The Fly
Update 738. Olympics Special. #BeMorePorcupine.
This is a long one, dear readers.
Onwards with the Dusty, Nicola and Moodie Film Series. Please keep the suggestions for films coming in but please check the list first which I am updating as we go along. Please send suggestions in the comments here at this link:
The Fly is a 1958 American horror film. The film was produced and directed by Kurt Neumann. .
The film tells the story of a scientist, André Delambre who is transformed into a grotesque human–fly hybrid after a common house fly enters unseen into a molecular transporter with which he is experimenting, resulting in his atoms being combined with those of the insect.
Spoiler alert: this clip is towards the end of the film.
Patricia Owens is Hélène Delambre, André’s wife
Charles Herbert is Philippe Delambre, her son
Vincent Price is François Delambre, her brother
Herbert Marshall is Inspector Charas
Thanks to three wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind a paywall.
British Boll***s Corporation
I reported yesterday on the Director General and the Head of News resigning. The consensus of opinion on our side of the debate seems to be that this is not sufficient - the rot goes too deep but all thoughts gratefully received.
EDI Jester celebrates!
Brad Palumbo discusses it all:
England - The National Curriculum Review
The final report of the review has now been published:
EDI Jester is very concerned about this as he explains in detail here:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-178252262
All thoughts gratefully received.
Scottish Labour
Despite the Supreme Court judgment in April, the Scottish National Party are still not resolving the situation with regard to men in women’s prisons! With the next elections coming up in 2026 you would think this provided an open goal for their main rivals, Scottish Labour. Ummmm….maybe not, as reported by former Labour MP Tom Harris on his substack, Politically Homeless!!
Sarwar has been given an open goal
Why won’t Scottish Labour challenge the SNP over its misogynist prisons policy?
Nov 08, 2025
Something extraordinary is happening in Scottish politics.
With less than six months to go before the next elections to the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister, John Swinney, has instructed his civil servants to break the law. And the party that hopes to replace the SNP in government, Scottish Labour, has nothing to say about it.
The law in question is the Equality Act 2010, which we now know (somewhat belatedly and thanks to the Supreme Court) preserves the entitlement of women – which the Act defines as biologically female – to separate spaces in certain circumstances where such separation of the sexes is a proportionate and reasonable aim. When the Supreme Court’s ruling came through in April this year, even the Scottish Government, which had fought repeatedly and valiantly for the rights of men who identify as women to take precedence over the rights of those old-fashioned women (as Ricky Gervais would say, “You know, the ones with wombs”), accepted it. Not that they had any choice in the matter, of course. Yes, had Scotland voted for independence in 2014, we would now be a haven for trans inclusion, with self-ID for children and rapists available at the drop of a hat and every public space accessible to any man who chose to put on a bit of lippy. But Scotland didn’t vote for independence in 2014, so when the Supreme Court rules on its interpretation of UK law, we are just as impacted as any other part of the country.
But this week, on John Swinney’s orders, the Scottish Government went to court in order to preserve its policy of allowing men who identify as women to continue to be locked up in women’s prisons. Even writing those words reminds me of how gloriously insane Scottish politics has become. Remember Isla Bryson, the double rapist who was initially sent to Cornton Vale women’s prison in Stirling? He was sent there in accordance with the Scottish Prison Service’s (illegal) policy that prisoners must be sent to whichever facility aligns with their adopted identity. It was at this point that the Scottish public and media finally woke up to the utter stupidity of gender ideology and realised that Nicola Sturgeon had been advancing it, to the detriment of Scotland’s women, under the guise of fashionable and meaningless progressive language about inclusion and tolerance.
Tom continues:
Given all the above, given the public support in Scotland for separate spaces for men and women, given the uproar when Bryson was sent to a women’s prison, given the support in Scotland for their lordships’ judgment at the Supreme Court and the welcome that most of the main political parties – including the SNP and Scottish Labour – gave to that judgment, this is a perfect opportunity for Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar to capitalise on Swinney’s misjudgment.
“Why won’t the First Minister stand up for women?” Sarwar could say in one of his wee TikTok videos. “Why is the Scottish Government using our hard-earned cash to defend a policy that is not only illegal but harmful to the most vulnerable women in the country? Why is he hiding behind the fiction of legal restrictions instead of explaining his position to the Scottish public?”
