Roxy Tickle Ain't A Sheila!
Update 888. Labour Woo Woo Special. #BeMorePorcupine.
My feline assistant and me are totally swamped at Dusty Towers with the news and views so we are splitting this into a two parter. Which gives the chance for two great women’s rights speeches. 😀 Thanks to two readers for sending me a piece by someone called Quinn about the Equality Act - it’s very long and detailed and I am still grappling with it. Will report back in due course.
The month of June is, of course, Pride Month. However, traditionally, on this substack it is Terf Month🥂🎈🍾😎🎇 , when we will pause the film series and each update will start with a great Terf or women’s rights speech. Such speeches can be at rallies and demos, at lectures, in videos, in films and podcasts and in news items. Or you can draft one yourself if you like!! Please get your suggestions in to Dusty Towers asap.
Thank you to Becca Shambles for (inspired by EDI Jester no doubt) inventing Gender-Addled Grievance Gerbil Day and thanks also to Becca for nominating this speech from Sall Grover. Not the most rip roaring speech ever but we have to have something from Sall given her amazing determination in fighting the Giggle v Tickle case. Go, Sall.
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.
Sall Grover
Good piece from Feminist Legal Clinic via Noel Yaxley in The Spectator Australia.
As a film buff I like the comparison with Some Like It Hot.
“I’m a man!!!!”
“Nobody’s perfect!”
Justice miscarried | The Spectator Australia (04 July)
For more than five minutes of human history, society accepted biological reality as a simple fact. In primary schools everywhere, children were taught that XY chromosomes make someone male and XX meant female, and this understanding formed the basis of our laws. This foundation, once unshakeable, has been demolished in Australia by a combination of judicial decisions and legislative overreach – a process that culminated in the bizarre Full Federal Court decision in Tickle v. Giggle. Sall Grover, the founder of the women-only networking app Giggle for Girls, recently lost her appeal after being found to have discriminated against Roxanne Tickle, a biological male identifying as a woman. The court didn’t just uphold Justice Bromwich’s finding – it increased the penalties against Grover, delivering a watershed moment that enshrined a male’s right to self-identify as a woman over a woman’s right to single-sex spaces.
I recently rewatched the classic film Some Like It Hot. In it, men dress as women to escape the mob after witnessing a murder; the absurdity is the point. The joke relies entirely on the audience knowing that Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon are still men beneath the wigs and dresses. At no point does anyone truly believe they have become women – that’s the entire premise of the comedy. Fast-forward to modern Australia, and the absurd script of a 1950s Hollywood farce has become a legally binding tragedy. To make matters worse, legacy media have lined up to applaud this travesty. The ABC published an article gaslighting its audience, insisting that the ruling against Grover was a victory for women’s rights. It takes a unique brand of journalistic delusion to describe a Federal Court decision fining a female entrepreneur for creating an app exclusively for biological women as a triumph for her sex.
Source: Justice miscarried | The Spectator Australia
https://feministlegal.org/justice-miscarried-the-spectator-australia/
Henry Nowak
We featured the shocking death of Henry Nowak in the last update. and especially drew attention to the question of two tier policing which directly impinges on us Terfs. I am not going to continue featuring pieces about Henry for the time being but I do recommend these interesting discussions on the matter:
https://www.darrengrimes.com/p/they-told-us-to-stop-being-divisive
https://cjstrachan.substack.com/p/deis-institutional-racism-the-reversal
https://edijester.substack.com/p/how-woke-and-anti-racism-destroys
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0N-8mIaqJM&t=2166s
Scotland - DE & FG v West Lothian Council
Brief tweet from law lecturer, Michael Foran about this excellent judgment. Hopefully a full report will follow in due course.
The Scottish Court of Session has just ruled that providing multi-user unisex toilets in a primary school amounted to indirect sex discrimination against female pupils.
https://scotcourts.gov.uk/media/mv5d53jw/2026csoh52-petition-of-de-and-fg-against-west-lothian-council.pdf
https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/2062504054152909043
The EHRC Guidance
We recently reported some Woo Woo MPs putting forward an Early Day Motion calling for the withdrawal of the guidance. Dominic Penna reports in The Telegraph:
Labour MPs claim single-sex guidance is ‘hostile’ to trans people
Women and equalities chairman leads charge in criticising new rules barring biological men from using women’s facilities
02 June 2026
Single-sex guidance approved by the Government has created a “hostile environment” against transgender people, a group of Labour MPs has claimed.
