Telling The Truth As A Revolutionary Act

Update 616. This Is Terf Month. #BeMorePorcupine.

The news and views are still pouring into Dusty Towers, so this is another two parter, dear readers.

We are now in Terf Month ( to counteract Queer Month) and we are featuring great speeches on the theme of women’s rights. Please keep those suggestions coming in. Please send a link if you can. Thanks to those readers who have already sent in great suggestions.

On the day that Self ID was brought into force in Germany on 01 November 2024, Helen Joyce went to Berlin to support the German Terfs and gave a rousing speech.

Meanwhile at the German Embassy in London, yours truly and his mates…..

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/lasst-frauen-sprechen

Thanks to three wonderful readers for suggested pieces.

Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.

Stop Press! A National Inquiry!!

Talking of ‘telling the truth’!!!! Regular readers will know that I have often featured the Grooming Gangs Scandal on this substack especially due to its analogy with the medical scandal of the medicalisation and mutilation of confused and distressed children. Following a recommendation from Baroness Casey, Keir Starmer has now U turned and ordered a national inquiry. Amazing news! Well done to all those who fought for this. So we weren’t ‘far right’ after all, Sir Keir?

James Saunders on GB News ( Nigel Farage welcomes grooming gangs inquiry - but issues warning to Labour 14 June) reports:

A national probe 'will expose the multiple failings of the British establishment', Farage vowed

Nigel Farage has welcomed the news that Sir Keir Starmer has ordered a national statutory inquiry into Britain's grooming gangs scandal.

The Reform UK leader, who made launching a national probe a manifesto commitment in April, said the Prime Minister's move was a "welcome U-turn" in a fiery statement on Saturday afternoon.

But Farage also laid out a warning to Labour as it gears up to fully investigate the rape gangs.

He said: "The Government's decision to launch a national inquiry into the grooming gang scandal is a welcome U-turn.

"A full statutory inquiry, done correctly, will expose the multiple failings of the British establishment.

Farage laid out a warning to Labour as it gears up to fully investigate the rape gangs

"I repeat the words 'done correctly' - this cannot be a whitewash.

"It's time for victims to receive the justice they deserve and for perpetrators to face the full force of the law."

Farage's deputy leader Richard Tice branded the move a "massive Starmer U-turn due to a fear of Reform UK".

The full article is here:

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/grooming-gangs-nigel-farage-national-inquiry-labour-keir-starmer

The For Women Scotland Judgment - The Aftermath

Law and Disorder

Naomi Cunningham, barrister, of Sex Matters explains how three senior lawyers have misunderstood the Supreme Court judgment!

12th June 2025

What Law & Disorder got wrong about the FWS judgment

Three legal luminaries discussed the For Women Scotland judgment on their Law & Disorder podcast, writes Sex Matters chair Naomi Cunningham. They were Lord (Charlie) Falconer, former Lord Chancellor; Sir Nicholas Mostyn, retired High Court judge; and Helena Kennedy KC, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws. You might reasonably expect that this would be a learned and sophisticated conversation among three people who had read the judgment and engaged with the detail of the arguments before the court. Mostyn followed up with a note on his Law & Disorder website.

Baroness Kennedy kicks off by expressing surprise that the Supreme Court hasn’t grappled with the problem of discrimination by perception:

“What about the perception of someone’s sex? If someone has transitioned very successfully and everyone assumes that person is a woman and she’s discriminated against in the way that women are in employment, for example, do we not see that as being discrimination?”

Kennedy returns to this question twice more in the podcast. On the third occasion, when she says “Perception matters in all of this. And I think that the court didn’t consider that, did they?” Falconer sets her straight, and explains how discrimination by perception works: a matter dealt with fully and lucidly in the judgment at paragraphs 249–250.

Mostyn says early on that it is important that listeners should understand that “the actual decision affects only a very small number of people,” and points out that only about 8,000 individuals hold a certificate.

This misses the point. People who assert a “trans” identity may only be around 0.4% of the population as a whole; but even if that is double the true percentage, one in 500 is not outlandishly rare. If accurate, that means that it will not be surprising to find a couple of dozen such people employed in the average NHS trust, three or four housed in the average prison or a couple of hundred participating in the London Marathon. And as should be obvious to anyone (but especially a former judge), the rights and claims of one group often come into conflict with those of another. If one trans-identifying man is allowed to participate in the London Marathon “as a woman” that will bump every single woman participating whose time is slower than his one place down the ranking. If one trans-identifying male employee in a workforce of a few hundred is permitted to use female facilities, those facilities are not single-sex any more, but mixed, and that has an effect on all the trans-identifying man’s female colleagues.