It’s an obvious attack to make, and given his job as leader of an opposition party, as someone who hopes to replace Swinney in Bute House in six months’ time, surely it’s an irresistible opportunity?
Yet resistible it has proved. Not a trace of this controversy has appeared on the Twitter/X feeds of either Sarwar or his deputy, Jackie Bailley. And obviously, as far as I know (please let me know if I’m wrong here) no Labour MSP has mentioned it either.
What on earth? Do women’s rights to their own spaces mean so little to Scottish Labour, even after all this time? Did the Isla Bryson controversy pass Scottish Labour by? Yes, they voted (almost) en masse for Sturgeon’s appalling Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRRB) because at that time, in December 2022, the party had been successfully captured by gender ideology and most of its MSPs were happy to recite the Stonewall Catechism: “Trans women are women”.
The full piece is here:
https://tomharris2.substack.com/p/sarwar-has-been-given-an-open-goal
Women’s Sports
One piece from the latest Women’s Rights Network newsletter (09 November)
When Women Win
Tracy Edwards and Sharron Davies stand for safe sports for women
While sports continue to ignore the law on women’s sports, two growing legends combine their skills, experience and passion to push national governing bodies (NGB) to recognise women’s rights.
At the London event to claim women’s rights, Tracy Edwards asked: “Why are sports governing bodies so dismissive of women’s rights?”
WRN has been asking NGBs this very question for several years. As Tracy points out there are still 34 sports that allow males into the female category or are “waiting for guidance” before they tiptoe their way back to fairness and safety.
Tracy says: “Everyone can play sport but they must play in the category to which their body belongs.”
WRN wonders what it will take for sports NGBs to wake up, hoping it will not come to a woman with a broken neck or a fatality. Sports NGBs must come to their senses and follow the law.
WRN’s list of lawful and unlawful sports policies has recently been updated so if your sport is unlawful, make your voice known. Write to your NGB and ask why they aren’t following the law. Ask if their insurance covers them for unlawful practices. If sports won’t listen to women, maybe the threat of a hefty legal bill will concentrate their minds.
Women’s Sports in the Olympics
Great news here from The Daily Mail:
Olympics set to ban ALL transgender athletes for LA 2028 - but row rages over whether those with Imane Khelif’s reported condition will be able to compete
by Riath Al-Samarrai
10 November 2025
A ban on transgender women competitors is strongly expected to be in place for the 2028 Olympics – but it remains unclear if there will be barriers against athletes with differences of sexual development (DSD) after the boxing furore at Paris 2024.
Under the existing rules, each sport is empowered to decide if transgender women can compete if their testosterone levels fall below a designated threshold.
But the International Olympic Committee, under new president Kirsty Coventry, is in discussions about a dramatic policy shift that would impose a blanket ban across all sports for the Los Angeles Games.
Such a move would prevent the kind of scenario that saw Laurel Hubbard contest the weightlifting at the Tokyo Olympics in 2021. Hubbard transitioned in 2012.
While Olympic sources have confirmed that such a measure is very much the ‘direction of travel’, it is highly unlikely to come into force before the Winter Olympics in Italy next February.
One report suggested that a rule change could be announced in February, but insiders estimated it might take between six months and a year for it to be approved and cleared.
The move would be seen as a box ticked by Coventry, who campaigned to protect the female category on her way to winning the presidential election earlier this year.
Laurel Hubbard
IOC President Kirsty Coventry has expressed her desire to ‘protect the female category’
It would also avoid any awkward flashpoints with Donald Trump in the build-up to the LA Olympics – in February, the US President signed an executive order to prevent transgender women from competing in female sport.
Such has been the focus on this area that a presentation was delivered by IOC medical, health, and science director Dr Jane Thornton to members in Lausanne last week, which included a science-based review around trans and DSD issues. The IOC denied that any decision has been made on either front and it is understood there has not yet been a presentation to the executive board, which next convenes in December.
The full piece is here:
New Zealand - The LAVA Case
We have been assiduously following the case of Lesbian Action Visibility Aotearoa against Wellington Pride for banning them from the Pride event. This includes excellent summaries from Garwhoungle on her substack, The Ministry Has Fallen. Closing submissions took place on 04 and 05 November and Garwhoungle reports on that. As you will see, the allegations made by Pride’s lawyer about LAVA are completely outrageous!!
The Curious Case of Pride vs The Lesbians: Now a TV show!
