My mate and me had a great day yesterday watching Ireland beat Wales in the rugby Six Nations followed by (sorry, England fans) Scotland beating England. I know that my reader who is half Irish and half Italian will be particularly delighted since today Italy drew with France 😎 Anyway….this is another long one, dear readers…
This is a very Irish edition, dear readers, so I thought we had better have a famous Irish actress ( albeit she made her name in Hollywood) for No 5 in the Leading Female Season, namely Maureen O’Hara in a 1952 film set in Ireland, The Quiet Man.
In the 1920s, Sean "Trooper Thorn" Thornton ( John Wayne), an Irish-born retired boxer, travels from Pittsburgh to his birthplace of Inisfree to purchase the old family farm. Shortly after arriving, he meets and falls in love with fiery, red-headed Mary Kate Danaher, the sister of bullying Squire "Red" Will Danaher (Victor McLaglen). And the rest of the plot is complex, so you’ll just have to watch it if you want to find out what happens 😎
Irish Referendum - Vote No No
Niamh Uí Bhriain in wonderful Gript News ( ‘EQUALITY NOT CARE’ GROUP WILL CAMPAIGN FOR NO VOTE 21 February) reports:
A new group ‘Equality Not Care’ has been founded to campaign for a no vote in the forthcoming referendum on March 8th, with a focus on what they say is discrimination against disabled people and family members.
At a briefing in Buswells Hotel today, the group said it was made up of concerned citizens including disabled people, family members providing support, and others, and that their campaign will strongly focuses on supporting equality and rights of everyone in the family and ensuring people are not entrapped in the guise of recognising ‘care’.
The group feels the Government is discriminating against disabled people and family members. They believe the proposed amendment to the Constitution – 42B – is another way of saying, “to the neglect of their duties in the home.”
The group are of the view that 42B is ableist and ageist perpetuating the notion of people with impairments being burdens on families rather than rights-holders on an equal basis with everyone else.
A spokesperson for the group, Ann Marie Flanagan said “42B seeks to deny our autonomy, dignity and equality. It also seeks to deny us the right to state support such as personal assistance services.”
“We have a Disability Act 2005 that is still not fully commenced, already forcing parents into court for a Needs Assessment for their children. What is required is constitutional obligations to provide support services to enable everyone to participate in economic, social and cultural life,” she said.
“This referendum is made up of smoke and mirrors which is designed to confuse and mislead women and men, providing support and requiring support. It is a complete disregard for people’s rights. There is no dignity or autonomy in this referendum.”
Ms Flanagan went on to say that “the vast majority of carers are women. The replacement wording removes any mention of economic rights and denigrates the dignity of the family”.
Michael O’Dowd, a member of the Equality Not Care group also stated that “It is imperative that the constitution values and recognises everyone’s rights including independent living support needs”.
“The referendum fails to fulfil the comprehensive support promised by the Citizens Assembly, abdicating on creating a truly equitable society. We firmly oppose the notion that support should rest on families, as this unfairly entangles lives and overlooks the rights of adults with support needs to have independent lives. It further denies other family members that same right.”
Another contributor at the meeting, Dr Margaret Kennedy said that “Equality of men and women, includes disabled woman and men and older women and men. No democratic State or Civil Society organisation has the right to discriminate based on disability or age. This is what 42B will do if passed. So together, vote no, and make sure the next referendum does what it is obliged to do; cherish all its children (and adults) equally.”
The group said over two thousand disabled people are living in congregated institutions, many of which are big, old outdated buildings, with a further 1300 young people living in nursing homes for older people, as investigated by the Ombudsmen in the Wasted Lives Report.
They said it was feared that Ireland “still operates from the workhouse mentality of warehousing people”.
“Furthermore, disabled people are effectively institutionalised within their own homes by the absence of essential personal assistance services. Homeless disabled children and adults make up a staggering 25% of the homeless demographic. This country’s treatment of disabled persons falls shamefully short of recognising human rights standards,” they said.