Sarah Owen, the Labour chairman of the women and equalities committee, led a dozen of her party’s MPs in publicly attacking the new transgender guidance approved by Sir Keir Starmer’s Government.
The updated code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) tells businesses and public bodies to bar transgender women from using women’s toilets and changing facilities.
On Monday, however, 12 backbenchers used a debate on the code to criticise the new guidelines, prompting one to warn in rebuke that Labour was “obsessed with certain middle-class hobby horses”.
Speaking in the Commons, Ms Owen said: “I really wish that there was a better beginning to Pride Month than what we are discussing.
“Although the code is marginally different from its draft, it is still a trans-exclusionary one at its core, and unfortunately not inclusive…
“Does the minister share my concern that the new code of practice will only further the UK’s now hostile environment for trans people and not calm it? How will she act to stop the erosion of LGBT+ rights in this country?”
Seema Malhotra, the minister for equalities, responded to Ms Owen by saying it must be a “priority” to support women’s rights while treating trans people with “dignity”.
“We will continue to ensure that we provide single-sex spaces where needed, and also ensure that trans people have access to services to support their needs, in an environment of dignity and respect for all,” Ms Malhotra said.
The EHRC guidance was drawn up after last year’s Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman under the Equality Act 2010 should be based on biological sex.
‘Risks legitimising exclusion’
However, Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, claimed that the code “fails everyone”, saying: “It effectively pushes trans people out of public life.”
Cat Eccles, the Labour MP for Stourbridge, added: “The proposed code of practice represents a major and worrying change in how equality law may operate in practice for trans people and service providers.”
Ms Eccles cited warnings from LGBT charities, and that the guidance “risks legitimising exclusion” and could lead to an increase in the harassment of trans people.
The Prime Minister and his top team have shifted their positions on gender issues several times in recent years.
In 2021, Sir Keir claimed Rosie Duffield, the former Labour MP, was wrong to state that a man could not have a cervix. He later said “99.9 per cent” of women did not have a penis, and it was only during the 2024 election campaign that he said a man had a penis and a woman had a vagina.
Sir Keir has since welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, while James Murray, the new Health Secretary, said this week he had changed his mind after claiming in 2022 that “trans women are women”.
Speaking after the Commons debate, Jonathan Hinder, a Labour backbencher and a leading figure in the socially conservative Blue Labour pressure group, rebuked his colleagues who had lined up to attack the trans guidance.
He said on BBC Newsnight: “Are we for working-class people or are we obsessed with certain middle-class hobby horses, worthy sectors, worthy stakeholders, the stakeholder state, all of that stuff? Or are we actually focusing on the hard-working majority in this country?”
When asked to give an example, he responded: “There’s all sorts. Look at what was going on in Parliament… We had dozens of Labour MPs standing up to talk about how they didn’t like the law which says men can’t go in women’s changing rooms. Dozens, today.
“There are a lot of problems this country faces and I’m sorry to say the Labour Party is not meeting the moment and if we don’t sort it out this summer, acknowledge the challenge and actually confront it head on, then we’re going to die.”
Dusty - I wish Jonathan Hinder was my MP. Unfortunately my MP is Cat Eccles!!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/57b3dec85e7cfac9
Akua Reindorf KC on her substack, Within The Law calmly points out to the MPs that the correct procedure is being followed and that, in the very unlikely event that they could get the Code withdrawn, that does not change the law. If they want to change the law, perhaps they should be upfront and say so. Or else f*** off. Preferably the latter.
EARLY WARNING
Are MPs plotting to overturn For Women Scotland and dismantle women’s and LGB people’s discrimination law rights?
Jun 04, 2026
This article is a personal opinion piece and does not constitute legal advice.
