gangster, the Mob and the IRA - what more do you need for a gangster movie? In the clip below Harold Shand goes to a swimming baths where his great friend and gang member, Colin has been stabbed to death.
This includes one of my favourite quotes from a film:
There’s a lot of dignity in that, ain’t there! Going out like a raspberry ripple!
Bob Hoskins is Harold Shand
Derek Thompson is Jeff
Paul Freeman is Colin
P.H. Moriarty is Razors
Brian Hayes is the pool attendant.
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.
The For Women Scotland Judgment
Sex Matters
Sex Matters have produced an excellent explanation for government departments, schools, the NHS, the police and other organisations as to implementation of this judgment.
Please send this around as best as you can especially to organisations you are involved with.
Tenaciously Terfin writes: I’m going to send it to schools, scout and guide groups, the hospital, police, the Council and some businesses. A local approach as well as a nationwide campaign might help.
Hear, hear!
You will note that Sex Matters will be producing specific templates that we can all use.
17th April 2025
What does the For Women Scotland judgment mean in practice?
The judgment handed down yesterday by the Supreme Court returns the Equality Act to clarity.
Many organisations have fallen victim to misunderstandings of the law during the past 15 years. They will now need to revise their policies urgently to bring them into line with the Equality Act.
Among them are the UK government, the Scottish and Welsh governments and all their departments. They include public bodies such as local authorities, police forces and NHS trusts, and regulators such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Health and Safety Executive, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Charity Commission and the Care Quality Commission. Trades unions will also need to correct their understanding of the law and update their policies.
Umbrella bodies that have advised sectors such as AdvanceHE, the NHS Confederation, UKActive, CIPD and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations will need to make sure that advice they give their members accords with the judgment.
Here are the general principles they should think about and ten places where urgent action is needed.
General principles
Organisations shouldn’t panic.
The key thing they need to remember is that there are two sexes, and human beings cannot change sex. This is not an insight newly discovered by the Supreme Court, and it is not difficult to understand. It is something everyone knows, and until very recently it was not at all controversial. Most people already understand the importance of recognising sex, though some have become too scared to say it in recent years.
The Equality Act sets out the situations, such as in the workplace and when using services, where individuals are protected against discrimination and harassment related to nine protected characteristics. Among them are “sex” (being a man/male, or a woman/female) and “gender reassignment” (being “transsexual” as the act defines it, now often referred to as “trans”). Another is “religion or belief”.
The Supreme Court ruling sets out that gender-recognition certificates (GRCs) are irrelevant to the Equality Act.
The Equality Act generally does not tell you what you must do, but what you must not do. For example, the following policies are likely to result in unlawful discrimination and harassment (on the basis of sex and/or belief):
requiring people to agree with the statement that “trans women are women”
stopping people from saying that “transwomen are men”, either in general or in respect of specific individuals
requiring people to announce their pronouns in meetings
providing communal “female-only” spaces (such as toilets and changing rooms with the word “female” or the “woman” symbol on the door), then allowing men into those spaces
declaring the use of ordinary words about men and women to be “transphobia”, and disciplining staff for using these words
putting women (or men) in situations where they must undress in front of members of the opposite sex, or where members of the opposite sex undress in front of them, while telling them that this is a same-sex situation (as in police searching or medical care).
All organisations should carry out an urgent risk assessment to identify policies and training like these, which put them at risk of committing mass harassment or discrimination against staff, customers, patients and others to whom they have legal obligations under the Equality Act.
The policies most likely to create such risks are often described as “trans and non-binary inclusion” or “equality, diversity and inclusion”. They have often been adapted from templates disseminated by activist organisations such as Stonewall that have promoted misunderstanding of the law, or developed by internal LGBT+ networks.
Such policies need to be withdrawn.
They should be replaced with policies that are in line with the Equality Act, as now clarified by the Supreme Court.
The new policies should make clear that:
the organisation recognises its obligations not to unlawfully discriminate against or harass people with regards to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also recognises that it cannot force other people to pretend it is possible for people to change sex
the organisation will not permit anyone to use opposite-sex facilities and services, and (where relevant) will not permit men to compete in women’s sports or apply for women’s awards and other programmes for women. No negotiations will be entered into on this, and there will be no case-by-case assessments or individual exceptions. Where appropriate, unisex alternatives may be offered
referring to the two sexes, and to the sex of individuals, is necessary when explaining and enforcing sex-based rules, as well as for other reasons such as medical care and safeguarding
it is unreasonable to take offence at such references.