Mostyn returns to this theme later on in the podcast, speculating that the judgment might have been different if more gender-recognition certificates (GRCs) had been granted, and that the reason numbers are so low is that the procedural requirements placed on those who seek a GRC are “formidable”.

Mostyn is wrong on both counts. There is nothing in the judgment of the Supreme Court to suggest that the small number of GRCs in circulation played any part in the court’s reasoning, and indeed the practical consequences of the various difficulties that would be caused by a “certificated sex” interpretation, and which the court found persuasive, would self-evidently be proportionately greater if more certificates had been granted. He is also wrong to suggest that there is anything difficult or daunting about the process, or any requirement to explain a decision not to undergo surgery, as a cursory glance at the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (a short Act running to only 28 sections) would have told him.

The full piece is here:

https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/what-law-and-disorder-got-wrong-about-the-fws-judgment/?mc_cid=60234e85de&mc_eid=b7da81a2c7

Perspective From Australia.

On the substack, Gender Clinic News Sandra Pertot looks at the judgment and the situation in Australia.

Loose lips

When the language of biological sex is stripped of meaning, it's the rights of women and girls that are left exposed

Jun 12, 2025

Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash

Indefinitions

The UK Supreme Court was recently required to determine the meaning of “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. The campaign group For Women Scotland initiated this case to challenge the legal fiction that transwomen—males who adopt their interpretation of the gender of a woman—are women and therefore must be included in all the sex-based rights of a woman.

“What is a woman?” first became a political issue in 1973 at the West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles. The organising group became split over how to refer to the folksinger booked to perform, Beth Elliott, who was transsexual. Robin Morgan, the keynote speaker, said—

“I will not call a male ‘she’; 32 years of suffering in this androcentric society and of surviving have earned me the title ‘woman’; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.”

The question remained an issue in some feminist circles but largely out of the public forum, until the development of the internet and social media meant that ideas could spread rapidly far and wide. The belief that transwomen are women is supported by a subgroup of feminists who recognise that women are often not only repressed by their sex, but also by their race, class, sexual orientation, abilities and gender roles—with these forms of oppression intersecting. What I struggle to understand is how they came to the view that the “gender” category included transwomen.

Having underlined several times that the important thing is biology, there is a paragraph towards the end of this piece that just does not make sense:

There is some evidence of a biological basis for being transgender, which would be a significant advance for assessing who is trans and who isn’t, but I understand many trans activists aren’t happy about this option.

I would presume that this paragraph is mistyped in some way especially since, as with the rest of the piece, the next paragraph totally contradicts it:

Trans activists oppose the biological definition of woman not because it isn’t accurate, but because it brings down the house of cards that gender ideology is based on.

I am not a paid subscriber to this substack ( I am a paid subscriber to many substacks, channels and groups and am trying to not take on any more paid subscriptions at the moment!), so cannot comment on the substack. If any reader is a paid subscriber or has some way of contacting Ms Pertot, please can you ask her about this paragraph.

The full piece is here:

https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/loose-lips?publication_id=627677&r=1v403b

‘Trans Inclusive Policies’.

Michael Foran on his substack, Knowing Ius explains why, following the judgment, trans inclusive policies are not lawful:

Are "trans inclusive" policies lawful?

Jun 13, 2025

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 (FWS), there has been a raging debate about whether it is lawful for employers or service providers to provide trans inclusive facilities for changing, showering, and sanitary use. While the judgment is clear that it is lawful to run single-sex facilities on the basis of biological sex, some have argued that trans inclusive facilities are also lawful and that employers and service providers can choose which policy to adopt. This post will explain why that is not correct

The full piece is here:

https://knowingius.org/p/are-trans-inclusive-policies-lawful?publication_id=2711221&post_id=165858737&isFreemail=false&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

England - Blocking A Lesbian Venue

I reported recently on Jenny Watson’s attempts to get permission, post the SC judgment, for a lesbian only venue in London Borough of Southwark:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/careful-what-you-wish-for?utm_source=publication-search

Jenny is still encountering enormous problems as reported on her substack:

They Blocked the Lesbian Venue. Now It’s Prison for Pavement

Blocked the venue. Cancelled the picnic. Now they’re threatening prison – and police dispersal – for lesbians with lemonade on the pavement

Jun 13, 2025

This Is What They Do to Us

1. They blocked our venue.

2. They revoked our picnic.

3. Now they’ve threatened me with jail – for a few plastic cups of lemonade on the pavement.

Here’s what happened:

1. First, They Blocked the Venue

We spent months trying to rent a disused Southwark arch – one of 392 – to create the world’s only female-only lesbian space. Private, safe, lawful. We offered rent. They offered a mixed-sex venue instead.

We cited the Equality Act (Schedule 3) and the Public Sector Equality Duty. They stalled. Then blamed it on ‘not controlling the arches’ – despite issuing an Article 4 Direction that gives them full control.