It appears increasingly obvious that no credible explanation will be forthcoming for the latest salvo in the gender wars: this week’s attempt by a group of MPs to block the EHRC’s draft revised Services Code of Practice.
The original EHRC Services Code was published in 2011, shortly after the commencement of the Equality Act 2010. The draft revised Code was laid in parliament on 21 May 2026. It is a 342 page guidance document covering the entirety of the Equality Act 2010 as it applies to services, associations and public functions, across all nine protected characteristics and multiple causes of action. It gives detailed explanations of legal rights and responsibilities, illustrated with example scenarios
Over recent days, MPs and peers have raised objections to the parts of the Code which follow from last year’s judgment of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers. The core of that judgment was that where the words “woman”, “man” and “sex” appear in the Equality Act 2010, they refer to biological sex and not to a person’s sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate.
There has been a widespread misapprehension that a consequence of the FWS judgment is that single-sex services (such as toilets, rape crisis services or prisons), associations (such as Girl Guides or the Women’s Institute) and sports can no longer be “trans-inclusive”; that is, that they can no longer be open to, for example, women as well as men who self-identify as women.
In fact, the principle that the Equality Act does not confer any entitlement to self-identify into the legal rights of the opposite sex was established in law many years ago, though this was comprehensively ignored by employers, service providers, politicians and others. Strictly speaking, the Supreme Court judgment is only concerned with the position of those trans-identified people who hold GRCs. Nonetheless, the judgment has focussed minds on the fact that self-ID is not the law, and the Code revisions include the law as it relates to both those trans-identified people who hold GRCs and those who do not.
On X yesterday, Stella Creasy MP indicated that her concern about the Code was the use of a negative procedure to bring it into force. This is a process by which a draft statutory instrument lies on the books in parliament for a period of time, and if neither House votes it down in that period it passes automatically into law. A statutory instrument is secondary legislation (as opposed to an Act of Parliament, which is primary legislation).
Creasy’s position appears to be that she considers the use of this negative procedure to be an example of the “creep” of statutory instruments being used to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. It follows, presumably, that the Early Day Motion tabled on 1 June 2026 and signed by Creasy and others is somehow motivated by a concern that the Code will not be sufficiently scrutinised by parliament before it is passed.
Certainly, it is undeniable that secondary legislation is often used by governments to quietly usher in controversial or unpopular laws that really ought to be in primary legislation and therefore subject to much more rigorous scrutiny. The misuse of statutory instruments is a matter for reasonable concern.
However, as Creasy was informed by numerous commentators yesterday, the Code is not a statutory instrument. It is not legislation of any kind. [ Dusty - my emphasis] In parliamentary procedure terms, it is an “Act paper”. The procedure which is used to bring it into force mirrors the negative procedure for statutory instruments, but it is not the same process. It derives from section 14 of the Equality Act 2006, the legislation which established the Equality and Human Rights Commission and sets out its powers and duties. It is the procedure which has been used – uncontroversially – to bring into force all the Codes of Practice issued by the EHRC since its formation. There is simply nothing underhand about its use.
The fact that the Code is not legislation is crucial. It is statutory guidance. It explains particular aspects of the law for the benefit of stakeholders who might not be able to access legal advice. It makes no new rules and should reflect only what is in legislation and what has been decided in binding judgments of appellate courts. A court or tribunal hearing a case in which the Code is relevant must take it into account, but is not obliged to follow it. Because the Code is no more than a snapshot of the effect of legislation and decided cases at the time it was written, it is inevitable that parts of it will soon become out of date. Where that is the case, a court or tribunal must follow the law, not the Code. Similarly, a court or tribunal can ignore the Code if it is simply wrong in law. Thus the Code is neither authoritative nor definitive.
That is the background against which it is immediately obvious that the Code is not apt for parliamentary scrutiny of the sort which is applied to legislation. If the Code did not exist, the law would still be the law. What, then, would be the point of parliament undertaking substantive scrutiny that could result in it rejecting all or part of the Code on a point of principle?