Ten places for urgent action
In the coming weeks Sex Matters will be writing to institutions, and providing templates that people can use to write to their own institutions. In particular:
NHS bodies should review their policies and ensure that they recognise and record immutable biological sex. This includes in relation to single-sex hospital accommodation (the “Annex B” policy in England), single-sex facilities for staff at work, the recording of sex in NHS patient records and staff records, and the provision of same-sex care.
Police forces should revise their policies and systems to ensure that they record sex accurately and that all policies that make reference to sex use this accurate information, including in relation to searching.
Prison and probation services should review their policies and ensure that all individuals are housed in the correct prison estate for their sex, and (when relevant) on release. Trans-identifying prisoners may be identified as particularly vulnerable, and some may need to be housed separately from the general prison population.
The Department for Education (DfE) must release revised guidance for schools which follows the same principles, and makes clear that schools should not promote unrealistic expectations to children (such as that it is possible to “live as the opposite gender” and expect other people to be forced to pretend that they have changed sex). The Scottish and Welsh governments should also revise their guidance to schools. We published a model policy in 2024.
Sports governing bodies should ensure their policies and guidance are based on a clear understanding of sex-based rights. All individuals should be recorded based on their sex. The women’s category is for women and girls only. Depending on the sport, there may be a men’s category or an open category. Communal changing rooms should be single-sex.
The EHRC should urgently develop simple non-statutory guidance reflecting these principles. It should revise its statutory guidance for service providers, associations and employers.
The Charity Commission should write to charities such as Girlguiding and Refuge that have governing documents which include a focus on women and girls, explaining that these groups must be defined in line with the law, not gender self-identification.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) should revise its policies and ensure that it recognises the two sexes clearly, both within its equality statement and when it inspects healthcare services. These inspections cover whether institutions are safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. They also cover whether institutions have effective systems in place to identify possible abuse and to prevent abuse from happening. Organisations that become muddled about the two sexes are likely to put people (especially women, children and elderly or disabled people) at risk of harm. There is nothing in the Equality Act which requires this muddle.
Universities should urgently review their policies, including those concerning toilets and changing facilities, accommodation and sports as well as protections for academic freedom. They should revise policies as necessary to ensure they are not committing mass harassment or discrimination against their students and staff. They have already been put on notice by the Office for Students about academic freedom and freedom of speech in relation to the issue of sex-based rights.
All employers, including the civil service, should review workplace policies to ensure they are in line with both the Equality Act and the 1992 Workplace health safety and welfare regulations with regard to single-sex facilities.
Above all, the government must be absolutely clear that sex means biological sex wherever the Equality Act is applied. We look forward to assisting with this work in order to ensure that all employers, service providers and agencies have the clarity they need to uphold the dignity, safety and privacy of women and girls.
Jolyon Maugham
Mr Maugham. A fox.
Famous fox killer barrister, Mr Maugham has been joining many other trans activists in having a total melt down.
Guido Fawkes reports:
Jolyon Outfoxed Again After Supreme Court ‘Woman’ Definition Loss
Jolyon is having a difficult time after the ruling of the Supreme Court that the meaning of woman in the Equality Act is a biological female. At 7 a.m. today the fox-killer told his dedicated Bluesky followers that the judgement would side with the Scottish government. He added that despite his optimism the Good Law Project had “backed an intervention so trans people were before the Supreme Court” which was rejected by the court. Another loss…
Since the judgement Jolyon has been struggling: “Having excluded all trans people from proceedings before it, the Supreme Court decides in favour of For Some Women Scotland… I’m genuinely stunned. I spoke to KCs at three leading sets of chambers with deep specialisations in equalities law. Each of them told me that For Women Scotland’s position was not even arguable.” Perhaps Jolyon should let consumers know who these expert KCs are…
The new line is that because the Good Law Project failed to secure “representation” for trans activists in the case, the judges ruled against them. Outfoxed again…
Radical Cartoons
Excellent round up on her substack from Radical:
Lipstick on a Pig never made it not a Pig!
The UK Supreme Court on 16th April 2025 clarified the previous "Pig's Ear" of our Equality Act 2010.