Episode 9-SEASON FINALE: “Closing submissions”
Nov 09, 2025
Based on real events.
SHOW TITLE
The curious case of Pride versus the Lesbians
SHOW SYNOPSIS
Once-liberal authorities across the globe have imposed a sex denying faith on all citizens, vilifying and banishing any who resist. Deep in the South Pacific, a small group of lesbians and their lawyer are fighting back.
EPISODE 9 AND SEASON FINALE
EPISODE TITLE:
Closing submissions
……………………
Nicolette Levy (NL) is for LAVA.
Victoria Casey (VC) is for Pride.
SCENE 11:
Helen Joyce is reading an email saying that her request to sit with media in the LAVA case is denied.
SCENE 12:
It is the last day of the case. There are now three people in the media annex. The public gallery is filled on both sides with only a few empty seats. Victoria Casey is presenting Pride’s closing submissions.
[A montage of fast cut shots from VC’s submission]
VC: LAVA can’t claim discrimination against a political opinion because it is not a political opinion, because their argument is not a cohesive view
Tribunal member: Just to clarify, Ms Casey, you are saying that this is not a political opinion?
VC: Yes, that right.
Tribunal member: And what is your position if this is found to be a political opinion?
VC: This opinion can not exist in society, it just cannot. This is the very worst sort of views.
VC:…LAVA’s views are false facts
VC:…disinformation…
VC:…conspiracy driven…
VC:…exclusionary
VC.:…vicious and demeaning
VC:…If anything, the gender critical views LAVA has adopted is a system of fundamentalist beliefs that are clearly not up to discussion…
VC: …We have to understand that what LAVA is actually saying is different to what they are actually saying.
VC:… On its website LAVA promotes repugnant views. They say that sex is real and binary! They say men should not be in females spaces. LAVA is trying to whip up prejudice against trans people. We cannot have this opinion protected
VC:… LAVA is denying the existence of trans people.
VC: Sometimes the Supreme Court gets things wrong. I suggest the Tribunal members approach the Supreme Court ruling with extreme caution. There is a harrowing account from a transwoman who has said since the Supreme Court she has experienced daily humiliation…
VC: The Supreme Court would not allow trans people to intervene. People with lived experience were not allowed to…
VC: The Cass report has been critiqued for its bias and there are questions about the processes…
VC: One of LAVA’s witnesses, who is an IT consultant and has no qualifications in this area said that he believed there should be a full ban on puberty blockers. There is no credible organisation in the world that makes such a claim. This is an extremist position.
VC: …We have heard from LAVA witnesses who believe that there should be a blanket rule banning all transgender women from female sports, this is an absolutist position.
VC:…What LAVA is saying is that trans people are not worthy of sharing spaces with and not fit to be in society, This is an utterly inhumane view that is about stripping people of their human rights.
VC:… LAVA says that young trans people are attention seeking and making it up. They are denying that such people exist.
VC:…They have published statements from people who celebrate torture, murder and suicide of trans people.
SCENE 13:
Helen Joyce is outside the Wellington District Court recording a short video saying how extraordinary it is that she can’t report on the case.
SCENE 14:
The foyer of Level 5 of the Wellington District Court (outside room 5.01) is filled with people. Helen Joyce is there accompanied by a group of people from the Free Speech Union. Old and existing members of sex-realist feminist group ‘Speak Up For Women’ are there. LAVA members and supporters are streaming in and out of a small room off the annex. Occasionally a Pride supporter walks past.
SCENE 15:
Back inside Room 5.01, It is the last 90 minutes of the hearing. NL is giving the final response after Pride’s closing submissions. There is a montage of quick shots of NL speaking.
NL: First of all to say, that the claims being made about LAVA’s views are ridiculous.
NL: LAVA is part of the Pride community. Pride has said that they were willing to engage in the hard conversations that need to happen within the community. They talked of inclusion but instead they excluded my clients.
NL:…The evidence had shown that gender critical views are not about hate, and don’t include that trans people “don’t exist”. They are about maintaining existing same-sex protections and language, for the benefit of women.
NL: …My clients are concerned about the medical safeguards around gender affirming care.
NL: My clients have been very clear about their views. They don’t think males, however they identify, belong in women’s spaces. They want to protect lesbians and lesbian spaces. That they do not accept trans women in women’s spaces does not mean that they think that trans people shouldn’t exist in society or at Pride events. They have not said that they don’t think trans people are worthy of being in society. That is preposterous. LAVA members have, since the 1980s, been saying that transsexuals need to be protected from discrimination.