The full piece is here:
https://withinthelaw.substack.com/p/early-warning
NHS England Consultation on Wrong Sex Hormones for Children
Excellent response from Biology in Medicine. I think I will just rely on this in making a submission to the consultation. Please note we only have until Sunday 07 June to respond.
Response to NHS England consultation on cross-sex hormones in children
Clinical policy for prescribing of masculinising and feminising hormones for children and adolescents who have gender incongruence or dysphoria
Jun 03, 2026
The NHS is consulting on whether cross sex hormones should be provided to children under 18 years old. The medical evidence so far is that these interventions are harmful, so they are no longer available on the NHS. However, it is still possible to receive a private script for those aged 16 and 17, and there is no restriction on those over 18. Primarily NHSE is asking for evidence they may have missed, either for or against prescribing, to provide a really robust protocol for care.
Our response to the questions is recorded below. If you would like to submit a response then you may like to use this as a template.
Prescribing of masculinising and feminising hormones for children and adolescents who have gender incongruence or dysphoria
3. Has all of the relevant evidence been taken into account?
If you have identified other evidence, please include a link or full reference for the published evidence.
The US report https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf has a section on lack of reliable evidence of benefit that states:
‘SRs have not found credible evidence that they lead to meaningful improvement in mental health. Multiple SRs have concluded that the evidence supporting the benefits of pediatric transition interventions—from PBs to CSH and surgery—is of “very low certainty.” (See Chapter 5.) This means that findings from studies reporting mental health improvements are not considered reliable. In contrast, all medical interventions carry the potential for harm. Ultimately, medical interventions should be used when the balance of benefits clearly outweighs the risks.’
Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019: A Register Study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70533 which found that psychiatric treatment needs appeared to increase after being prescribed cross sex hormones (CSHs). Patients are often told that CSHs will improve their mental health, but this robust study shows otherwise.
Three decades of ‘Dutch Protocol’ research has not produced reliable evidence https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2026.2680285
This paper discusses the lack of evidence for the Dutch protocol and that it should no longer be followed by any recommendations or organisations.
A review paper from 2024 in German summarises the state of play 2 years ago:
Zepf, F.D. et al. (2024). Beyond NICE: Aktualisierte systematische Übersicht zur Evidenzlage der Pubertätsblockade und Hormongabe bei Minderjährigen mit Geschlechtsdysphorie. Zeitschrift für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 1-21. DOI: 10.1024/1422-4917/a000972
Some of the studies report short-term reductions in gender dysphoria, depression, or suicidality following cross-sex hormones, but findings remain inconsistent and methodologically weak. Long term results remain unknown. In some cases, studies include no meaningful statistical analysis or suffer from substantial loss to follow-up, further limiting interpretation of outcomes and risks.
Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. The “Utah Review” of Hormonal Treatments for Gender-Dysphoric Minors: A Methodological Appraisal. April 2, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19388024
This is a SEGM analysis of the Utah (US) robust defence of cross sex interventions, published in response to Cass and the US HSS reviews of paediatric gender medicine. SEGM’s report demonstrates how flawed the Utah review is, and how its conclusions should not be followed. Hence, Cass and the US HSS report which expose the harms of paediatric interventions at all stages, remain the preeminent sources of medical knowledge and care in this area.
The Levy Review: Levy D, Operational and delivery review of NHS adult gender dysphoria clinics in England. https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/operational-and-delivery-review-of-nhs-adult-gender-dysphoria-clinics-in-england/
The Levy Review demonstrates how poorly the adult services perform. Interestingly Levy’s response is to conclude that more services need to be provided and faster. However, a dispassionate view would be that all these services should be closed down as they fail to achieve any improvements in the lives of the patients.
Other studies should have been available already. Further papers that may have been missed are available through resources on https://statsforgender.org/ and
https://segm.org/
4. Does the draft Equality and Health Inequalities Impact Assessment reflect the potential impact that might arise as a result of the proposed changes?
Please provide comments:
No. The draft Impact Assessment does not reflect the harms that may arise as a result of these changes.