131 arches sit empty.
11 have gone to LGBTQ+ projects since 2016.
Lesbians? 0.

Men in stilettos? 4.
Lesbians with folding chairs? ‘Too political.’

2. But Then, They Banned Our Picnic

On 29th May 2025, I applied to Potters Fields Park Trust – next to Tower Bridge, under Southwark’s remit – to host a private social for lesbian and bisexual women.

No stage. No speeches. Just 50 women and a Bluetooth speaker.

They engaged repeatedly. They chased us for the form. No objections. No concerns.

Then, 70 hours before the event: cancelled. No warning. No negotiation. Just a cold email.

The reason? Not law. Not safety. Just vague claims:
1. Police ‘had concerns’
2. People ‘flagged our social media’
3. They’d ‘reviewed our online presence’
4. ‘If it had been a social event’

No evidence. No breach. No conversation.

It is a social event.

Van booked. Stewards secured. Money gone. They knew. They pulled the plug anyway.
No refund. No apology. No legal grounds. Just erasure.

The ‘independent’ trust behind the ban?

1. Portia Mwangangye – Southwark councillor

2. Toni Ainge – Southwark planning officer

3. Nadia Broccardo – council-funded CEO, Team London Bridge

Independence score: 0%.
This wasn’t neutral.
It was political power behind a charity logo.

3. Now, ‘Six Months In Prison’ For the Pavement

After the park was pulled, we told members we’d meet on nearby public space – peaceful, legal, unlicensed.
We posted a flyer:
‘No sales. Bring your own beer.’

36 hours later, Southwark’s solicitor threatened me with:
1. Six months in prison
2. Unlimited fines
3. Police dispersal powers
4. Six separate offences

For what? A lesbian meet-up. No law breached.

The full piece is here:

https://dnalerinrehtron.substack.com/p/lesbians-pavement-prison-southwark?publication_id=2173871&post_id=165892041&isFreemail=true&r=20xc5g&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Britain - Sex and the Law

In the second of their new interview series, Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater of Sex Matters look at the rise of the trans madness and how the law dealt with it. An excellent explanation of the situation and the up to date position. Reflecting back on the introduction of the Gender Recognition Act it is a great shame there was not more powerful and organised dissent at the time which would have saved a lot of time and effort ( on which point, see also the piece below this!). But the Terfs have got there in the end!!

Tom Harris, journalist and former MP admits on his substack, Politically Homeless to having voted for the Gender Recognition Bill in 2004 and later regretted it.

Mea culpa: my part in the rise of the trans cult

The Gender Recognition Bill looked harmless enough. If only I'd known. . .

Jun 12, 2025

Double rapist Isla Bryson, sent to a women’s prison (initially)

When, in February 2004, the Commons came to vote on the Second Reading of the Gender Recognition Act, I was conflicted.

The previous weekend I had driven down to London and in the car had listened to an interview with Lord (formerly Norman) Tebbit, who was talking about his objections to the Bill. I confess that I had given the subject almost no consideration at that point. Nevertheless, I took notice of what the former Tory chairman and Thatcher ally was saying because it struck me as true. Parliament was about to legislate, for the first time in its history, to allow people to lie.

People who had been born either male or female but who had subsequently decided they were, in fact, the opposite gender – “born in the wrong body” – would be able to amend their birth certificates in a dishonest way so that, after they transitioned, the incorrect sex at birth could be displayed. The same would happen with those individuals’ passports.

Even then, I had no particularly strong feelings about the subject, mainly because I did not possess a time machine and was therefore unable to foresee the chaos and damage – particularly to women’s rights – that the genderists would inflict in the next 20 years or so. I happened to have dinner with the government chief whip at the time, Hilary (now Baroness) Armstrong, on the evening before the vote and raised the issues addressed by Lord Tebbit, informing her of my reservations about the legislation. Her only advice was not to endanger a future ministerial career by voting against the government on such a trivial subject.

I sat in the chamber for some of the Second Reading debate, not intending to speak, but rather to listen to the various arguments that supporters and detractors made on the Bill’s provisions. Having heard the debate, I was reasonably content to support the government but I confess I wouldn’t have done so had I not been instructed to do so by the whips. Such are the realities of parliamentary life.

Of course, since then I have had plenty of time to repent of my failure to anticipate properly the march of the genderists and the negative impact that their ideology was to have on our country. The irony is that while the GRA allowed trans people to obtain an official certificate establishing their “new” gender (but only after jumping through various hoops, like securing a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and living in their adopted gender for two years), it paved the way for the campaign for self-identification, which involves none of those hurdles. Or hoops.