NL: Society does, and must, tolerate those views, and also the rights of trans people to advocate for solutions that maximise their ability to flourish.
NL: Pride is advocating that we can not tolerate LAVA’s views. If we become the sort of society that cannot tolerate LAVA’s views, we are also the sort of society that cannot tolerate the views of members of the UK Supreme Court, who agree with LAVA. The UK Supreme Court explicitly said that in some cases it is sex—not gender identity—that must be considered for the proper functioning of society. This is what my clients also believe.
NL: My clients simply believe that sex-based language is important, that sex exists and sex matters. They should not be discriminated for these beliefs.
NL: May it please the Tribunal.
The Tribunal chair thanks the lawyers, the plaintiffs and the witnesses. She announces that while the Tribunal has a lot of reading to do it will endeavour to give a ruling as soon as possible. An official announces “All rise” and as the credits roll the Tribunal leaves, the lawyers, court officials and media pack up and leave. The people in the public gallery chat with one another and slowly file out. The last shot is of the empty court room.
[Ends]
Dusty - Great idea by Garwhoungle to frame this as a documentary. Obviously there was actually no recording of the case. Maybe one day there will be a documentary! Fingers crossed for LAVA! The full piece is here:
Australia - the Re Jamie case - maybe the judge was wrong!
An amazing intervention by the judge who decided the notorious Re Jamie case as reported by Feminist Legal Clinic via The Australian:
Ex-judge admits doubts over landmark ‘pro-trans’ ruling | The Australian (10 November)
All entries on Feminist Legal Clinic’s News Digest Blog are extracts from news articles and other publications, with the source available at the link at the bottom. The content is not generated by Feminist Legal Clinic and does not necessarily reflect our views.
The judge who led Australia’s Family Court when it green-lit liberalised access of puberty blockers to gender-distressed children in 2013 has revealed she now has doubts about the landmark ruling, in an extraordinary intervention into the trans medicine debate.
Former Family Court chief justice Diana Bryant says it may be better for parliaments to step in now and regulate the field of pediatric gender medicine rather than rely on whatever disputes come before judges.
[I]t was under her leadership just over a decade ago that the Family Court accepted expert evidence that puberty blockers were reversible, safe and a no-regrets option to give children time to explore their gender identity.
In the 2013 case involving a 10-year-old boy known as Jamie – who had long identified as a girl and was well advanced in male puberty – Ms Bryant wrote the key decision abolishing the rule that, even if parents agree, court approval is necessary before a child with gender dysphoria can start on puberty blockers.
This was hailed as a human right victory at a time when the transgender movement was taking off in Australia and the rest of the developed world. The Re Jamie ruling has been the law ever since.
When Jamie’s case first went to the Family Court in 2011, Justice Linda Dessau drew on an expert report by “Dr MW” and remarked that as puberty blockers were “fully reversible, without long-term effects on fertility, the child will be free to change her mind at a later date, when she is more cognitively able to grasp the long-term implications of the decision”.
Ms Dessau went on to become governor of Victoria in 2015.
In the ensuing 2013 appeal case, the court accepted an argument by the Australian Human Rights Commission that the risk of a child being wrongly prescribed blockers was not too serious because anonymised experts in the proceedings had asserted the drugs were “fully reversible” and had “no side-effects”.
In her decision, Ms Bryant invoked then recent changes to the federal Sex Discrimination Act – the subjective concept of gender identity unrelated to biological sex was added under Australia’s first female prime minister, Julia Gillard – as a sign that “those who are transgendered are an identifiable group in our society and their right to live as a member of the sex with which they feel compatible is to be respected”.
Although Justice Dessau had imposed strict suppression orders in 2011, saying “it could only be damaging for Jamie to be identified”, the court waived this four years later – and Neighbours star Georgie Stone emerged as a role model for trans youth and an “ambassador” for the RCH Melbourne gender clinic with its offer of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. The clinic had just begun to experience a dramatic increase in patient numbers under Dr Michelle Telfer.
Stone starred in a 2016 ABC Australian Story episode entitled About A Girl, with an emotive introduction by Victoria’s then Labor premier, Dan Andrews.