It has not adequately considered the groups most affected by the prescribing of cross sex hormones, being young gay and lesbian children (same sex attracted), those with psychological and psychiatric disturbances such as ADHD, ASD, anxiety and depression, eating disorders, overvalued ideas and psychosis. Some will have been subjected to physical and sexual abuse and some are or have been “looked after” children. All of these groups are vulnerable and need additional safeguarding from the harms of cultish ideas such as belief in cross sex gender. These groups are overrepresented in gender affirming care and therefore are most impacted by any changes. Stopping prescribing, including those currently on these damaging cross sex hormones, is the major step to protect them from harm.
The draft impact assessment lists some of the harms to the children who are currently prescribed cross sex hormones, but it is not complete. It misses out reduction in bone density, effects on sight (glaucoma and retinal vein occlusion), increased pressure in the brain, pelvic floor dysfunction, renal failure and kidney stones. There is an increased risk of endometrial cancer and early mortality. It also misses out the mental health harms to children and young adults, given we have known for years that cross sex interventions do not improve objective mental health or social functioning. There are no benefits other than the initial thrill of affirmation, such feelings being short lived.
Furthermore, cross sex hormones do not become safe and beneficial on the 18th birthday: all the risks remain in the young adult age group, just as in 16-18 group. Therefore, all children and young people that are currently prescribed cross sex hormones are adversely affected. These interventions must stop so that their own sex hormones can return, in the hopes this will allow them to recover from the harms of these disastrous cross sex interventions. If they are lucky, this will include a return to their sexed secondary sexual characteristics. If they are not lucky, they will have lost the chance of a normal life, lost the chance to be fertile and have a family of their own, and may need medical detrans services for the rest of their lives. These interventions should never have been allowed. It is a dreadful scandal that these hormones were ever prescribed on the NHS.
5. Are there any other issues that NHS England should consider when it decides whether to adopt the proposed clinical policy, and if adopted, about how to implement the clinical policy?
Please provide comments:
This new policy correctly bans cross sex hormones in under 18s in NHS England. However, this position needs to be extended to all children in the UK including private providers. NHSE and DHSC must develop strategies to ensure ALL children AND young adults are protected from these harmful interventions.
Strategies will include working with the health services and governments of the devolved nations, the General Medical Council, Royal Colleges, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, pharmacy companies such as Boots, the General Pharmaceutical Council and NHS Trusts to provide robust frameworks to ensure that cross sex hormones are not issued to vulnerable children and young adults. Further work must be done to prevent illegal sourcing of hormones and to criminalise all those who assist or promote the use of hormones in any vulnerable group. Anyone suspected of behaving in a way that harms the mental or physical health of a child or vulnerable adult should be subject to safeguarding enquiries and appropriate legal action, including encouraging the supply or providing these harmful interventions.
Given these findings NHSE and DHSC must lead to an independent enquiry into why gender identity clinics have been enabled to prescribe CSHs to children and young adults when there has never been any evidence of benefit. This is a huge medical scandal.
Instead, holistic approach to care through psychological interventions should be required, based in all local psychology services, to help resolve this distress. We welcome a multi-disciplinary approach focusing on education, psychosocial and psychological approaches with the aim to reduce distress and promote wellbeing and functioning, based in the reality of sex as determined at fertilisation, unable to be changed.
Children and young adults must receive the psychological support that should have been provided to them from the outset.
https://biologyinmedicine.substack.com/p/response-to-nhs-england-consultation
UK - Men In Women’s Prisons
Sex Matters report on a legal advice which shows that the 2021 case of FDJ v The Secretary of State for Justice is wrong about housing men in women’s prisons in the light of the For Women Scotland judgment. Well, duhhhhhh 😂
Housing men in women’s prisons is cruel and unlawful
Jun 05, 2026
In 2021, in the case of FDJ v Secretary of State for Justice, a female prisoner challenged the Ministry of Justice’s policy of housing some men who identify as women in women’s prisons. In particular, she challenged the lawfulness of allocating male prisoners who have been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women to the women’s estate.
The government of the day defended its policy of “case by case” decision-making and the High Court agreed it was lawful, on the basis that to exclude all males from women’s prisons “would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender”.