‘Equality Not Care Vote No 42B’ group is calling for a genuine constitutional referendum that expresses a modern interpretation of equality of the sexes with due regard for intersectionality as protected under the 9 grounds in Ireland’s equality legislation
Meanwhile, John McGuirk in Gript (IT’S TIME TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT WHO THE CONSTITUTION “RECOGNISES” 23 February) reports:
One thing that the “YES” campaign is unambiguously correct about in its campaign to change the definition of the family in the Irish constitution is that the constitution, at present, does not explicitly recognise all the potential forms that a family might take. Take, for example, the tragic situation where a child is raised by its grandparents because both parents died in an accident – that family is not explicitly recognised in Bunreacht nah Eireann, nor is one where an elder adult child is left to look after their parents surviving children should the parents no longer be around. It is also true, as the Supreme Court recently recognised, that unmarried couples with children do not have the same legal protections as married couples, especially in the event that one partner dies.
But here’s a question we just don’t ask nearly enough: So what?
The constitution, ultimately, does not exist to “recognise” anybody. It exists for two reasons: To define the institutions of the state, and to circumscribe limits around the power of the state. The purpose of the constitution is not to make you feel better about yourself because you get a shout-out in its text, but to ensure, for example, that an ambitious politician cannot simply announce that he is merging the offices of President and Taoiseach and suspending general elections in the national interest. It prevents politicians from simply seizing your property or passing laws allowing the state to intern the hated “far right” without trial.
As a rule, when politicians come to the people asking them to change the constitution, they are not doing so to empower the public, but to remove limitations on their own power. For example, in 2018, the constitution prevented them from passing laws permitting the taking of human life, and they had to seek permission from the public for the power to introduce abortion laws. Regardless of how you felt about the result, the basic dynamic was the common one: We were being asked to endow politicians with powers that the constitution previously denied them.
One of the great weaknesses of our system for amending the constitution is that referenda, in effect, can only be put forward by the Government of the day. No Government in human history, once it has taken office, has ever proposed a new constitutional restriction on its own power. Politicians, by their nature, desire more powers, not fewer. On the rare occasion when a Government proposes a referendum that would prevent the Government from doing certain things, it is always the case that the thing in question is something that the Government in question would never consider doing anyway – the other abortion referendum, in 1983, is a good example of that. That Government had no intention of legalising abortion, and the referendum was to ensure that no future Government could. They were not binding their own hands, but that of their political opponents.
At the present moment, there may well be – I would argue – merit in a constitutional amendment that simply says that “the state shall pass no law which restricts the right to freedom of speech or expression”, and removes the phrase “subject to public order or morality” from article 40.6.1 – this would render the Government’s proposed hate speech bill unconstitutional. Such a proposal would, no doubt, generate intense public debate, but the purpose of it would be to limit the power of the sitting Government, and thus it will never be proposed. We are only ever asked to enhance the power of those who rule us, not to restrict it.
If we’re not formally enhancing the power of the state, the other reason to have a referendum, it appears, is to “recognise” people in the constitution, which is an entirely unnecessary exercise in almost every case, because that is not what the constitution is for.
It has already been conceded, for example, that nothing in the present wording of the constitution prevents any Irish Government from offering additional supports to carers. Nor does the proposed constitutional change to insert carers into the constitution create any new legal obligations in this regard. The entirety of the YES case is simply that carers should be “recognised” in a document that has nothing to do with recognition. The constitution is not an honours system.
In fact, nothing in the constitution prevents the Government from enacting an honours system if it wishes to, which might be a better and simpler (not to mind cheaper) way of “recognising” carers.
This is an element of the debate which is entirely missing from much of the contemporary discourse around the constitution, and it’s a conversation which ultimately needs to be had. One of the consequences of a “Yes” vote here would be an endorsement of the idea that the document exists to honour and recognise groups within our society. If that is so, then why should there not be an amendment to recognise the special contribution made by immigrants? Or the vital role of sport? Or how vital to the nation Irish dancing is?
Each time you tinker with the document, you risk unforeseen legal side effects, which is one reason why the constitution should be treated seriously and amended only if absolutely necessary. It’s hard to argue that we respect it, when so few of our leaders seem to understand its fundamental purpose.