The full piece is here:

https://tomharris2.substack.com/p/mea-culpa-my-part-in-the-rise-of

Ireland -Hate Speech

Throughout 2024 I reported on the then Irish Government’s appalling hate speech bill which eventually got shelved in advance of the election. I had hoped that they would leave it on the shelf but it looks like that was a false hope. So I am girding my armour back on!!

Jason Osborne in Gript News (LGBTQ+ action plan commits to hate speech legislation 13 June) reports:

A new national LGBTQ+ action plan released today appears to commit the Government to enacting new hate crime and hate speech legislation, referring throughout the document to actions that will take place “when” such legislation is passed.

The Action Plan 2025-2026 accompanying the publication of the new National LGBTIQ+ Inclusion Strategy II lists a number of “actions” to be taken under different pillars by Government departments and/or State agencies, a number of which appear to be predicated upon the enactment of new hate legislation.

Under Pillar 1: Safety, one of the actions listed involves increasing awareness of complaints mechanisms to report hate crimes and hate related incidents, “including crimes that fall under the hate crime/hate speech legislation (when in place)”.

Similarly, under Pillar 1, the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána are tasked with improving supports for LGBTIQ+ victims of hate crimes.

To that end, gardaí are also to undergo mandatory hate crime training, as well as training on Cultural Awareness.

One of the key performance indicators, or “deliverables” for that action states that “upon enactment of hate crime legislation” …, a public information campaign around the legislation will be developed and delivered.

Under Pillar 4: Equality and Non-Discrimination, a number of Government departments are designated responsible for Action 39: “Enact legislation to protect LGBTIQ+ people from discrimination, harm, and hatred.”

The Department of Justice is here tasked with ensuring that legislation to ensure that incitement to hatred and hate crimes against LGBTIQ+ people are adequately addressed is “enacted and commenced”.

The strategy itself additionally states that it aims to ensure enforcement mechanisms are in place to “make hate crime/hate speech laws effective”.

The strategy states that Government feels that these measures are an “increasingly important undertaking”, given growing “push-back on the advancement of LGBTIQ+ equality globally”.

The Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024 came into effect December 31, 2024, after it was largely stripped of its contentious hate speech components, focusing instead on hate crime legislation.

In May this year, the European Commission warned Ireland that it was failing to sufficiently address hate-based crimes and speech, before stating that Ireland had two months to “respond and take the necessary measures” or risk being referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Taoiseach Micheál Martin subsequently told Gript that he has not picked up on “huge pressure” from the European Union in relation to introducing more stringent hate legislation.

https://gript.ie/lgbtq-action-plan-commits-to-hate-speech-legislation/?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_5_17_2022_13_19_COPY_01)

The States - Olson-Kennedy

I recently reported on notorious gender clinician Olson-Kennedy’s long suppressed report finally being released:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/ditch-the-flag?utm_source=publication-search

I have only just caught up on some great news in the Los Angeles Times relating to the hospital where she practises her vile trade:

Children’s Hospital L.A. stops initiating hormonal therapy for transgender patients under 19

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in 2020.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

By Emily Alpert ReyesStaff Writer

Feb. 4, 2025

• Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, a major provider of care for transgender youth, says it is pausing the initiation of hormonal therapy for “gender affirming care patients” under the age of 19.

• The move comes one week after President Trump issued an executive order seeking to stop the use of puberty blockers, hormones and other medical procedures for transgender youth.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles said Tuesday that it is pausing the initiation of hormonal therapy for “gender affirming care patients” under the age of 19 as hospital officials assess last week’s executive order from President Trump targeting gender-affirming care for young people.

The L.A. hospital, a major provider of care for transgender youth, also said it was maintaining an “existing pause” on gender-affirming surgeries for minors.

In a statement Tuesday, the hospital said it was continuing to carefully evaluate Trump’s order last week “to fully understand its implications.” Existing patients at CHLA already receiving hormonal treatment may continue with their course of care, a hospital official said.

Trump‘s executive order sought to stop the use of puberty blockers, hormones and other medical procedures for transgender youth under 19, declaring the U.S. will not fund or support “the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another.” Trump has called such medical care a form of “chemical and surgical mutilation.”

The full piece is here:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-04/childrens-hospital-to-stop-initiating-hormonal-therapy-for-trans-patients-under-19

Endpieces

I am splitting the endpieces between the two parts 😄

From Liz

Squirrel Day Of Visibility

#BeMorePorcupine

#LiesAreNotFreedom

#AdultHumanFemale

#LetWomenSpeak

#LGB✂️TQ

#JoinFreeSpeechUnion

#TransNHS

#StripMedalsFromMaleCheats

#NeverSurrender

#NeverForget

#TruthWillTriumph

#WeWillWin

Part 2 will follow shortly, Terven.

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free or paid or buy me a coffee, like and comment.