Now a legal opinion published by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies concludes that in light of the 2025 For Women Scotland ruling, the FDJ judgment does not hold up.
In FDJ the judges proceeded on the premise that the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010 which allow single-sex services can be applied on a case-by-case basis, whereas it is clear from the reasoning of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland that the exceptions are concerned with the differential treatment of men and women as groups, which is what allows men and women to be separated in the first place.
For Women Scotland confirmed that when it comes to single-sex services, a service provider cannot rely on the exceptions if it opens a service up to both sexes.
On this basis, equality-law specialist Ben Cooper KC and public-law specialist Myles Grandison explain that the current prisons policy is not just logically incoherent (not to mention inconsiderate of female prisoners). It’s also unlawful and opens His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) to discrimination claims not only from women, but from men too.
The full piece is here:
https://www.sex-matters-news.org/p/housing-men-in-womens-prisons-is
UK - Men and Boys in Women’s and Girls’ Sport
Also flowing from the For Women Scotland judgment ( so much is flowing from this judgment 😀), Maya Forstater and Fiona McAnena discuss their latest report on sport:
https://www.sex-matters-news.org/p/getting-back-on-track
The States - Mini Round Up and ‘Transgender’ Military Ban
Another great mini round up from Kara which includes:
I am very sorry to say that Marie Hurabiell will not advance to the general Congressional election in November. Marie, I do not have the words to thank you for your perseverance in this fight. You ran as a Democrat, spoke out for women and girls as a sex class, and earned several thousand votes. I am absolutely convinced that most people have no idea how vile Scott Wiener is, and those who do and voted for him anyway do not deserve you. Thank you so much for everything you have done.
It looks like Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra have emerged as the contestants for the Governor’s House. Becerra served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under Biden (he was also the boss of Rachel (Richard) Levine). I guess Tom Steyer could still pull off a victory, but it’s looking less likely.
Gloria Romero has advanced to the general election for Lieutenant Governor. Romero was a Democrat who served in the state legislature (both in the Assembly and in the Senate) from 1998 to 2010. In 2024, she became a Republican because she was sick of the Democrats’ full-throated embrace of all things “trans” (among other things). On June 2, she posted:
‘I stand with our daughters.
‘Title IX is the law of the land.
‘Let’s protect it.
‘As Lieutenant Governor of California I WILL never relent.’
Amen, sister.
The main piece concerns “a recent ruling out of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit that Trump’s so-called “transgender military ban” is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection.” The main discussion on this is behind the paywall.
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/an-appellate-court-has-ruled-that
Canada - Women and Girls Alberta
The province of Alberta is a beacon of hope in Canada. Kara Dansky celebrates the group Women and Girls of Alberta.
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/ffs-friday-the-women-of-women-and
Australia - The Green Party
We have previously reported on the founder of the Greens in Australia, Drew Hutton being expelled for being gender critical, settling his case against the party, and getting re-instated. He has now decided he has had enough with them. Don’t blame him!!!
Greens father figure Drew Hutton quits, vowing to back rival independents against former party | The Australian (04 June)
Australian Greens co-founder Drew Hutton has quit the party in disgust, despite winning a costly legal battle to have his life membership reinstated.
Mr Hutton, 79, tendered his resignation late on Wednesday complaining that the “party left me” after he was raked over the coals for challenging its policies on transgender rights.
The Greens’ Queensland division fired a parting shot, saying it was saddened to see anyone giving voice to “billionaire-funded talking points that just seek to divide people”, further angering Mr Hutton.
He wrote in his letter of resignation: “As the party’s founder here in Queensland, it grieves me to have to do this but I feel I have no choice. I still believe in green politics but I feel the party has left me.”
Mr Hutton is now exploring how to set up a new “network” to endorse progressive independent candidates at the next federal election who would compete for the Greens’ vote.
After founding the Queensland Greens in 1991, Mr Hutton worked alongside his friend, Bob Brown, to set up the Australian Greens a year later. He remains an elder statesman of green politics in Australia, having also established the Lock the Gate movement to stop miners encroaching on productive farm lands.