Gript Responds To Varadkar
This week Taoiseach Leo Varadkar launched an attack on Gript, dubbing this outlet “disingenuous” and questioning our funding sources after we tried to ask about Minister Catherine Martin being fact checked by the Electoral Commission.
Ben Scallan responds.
This is great - do watch!
https://gript.ie/gript-responds-to-varadkars-disingenuous-claim/
Queen Maebh
I hope most if not all of you have caught up with today’s Let Women Speak at Reformer’s Tree. I am flagging up a campaigner who calls herself Queen Maebh who speaks in favour of a No No vote at about 33.30 (obviously there are lots of other good speeches…and poems!):
University Hospital Limerick Goes Woo Woo
John McGuirk in Gript News ( UL HOSPITALS: IT’S TIME TO TALK TO CHILD PATIENTS ABOUT THEIR SEXUALITY 22 February) reports:
It’s been what you might call a week of two halves at University Hospital Limerick. On Tuesday, the Irish Independent’s Eavan Murray broke a heartbreaking story about the death of a teenage girl at the hospital, the details of which are utterly shocking:
“Another inquiry has been launched into the sudden death of a second teenage girl in the Accident and Emergency department of University Hospital Limerick three weeks ago.
The 16-year-old girl died suddenly on January 29, hours after she was rushed to UHL suffering from breathing difficulties.
The girl, a much-loved only child, died in front of her mother in what an informed source described as “deeply traumatic circumstances”.
We cannot pre-empt the results of an enquiry into that incident, but we can note that it is the second incident in the hospital to result in the loss of the life of a teenager, and to require an enquiry, in just a few months. It is also the second to occur after a long wait on a trolley.
In brighter news, the hospital’s wider management body – the UL hospital group – is launching a new initiative to encourage children to talk to hospital staff about their sexuality, replete with jaunty music and happy smiley people.
There are a couple of things about that tweet that strike me and should, I’d suggest, strike everybody else as well:
First, why is it about “showing inclusivity to our young patients”? LGBT people come in all shapes, sizes, and ages. The hospital is as likely – if not more likely – to encounter gay and lesbian people in their 50s, 60s, and 80s as it is to encounter them in the children’s ward, where many patients may not even have reached the age where sexuality is a concern for them. The focus on children is objectively noteworthy.
Second, in what universe do sick children in hospital worry that discussing their sexuality with the staff may not be something they can do, either in general, or specifically because there’s an absence of a rainbow name badge on the nurse looking after them? Has the hospital group conducted any research into the potential demand for deep and meaningfuls between child patients and nursing or medical staff concerning their sexuality?
Third, to what extent are parents to be consulted about such conversations? Has the hospital considered, even for a moment, that parents who place their children in the care of a hospital do so precisely on the understanding that staff in the hospitals would not seek to engage in conversations about sex with their children?
Fourth, what has any of this got to do with delivering medical care? The state already provides, through schools – and countless NGOs – immense sources of funding for initiatives to help young LGBT people come to terms with their sexuality. Given that the funding for this initiative comes, as far as we can see, from the hospital budget, how is it an efficient or useful allocation of resources?
Fifth, to what extent is this fair on staff? What if you’re a perfectly conscientious nurse or medical professional who makes a huge difference in the lives of sick children, but draws the line at talking to children about their sexuality? Do you still have to wear the badge and advertise your availability for such a conversation? Are you obligated to participate in it?
Taken in the round, it’s all very hard to understand, if you consider the purpose of hospitals to be about restoring sick people to health.
Which poses the question as to whether that is, in fact, what a certain section of society considers the purpose of hospitals to be. I am reminded of the Yes Minister episode [ Dusty - this is great, do watch it 🤣] which featured a hospital which had 500 staff, and no patients, which Sir Humphrey Appleby declared to be “the most efficient and well-run hospital in Britain”. It’s all about what you consider the true measure of efficiency and output to be.