Alongside Dr Telfer, she appeared in publicity material for the RCH Melbourne Foundation, which has used alarming but misleading suicide statistics to raise money for the gender clinic, and Stone encouraged others like her [ Dusty - HIM] to “reach out to the gender service and get the help you need”.
Although the Family Court still supervises these medical treatment decisions for minors when parents disagree, Ms Bryant said hormone drugs are reportedly available online beyond the control of judges and “it probably would be better” for state parliaments to codify consent rules.
A pivotal moment came in April when the court’s Justice Andrew Strum dealt a series of hammer blows to the foundations of “gender-affirming care” and made orders protecting “Devin”, a 12-year-old gender-nonconforming boy, from puberty blockers at an anonymised gender service later identified as the clinic at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne.
Following a public interest application by The Australian, that clinic’s former director, Dr Telfer, was identified as the anonymous “Associate Professor L” rebuked by Justice Strum for failing in her duty to give objective expert evidence to the court and for presenting a misleading account of the Cass review of gender dysphoria treatment.
Earlier this year, Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody argued that Queensland’s pause in puberty blockers – not the drugs themselves – could “harm the physical and mental wellbeing of children”.
The commission did not reply when asked about RCH quietly backtracking on its once confident claims about puberty blockers.
Source: Ex-judge admits doubts over landmark ‘pro-trans’ ruling
https://feministlegal.org/ex-judge-admits-doubts-over-landmark-pro-trans-ruling-the-australian/
Born in the Right Body!
If you ever need to answer someone who is promoting the ridiculous argument that you can be ‘born in the wrong body’, go no further than this piece by Kat Highsmith on her substack:
We Are All Born in the Right Body
Why Do These Men Say Otherwise?
Nov 09, 2025
A fundamental tenet of the “trans” lie is that one can “experience incongruence in” or “feel unlike” one’s body since it is possible to be born in the wrong body.
That is impossible because we cannot.
We are our bodies. There is no other space in which we occupy this world. Where, on earth or anywhere else, did we exist before we existed in our bodies? And what evidence does anyone have to prove if we did?
Every emotion, every sensation, every feeling, every frisson or pang of pain, and everything else can only be processed in the cells, trillions of them, which constitute our bodies. There is no reality or existence in another body which is available to any of us because how on earth could we know what it’s like to be anything other than what we are?
If you feel smooth raindrops hit your face during a downpour, that’s a sensation in your body. If you shed tears over a sad scene and feel them roll down your cheek while watching a movie, that’s a feeling in your body. If you break your arm or stub your toe or suffer through a fierce migraine, that’s pain in your body.
That’s you. There is no other physical entity in which one can feel, process, or experience anything else.
So, how can anyone claim that his body is somehow not his because it’s not the correct one? No one can.
To do so is to announce a state of dysfunction and delusion, just like a schizophrenic who claims to actually be Jesus or someone with “multiple personality disorder” who claims to have dozens of selves within them.
By definition, we are always born in the right bodies and our bodies are always the right bodies for us because there is no way they cannot be since we cannot opt out of them.
As such, someone with a male body cannot feel female, and someone female cannot feel male, because the cells in our bodies are sexed. Playing dress up, wearing makeup, or getting off on a fetish are all experienced within one’s sexed body.
The full piece is here:
No Trans
Jan Hatchet on her substack argues that we should avoid the word ‘trans’ but above all when referring to men and women even if those men and women are detransitioners. I completely agree with her. This follows on from a speech by Helen Joyce on her Down Under tour when she said something similar. I am attempting to avoid ‘trans’ - I am now, for example, using larping men’s activists instead of trans rights activists. All thoughts gratefully received.
The word woman is perfectly enough.
Detransitioners need sympathy and therapy not capitulation.
Nov 10, 2025
Over the weekend the word “trans” has been reintroduced as a subject of debate and demands have been made that it be accepted as a palatable term for women and as part of the women’s movement against trans activism. It is not. It will never be. We have already fought and won that war.
This time the demand has been made by female “detransitioners”, the female victims of an abusive and misogynist ideology. Most TERFs are completely sympathetic to women and girls who have been victims of the pernicious gender ideology which hurt them but there are limits to what women can be expected to give them other than sympathy.
Keira Bell said,
“I’m sick of hearing “there’s no such thing as trans” when it’s being applied broadly.
Yes, we know people who identify as the opposite is BS and can be rooted in anything from sexual paraphilia to peer pressure.