Apr 18, 2025
Above, standing with our LGB brothers and sisters at Reformers Tree.
(A perfect example of sexual dimorphism there)!
And the cartoon I was cancelled for in 2020, when the communist Morning Star published it, and nearly got closed down by the TUC. (Still no public apology to me from the paper, by the way).
3 days after our fantastic Let Women Speak rally in Bristol, (“The Armpit of Woke”), the For Women Scotland case against Scottish Ministers was ruled on.
A long-awaited vindication for all our campaigners.
There's not much I can add to the numerous blogs others have written about the Supreme Court judgement, clarifying women's “sex” in the EA2010.
Here's the full judgement, which applies across the UK:
https://supremecourt.uk/cases/press-summary/uksc-2024-0042
So here's just a selection of my personal favourites from the last 24 hours…
The full piece is here:
Connie Shaw
Great to see a young student on our side of the argument 😊
Connie is at Leeds University and was cancelled from the University radio station because of her gender critical views. She is interviewed here by Kelly Dougall on Kelly’s podcast:
Connie also has her own channel and reported from the second Nottingham Let Women Speak event which I reported on here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/women-will-speak-back-to-nottingham
When Connie moves to the police station where we all were you catch occasional glimpses of me in my trilby and Thought Criminal T shirt 😊
Ireland - Free Speech and The Citizen Journalist
As a citizen journalist myself I was obviously interested in and horrified by this report from Gript News in Ireland and also concerned at the possibility that this approach could be taken in the UK.
Fatima Gunning ( Garda request re citizen journalists impossible in context of civil liberties 15 April) reports:
Avid news readers, as well as those who had the misfortune of hearing RTÉ’s morning report featuring a frankly bizarre stream of verbal diarrhoea from ‘astronaut’, Katy Perry about how she feels “surrounded by love”, will by now be aware that Garda Sergeants are calling for legal protections and clear direction on how to handle ‘citizen journalists’ filming officers in the line of duty.
Concerns have been raised about ‘citizen journalists’ going to, what Inspector Amanda Flood of Store Street Garda Station, called “highly pressurised emotionally charged and potentially volatile situations” where they “antagonise members” wanting to “elicit” a response to catch on video.
Interestingly, interfering with a member of An Garda Síochána in the line of duty is already an offence under Section 5(16) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. This states that a person who “obstructs a member of the Garda Síochána in the exercise of his or her powers” or “fails to comply with a direction under this section” is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine or imprisonment.
Given the often liberal application of the Public Order Act to move on protestors for example, it seems that Gardaí are already in a position to pursue members of the public who they feel are interfering with them in the line of duty.
Fear for family members.
A report from the Policing Authority focusing on public order policing says that many officers felt reluctant to use force in riots with the report saying, “Members expressed concern for their family members in particular, where information regarding their name, address and family details are then published online in the comments accompanying the clip,”.
While this concern is very understandable, this risk exists for anyone whose image happens to be shared online, particularly when he or she has engaged in activities that have – for whatever reason – drawn the ire of certain sections of the internet. As mentioned above, Section 5(16) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, would seem to place Gardaí in a much better position to prevent this from happening than your average Joe.
You can’t make being an arsehole illegal.
While it’s not difficult to feel sympathetic to concerns about people sticking their phones in your face, there appears to be no practical way to carry out the calls for action against ‘citizen journalists’ in this regard without causing undue infringement on civil liberties.
In the line of my own work, I have witnessed people who are best described as arseholes holding their phones at very close proximity to the faces of members of AGS, recording or live streaming, while verbally berating the officers in the most uncivil terms.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Section 5(16) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 sounds like a good fit here too. Being slapped with a fine of €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both sounds like a good elixir for reasonable behaviour.
I’ve also personally had a woman film me while loudly heckling as I attempted to interview someone outside the Dáil and am aware of exactly how annoying it is, however I don’t think it should be an offence.
Gardaí can film YOU so why can’t you do the same? Public trust.
Members of AGS have recently begun wearing body cams which were introduced to streamline the process of gathering and presenting evidence. Evidence from body cam footage was used in court for the very first time in Ireland to convict activist and self-styled citizen journalist, Philip Dwyer, for failing to comply with the direction of a member of AGS.