For most people, a hospital should be measured on patients recovering, and schools measured on student results, and gardai measured by crimes prevented and solved. The only issue is that the people running the country are not most people: For a certain segment of society, hospitals, schools and garda stations should be measured not on productivity, but inclusivity. Which, for example, is more likely to receive positive coverage in the media: the most efficient school in Ireland, or the most inclusive school in Ireland with the most diverse staff and pupil population? It is, at best, not clear cut.
Certainly, it is clear which is of more interest to staff and management across the public sector. There are, after all, standing inclusivity policies for almost every agency of the state, but few if any efficiency policies. It is probably not a coincidence that it is also objectively easier to print LGBT badges than it is to improve patient outcomes, and when you’re likely to get as much credit for doing either, you take the easier option.
The other factor here is defensibility: We live in a country where doing “inclusive” things can almost always be presented as a positive, and naysayers shouted down as having dishonourable motives underlying their concern, and so inclusivity creates a kind of tribal solidarity. If you’re a man or a woman of the progressive left, joining in attacks on the UL Hospital Group over their actual performance in terms of running the hospital might mean joining hands with people attacking the hospital group for wanting to talk to children about sex. As such, inclusivity measures like this become a badge of tribal identification, identifying the institution as a place of good morals, regardless of its results.
For most people, though, I suspect this kind of thing simply adds to the sense of a Government and a country that has given up on trying to fix hard problems, and is increasingly simply trying to paper over the cracks with rainbows. At some point, it’s all going to come crashing down.
For the full article including the video of happy smiley people with rainbow badges, see here:
Milk Men
I reported on this in the last update. Thanks to Feminist Legal Clinic for directing me to a further piece from wonderful Milli Hill looking at how the BBC have promoted a totally false and dangerously misleading story.
For the BBC, sorry seems to be the hardest word ( 25 February)
On Tuesday I wrote a post that has since had 20 thousand views and caused a bit of a storm. The post was a response to a BBC News item on Monday night in which the presenter Rajini Vaidyanathan claimed that, according to the NHS, the World Health Organisation (WHO), and numerous studies, ‘transgender women’s milk is just as good for babies as breastmilk’. Vaidyanathan’s guest, a woman completely unqualified in the area of breastfeeding, Kate Luxion, not only supported this claim but built on it, stating that male ‘milk’ was not just equivalent to, but potentially of ‘higher quality’, than women’s.
To summarise my findings:
All of the news coverage came from one letter written by an NHS medical director, now no longer in post.
Nowhere has it been stated that this letter represents the position of the NHS itself.
The WHO guidance that the letter refers to concerns the benefits of women breastfeeding over formula milk and is not about induced lactation.
The letter refers to five academic studies that support induced lactation but four out of five of these studies are on females.
The BBC referred to ‘one case found what it called no observable effects in babies fed by induced lactation’. This study was in fact into the effects of a female person taking testosterone whilst breastfeeding.
The one study in the NHS letter that was into male ‘milk’ was a case study of a single male. (more on this in a moment)
This was the same study that Kate Luxion suggested showed male milk was of ‘higher quality’. In fact, that study found the male ‘milk’ to have a higher fat content. This is not an indicator of quality.
But in spite of the huge numbers of people who have been reading and sharing my piece, the misinformation at the heart of the story has continued to be spread globally.
An article in ‘Futurism’, who I hoped might be a niche bunch but who in fact have 1.2 million instagram followers, went with:
As averse as I am to conspiracy theories, it’s been tempting at times to wonder if this misinformation is intentional. Why would the state broadcaster effectively rubber stamp this story, allowing false claims that males can breastfeed to be spread far and wide?
It is disheartening that no media outlet including the BBC has seen fit to correct this story, which is truly ‘fake news’.
Source: (3) For the BBC, sorry seems to be the hardest word
Malcolm Clark has also done a marvellous piece on this on his substack:
Canadian Hate Speech Bill
Ben Scallan in Gript News ( CANADIAN OPPOSITION LEADER SLAMS HATE SPEECH BILL 21 February) reports:
Canadian opposition leader Pierre Poilievre has ripped a piece of proposed hate speech legislation promoted by the government, saying it will be used to simply ban speech that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hates.