However, there is such thing as “trans” (particularly for butch women) once you appear as the opposite sex. You cannot go back to “living as a woman”. There is no return. This has been my message from the start”
It took a long time for TERFs to become confident in using the word man and not “transwoman”. Likewise using the word woman and not “transman”. We effectively kicked the language of “kindness” and the attendant manipulation of language around our reality designed to harm us into the long grass where it belonged.
We must not give ground on this successful TERF position because of our socially conditioned response when asked to “be kind”. Even if the ones asking to keep the word “trans” are women and even if we are supportive of those women generally because they are victims we must still issue a very firm “no” in response.
The entire hideous palace of gender identity ideology was built using the scaffolding of the word “trans”. The vicious trans movement took the word “woman” and attempted to make it into something else entirely, a word which included men, until the meaning of the word woman was diluted so far that we almost lost it. This is why we all rose up and fought to take the word and its meaning in law back and for women’s exclusive use.
It has been a long and brutal fight. None of us should be distracted into fighting pointless side battles at a time when we are weary. That is unfortunately what Bell and other key detransitioners are trying to drag us into.
All of our rights to single-sex space, language about our bodies in healthcare settings, definition of our sexuality as women attracted to women, statistics on crimes we commit and those perpetrated against us, the whole fucking lot was threatened by one word.
That word is “trans”. It is as dangerous to us as it is meaningless.
This is not “language policing” or refusing to listen to the “lived experience” of detransitioned women. Protecting the language about ourselves is a basic and essential line to hold when the threat of men who want to weaken the word “woman” has not retreated anywhere near sufficiently for this discussion to be opened or given serious consideration.
Such a discussion would always end with a firm “no” from me.
Dusty - and from me!
The full piece is here:
https://jeanhatchet.substack.com/p/the-word-woman-is-perfectly-enough?publication_id=494678&r=1v403b
Terf Island Discs
Thanks to an excellent suggestion from Tenaciously Terfin, we have paused Endpieces for the time being and we are giving Tenaciously and Liz a well earned rest from their hard work. So, since 07 July, we have been running Terf Island Discs.
We have decided to extend that one last time and then return to Endpieces.
Before we detail the extension, Endpieces, as regular readers will know, consisted of comic pieces, animal videos, songs etc to provide a bit of relief after some of the horror stories we detail on this substack. Endpieces was run by Tenaciously Terfin, Liz Parker and myself and we are delighted to now have been joined by Becca Shambles, Petal and Jeremy Wickins. Please let us know if you want to join the Endpieces Club 😊
I have an Endpieces folder so Endpieces suggestions can be sent to me at any time from now even though Terf Island Discs will definitely be going into the new year 😊
Back to Terf Island Discs. Several readers have chosen up to 8 songs or pieces of music each and we are going through those one at a time in each update. We are going to continue it one further time before returning to Endpieces and you can now choose up to 10 songs or pieces of music each. They need to be reasonably short. We can’t expect to have readers listening to the whole of Holst’s The Planets, albeit it is magnificent.
They don’t have to be from Terf Island BTW - anywhere in the world 😊
So for those who have already chosen 8, please choose 2 more and, if you have not yet taken part, please choose 10!! And if you have chosen from 1 to 7 so far, please top that up to 10. If you repeat a song or piece of music that has already been chosen, I’ll let you know and you can choose another one.
Please let us have a link if you can.
Please send your choices to the comments section here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/money-terf-island-discs
Next up!
Chosen by: Fingers
‘Rave On’ by Buddy Holly
#BeMorePorcupine
#TransCanFOff
#AdultHumanFemale
#LetWomenSpeak
#LGB✂️TQ
#KeepPeaking
#HoldTheLine
#BeMoreDissident
#NeverSurrender
#NeverForget
#TruthWillTriumph
#WeWillWin
Dear readers
Mr Menno is doing a premiere at 20.30 GMT of an interview with Róisín Murphy who was also at the 199 Days march.
See some of you in the chat.😊
Dusty
Jean Hatchet is completely correct, but - unless I missed it - she doesn't go quite far enough. If we don't use the word "trans" (which I agree with), then "detransitioner" makes no sense (which I've thought for quite some time). We don't have "de-anorexia-ers", or "de-depressioners", partly because we don't define people in terms of an abnormal state of mind they had in the past.