He fell out bitterly with his home division in 2022 when he took to Facebook to decry “authoritarian and anti-democratic” disciplinary action that had been taken against feminist members of the Greens for questioning the party’s pro-trans positions.
Mr Hutton was cited for failing to expunge from the social media thread comments held to be offensive and in breach of party rules. The Queensland Greens’ constitution and arbitration committee found that while he had not personally denigrated transgender women, he did provide a platform for others to express transphobic views. Mr Hutton vehemently rejected this.
His membership of the party was suspended, triggering a stand-off as he appealed the finding against him. In July last year, the Greens’ state council upheld his expulsion, prompting him to speak out in The Australian against an “intolerant transgender and queer cult” that, he said, had hijacked the party.
Mr Hutton launched legal action in the Queensland Supreme Court and was vindicated when the Greens’ lawyers found he had been denied natural justice by the party’s internal processes. The Queensland Greens capitulated in March in an out-of-court settlement that restored his membership and paid $55,000 towards his legal costs.
Julie Bindel also discusses this issue in The Australian.
This Never Happens
Yet another horror story, this time care of Glinner on The Glinner Update:
This Never Happens (03 June)
The original This Never Happens documented 236 cases of trans-identified males — biological men — committing acts of violence, sexual assault, and predation against women and children.
Of course, these cases continue to pour in and we’ll continue to record them.
Andrea Balcer (born Andrew Balcer)
……………………….
A high-profile controversy in Maine’s prison system has significantly intensified. On Thursday, May 28, 2026, three additional incarcerated women—Jennifer Albert, Michaela Sargent, and Danielle Foster—officially signed onto a federal civil rights lawsuit filed against the Maine Department of Corrections. The lawsuit, originally initiated in April 2026 by female inmate Katie Mountain, challenges Maine’s gender identity housing policies that allow biological male convicts who identify as transgender women to be housed in women’s facilities.
The lawsuit centers on the terrifying actions of 28-year-old Andrea Balcer (born Andrew Balcer). In October 2016, at the age of 17, Balcer committed a horrific crime in Winthrop, Maine, stabbing both of his parents (Alice and Antonio Balcer) and the family’s chihuahua dog to death inside their family home. Balcer was convicted as an adult and sentenced in 2018 to serve 40 years in prison. Having transitioned to a female identity while incarcerated, corrections officials transferred this male double-murderer from the male population at the Maine State Prison to the female units at the Maine Correctional Center in Windham.
Under this housing arrangement, Balcer gained direct, unmonitored access to female prisoners, many of whom are serving sentences for non-violent offenses such as drug charges. The newly filed court documents describe a living nightmare for the female inmates bunked with or housed near Balcer. The original plaintiff, Katie Mountain, was housed in the same cell as Balcer starting in January 2026. She alleges that Balcer subjected her to graphic sexual stories, trapped her in a bathroom, trapped her in a closet and forcibly kissed her, and made repeated threats of rape and impregnation.
The full piece is here:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/this-never-happens-839
Endpieces
Peeja Blackbird as recommended by Kara Dansky
I make a brief appearance at 0.18 with a group outside Australia House in London. I’m next to Menno.
In the last update featuring an excellent take off of Camberwick Green and Trumpton, I promised the band Half Man Half Biscuit and here they are doing ‘Trumpton Riots’.
#BeMorePorcupine
#KeepTerfing
#BeMoreHellsGranny
#KeepFighting
#RepealTheGRA
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#LGB✂️TQ
#BeMoreDissident
#HoldTheLine
#StopTheBlockersTrial
#NeverSurrender
#NeverForget
#TruthWillTriumph
#WeWillWin
Ditto to my comment about politicians in part 2 - apart from a few notable exceptions. They destroy the Western world and sit sneering like Emperors without their clothes. But we see them.
Thanks Dusty. Lots to seethe over.
I worry that Tickle v Giggle is the wrong hill to die on. Women's privacy, dignity and safety is not compromised by a man being on a website remote from contact. I think this is why the Australian courts have this far found against Sal Grover.