Poilievre, who is leader of the Conservative Party, made the remarks this week, when a reporter asked about him about the Liberal Federal Government’s online harms bill, which would include a ban on online hate speech.
Asked if his party would oppose the bill, Poilievre replied: “Yes, we will oppose Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on freedom of expression.”
He went on to claim that if the bill was passed, the Canadian government would mislabel any speech they disliked as “hate speech.”
“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the word hate speech? He means speech he hates,” Poilievre claimed.
He then went on to reference Justin Trudeau previously using the “ridiculous term” of “peoplekind” (rather than “mankind”), adding that a political consultant had said it was “hate speech” to “criticise” Trudeau for this.
The full article is here:
Girls’ Basketball
Thanks to a wonderful reader for referring this piece to me. JL on the Glinner Update previously reported on the case of a trans identifying boy who injured three girls during a recent game:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-29c
Riley Gaines, former champion swimmer and campaigner for women’s sports, has written an excellent piece about this incident for The Mail Online.
A 6' tall, bearded trans basketballer arrogantly slams a young girl to the ground.... she collapses in agony. RILEY GAINES hits back: We used to call this domestic abuse - so why are we now calling it 'sport'? (22 February)
We used to have a name for violence against women and girls.
When men punched, pushed or slapped us, that was 'domestic abuse', 'assault'.
Now it has a different name – 'sport'.
The latest exhausting headline: a girls basketball game at a Massachusetts high school had to be abandoned earlier this month after three female players were injured at the hands of a trans student.
Footage of the incident at the Collegiate Charter School of Lowell is shocking.
We see one girl hurled to the ground by a six-foot male, sporting facial hair.
The male wrenches the ball from her hands. The girl – barely reaching the male's shoulder height – is slammed down.
She tries to sit up repeatedly but collapses each time, holding her lower back in agony.
It's a perfect picture of arrogance and disdain.
But it's also a snapshot of a deep-rooted and unmistakable contempt for women that I believe drives the trans lobby's ceaseless tirade against us and our spaces.
I have to applaud the school's basketball coach, Kevin Ortins, who called a halt to the game. Though I'm not sure he had much of a choice, considering there weren't many un-injured girls left on the bench.
The school issued a statement afterwards, saying that their players 'feared getting injured and not being able to compete in the upcoming playoffs'.
Notably, there was not one mention of the trans-identifying male player – just that three girls had '[gone] down' in the first half of the game.
How pathetic.
As long as sporting authorities lie down in the face of trans madness and encourage males to invade female spaces with impunity, incidents like this are only going to increase in frequency and severity.
Women are constantly told that we have to 'accept' trans-identifying males into our teams, and into our changing rooms. That to speak up makes us hateful bigots. That these athletes come in the name of compassion, kindness and inclusivity.
But can you honestly tell me that you see any of those positive virtues in that video? All I see is masculine aggression and entitlement.
It is not 'compassionate' to ask a young girl to undress in front of males in a locker room. To allow those men to expose themselves in front of minors.
Nor is it ‘kind’ to allow girls to be bullied and battered by those who – let’s be honest – were mediocre at best when competing in the men's category, and now want a chance to take all the medals.
Asking girls to smile and step aside, so that a women's podium can be filled with men is not 'inclusive'.
The full article (including the videos of the main incident) is here:
Conversion Therapy Bill
Dennis Kavanagh has provided on his substack a really excellent analysis of Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s Bill. I reported on this Bill here: https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/water-from-the-well-part-2
Legal Analysis of the Commons PMB on Conversion Practices
A criminal law analysis of issues with the draft bill
LEGAL ANALYSIS FOR GAY MEN’S NETWORK IN RESPECT OF THE CONVERSION PRACTICES (PROHIBITION) BILL
23rd FEBRUARY 2024
Introduction and remit
1. The non-for-profit group Gay Men’s Network (“GMN”) seeks a legal analysis of a private member’s bill entitled the “Conversion Practices (Prohibition) Bill” (“CPPB”) which is being moved by Brighton Kemptown Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle. The draft bill is available online and this analysis is based on version 7 of the bill published on 23.02.2024, the text of which is appended at Annex A to this analysis.