The reputation of AGS would appear to have been substantially tarnished in the eyes of a not insignificant section of the public due to their actions with regard to anti-asylum centre protests, particularly those in Coolock and Newtownmountkennedy.
While the argument that individual members of the force have little choice but to obey orders is a fair one, the public has the right to feel unhappy with how the government is using that force.
Videos made by members of the public from Coolock adjacent to the Crown Paints facility showed Garda Riot Squad members pepper spraying an elderly woman who was sitting at a bus stop, as well as an elderly man.
Gript readers will doubtless be aware that this writer was also targeted with pepper spray while in my own line of duty in Newtownmountkennedy, an incident which was captured on film.
Given the current climate in Ireland, it’s difficult to see how the national police force actively seeking to prevent people from filming them while on public duty could be seen as anything but an attempt to censor awareness of events of public interest, or an attempt to cover up potential or alleged wrongdoing.
When it comes to events of a sensitive nature, isn’t more footage better than less?
You would think that the availability of more footage, and from a broader range of angles, would be of benefit when it comes to the establishment of facts.
People are entitled to make complaints to GSOC if they feel that their rights have been infringed upon by a member of AGS.
The importance of independently shot footage would seem to be particularly true in circumstances where a Gript investigation revealed that members of the Public Order Riot squad engaged in active duty while not wearing any identification numbers at a number of protests where there were clashes between police and protestors. Unidentifiable can mean unaccountable.
In conclusion: There seems to be a pre-existing legal framework for dealing with this in circumstances where Gardaí are having phones stuck in their faces, however if it’s the case that they just don’t want to be filmed at all, there’s no way to make that work and they can’t have it both ways.
Canada - Women’s Prisons
Great round up of recent events from Eileen on Woman: Adult Human Female including this about Women’s Prisons:
April 4 - 10: Canadian Women FIGHT BACK for Women in Prisons
Apr 11, 2025
Top News: Canadian Women’s Group Launches Charter Action To Get Men Out Of Women’s PRISONS
The grass-roots, entirely-volunteer organization, Canadian Women for Sex-Based Rights (caWsbar), is taking on the federal government for housing men in women’s prisons.
On April 7, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) launched a Charter challenge on behalf of caWsbar. The challenge asserts that the federal government is violating the Charter (constitutional) rights of incarcerated Canadian women, stating that the practice is cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Charter rights of female inmates, including “their right to be protected from mental, physical, and sexual abuse…”
The challenge has been developed in close collaboration with caWsbar co-founder Heather Mason. Mason was once incarcerated in Canadian prison and has since been a strong advocate for the rights of women in prison (see WAHF: March 21-27).
The JCCF issued a press release, “Lawsuit takes aim at forcible confinement of female inmates with trans-identifying males”:
‘(CAWSBAR’s) lawsuit references an extensive list of physical and psychological harms female inmates have suffered as a result of being forcibly confined with trans-identifying male prisoners, including sexual assaults, sexual harassment, beatings, stalking, and grooming.
‘Many female prisoners come from disadvantaged backgrounds that often include past physical and sexual abuse from males. The current practice of having both males and females attend the same group therapy sessions makes it difficult for female inmates to fully participate in the treatment they seek. In advancing CASWBAR’s claim, lawyers will provide the court with evidence of psychological and physical harms that often lead to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, flashbacks of stressful violent and/or emotionally disturbing events involving men, anxiety, anger, depression, hopelessness, and suicidality.
‘CAWSBAR is not the first organization to report on the risks associated with forcibly confining female inmates alongside trans-identifying males. According to 2023 research from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, “More than 90% (55 of 61) of [trans-identified male] prisoners were incarcerated for violent offences. Of the group, nearly half (25) had a most serious offence that was homicide related and a third (18) had a most serious offense that was sexual in nature. In comparison, fewer than three-in-10 (6 of 21) [trans-identified females] were convicted of homicide related offences. This proportion of [trans-identified males] incarcerated for sexual and homicide-related offences is extraordinarily high compared to the general female prison population.”
‘CAWSBAR’s lawsuit argues that the current practice violates the constitutionally protected rights of female inmates. Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees female inmates the right to life, liberty, and security of the person. Section 12 guarantees the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment. Section 15 guarantees equality before and under the law as well as the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex.’
Their lawsuit also references section 28, which reads, “Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.”
The full piece is here:
https://wahf.substack.com/p/april-4-10-canadian-women-fight-back?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
Pretend Medicine - A Round-Up
Great and extensive round up of worldwide events from Bernard Lane and he branches out into education in California and to a mention of the For Women Scotland judgment.
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/detrans-horizon?publication_id=627677&r=1v403b
UK - Grooming Gangs Scandal
I know that many of my readers want to be kept abreast of the grooming gangs scandal which was brought to the fore again by the release of the shocking transcripts of the judgments from the Oxford trials. This is outside the remit of this substack where, generally speaking, we concentrate on the Terf Resistance to ‘gender ideology’ and the fight for free speech, so I have just been directing readers to relevant pieces. It is vital that this issue is not allowed to die away again. The Labour Government should agree to a national inquiry.
I recommend this piece from Julie Bindel on Unherd:
New Zealand - Health NZ - That word ‘woman’ again 😄
On her substack, A B’Old Woman our friend Katrina Biggs gives us an update ( and sends congratulations to For Women Scotland later in the piece):
Health NZ gets directed to use the word ‘woman’, and forget the gobbedlygook.
They may need therapy.
Apr 16, 2025
In a wow-factor move, NZ’s Associate Minister for Health, Casey Costello, sent a letter to Health NZ directing them to bring back the word ‘woman’. Instead of using gobbedlygook like ‘pregnant people’, ‘people with a cervix’, and ‘individuals capable of childbearing’, they’ve been told to say ‘woman’. Shocking, I know. Although the directive has been given, we’re talking about our woke-infested Public Service here, so I expect there will be resistance. Therapy will almost certainly be required.
Health NZ is the government agency responsible for managing and operating the health system in New Zealand. Like other government departments and organisations elsewhere, they’ve been pandering for some time to an infinitesimal minority who’ve sold them the concept that removing women from language is inclusive for those who pretend they’re the opposite sex to that which they were born, or no sex at all. And, reducing women to functions and body parts is, apparently, not in the least bit dehumanising. That infinitesimal minority – i.e. the neo-rainbow brigade - get an eye-watering amount of funding, a substantial amount of which appears to have gone into the pockets of the best spin doctors in town.
Even though communications and documents issued by Health NZ are riddled with woke neo-rainbow language, with barely a ‘woman’ in sight, they claim they haven’t created any policies around this. However, the Women’s Rights Party says “woah, back up the truck there, Health NZ”, and points to the ‘Gender Diversity Policy’ they were developing last year. Convenient amnesia, perchance? Or the left hand hand not knowing what the right hand is doing in Health NZ? I’m not sure which is more concerning.
The full piece is here:
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/health-nz-gets-directed-to-use-the
The Dangers of Estrogen
Ute Heggen reports on her substack on a new group called ROGDBOYS [ ROGD means ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’, a term coined by Lisa Littman]. They have reported on recent evidence about the harms of estrogen for men including with regard to brain function.
ROGDBOYS.org, New Site with References RE Brain Shrinkage from Estrogen in Males!
We must study males and females separately, because our systems are affected differently from medical treatments. Bravo to the individuals behind rogdboys.org!
Apr 15, 2025
In 3 or so weeks, my iris bed will look like this!
The new website, rogdboys.org, has the citations for new studies showing the cognitive effects, in both demonstrated deteriorated problem solving skills and brain shrinkage evidence from animal studies, which should be cause of concern. My take is that every public university taking taxpayer funds must present this information in their classes on child development, mental health and public health, to counter the cult-like influence of trans ideology in the last 2 decades.
The full piece is here:
https://uteheggen.substack.com/p/rogdboysorg-new-site-with-references
Following Ute’s example ( and also Pearl Red Moon in Australia) here is our Clivia in full bloom 😊
Endpieces
My wife is joining in !!!!
From My Wife
https://x.com/BigBillMoon/status/1913185646547526128
From Liz
From Tenaciously
#BeMorePorcupine
#EndGenderAffirmingCare
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#FightForFreeSpeech
#NoMenInWomensSport
#LiveNotByLies
#WitchesRUs
#MenTakeYourFrocksOff
Hi readers
Emma H appears to be a bot so I have now blocked this account 😃
Thanks to one of my readers for researching this
Happy Easter everyone
Dusty
Yes, I can only imagine the meltdowns going on behind the scenes 😅