2. The wider political debate around conversion practice legislation variously involves questions as to the necessity of such legislation and its practical political/social and clinical consequences. While such matters are touched on herein, this analysis is principally legal in nature and specifically directed to the efficacy of the bill as a working criminal statute particularly as against the relevant human rights concerns in this area.
Introductory analysis of the bill as a criminal statute
3. Outside of classic criminal offences (such as gross negligence manslaughter), it is unusual for criminal liability to be countenanced by legislators for clinical, familial or social interactions without demonstrable clear harm and a consensus around that harm (see, for example the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003). Criminal statutes ordinarily feature a higher harm threshold beyond the sort of conduct that would be dealt with via a professional regulator. Such statutes are also ordinarily drafted with Human Rights obligations in mind and the risk of a party seeking a “declaration of incompatibility” from the High Court via s.4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The creation of criminal statutes is one of the most serious and important matters legislators deal with, for this reason criminal offences (and defences) are overwhelmingly contained in statute and not secondary legislation such as statutory instruments.
4. Given the above, the draft bill is an unusual piece of legislation in four respects. First, it exposes a wide range of people in otherwise lawful settings to potential criminal liability. Second, there is no harm requirement at all. Third, it is far from clear how the bill can be reconciled with the following articles 6 (fair trial), 8 (respect for private and family life), 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 10 (freedom of expression). The bill contains a wide “Henry VIII” clause which allows a Secretary of State to modify (and therefore delete if he/she wishes) the proposed “carve outs” at clause 1(2). This represents a highly unusual and undesirable transfer of power from the legislature to the executive in the formation of a criminal offence.
5. While the bill contains a series of “carve outs” at clause 1(2) which attempt to deal with the third issue of human rights, as drafted these are unconvincing, and in some cases circular or otherwise ineffective.
The full piece is here:
This Bill is also dealt with in detail by Dennis and Clive Simpson in this weekend’s Queens’ Speech - see further below.
Sex Matters
Their excellent Memo newsletter was issued on 23 February and I am including here Maya Forstater’s editorial about two visits to meetings. In terms of Garden Court Chambers, I think this is most shocking for me because , over many years I know they have done great work for poor and disadvantaged people - but they have gone badly wrong here!
This week I have been on a couple of field trips to the other side. On Wednesday evening I went to an event at Garden Court Chambers, which the publicity material said would discuss “anti-trans beliefs in the workplace”. And on Thursday I attended an all-day conference at City University Law School on the Civil Partnerships Act and Gender Recognition Act.
Getting into both events was tense. People who are reluctant to accept that gender-critical views are “worthy of respect in a democratic society” are not best pleased when Forstater herself registers to attend. But the judgment means that people who hold gender-critical views are entitled to participate in public life on equal terms, and I intend to make good on this.
The Garden Court event attracted several gender-critical lawyers (including Sex Matters chair Naomi Cunningham and advisory group member Monica Kurnatowska) as well as myself and an intrepid companion, Shelley Charlesworth of Transgender Trend. We had booked promptly, but Garden Court had decided the event was suddenly booked up and sent several of us emails saying so – even as we were hearing from others keen to attend that tickets were still being issued. Shelley was among those who received a confirmed ticket – but another email followed, saying that this was a mistake. In the expectation that there would be no-shows, we turned up anyway and were told: “There’s no room”. Someone who was inside messaged to tell us that there were plenty of empty chairs. Eventually we were allowed in – albeit grudgingly.
Friday morning at City University felt like a re-run of the same Nativity play. The organiser Peter Dunne, a lecturer in law at Bristol University, stood at the door telling Shelley that there was no room at the inn. Eventually I was allowed in (I had a confirmed ticket), but Shelley wasn’t (despite there being several empty seats).
The best thing about events – even better than the free tea and cakes – is that they are a much cheaper opportunity to ask questions than bringing a legal case. At Garden Court, Naomi asked whether one of the speakers, non-binary barrister Oscar Davies, could give an example of a statement of gender-critical belief that he would not characterise as “anti-trans”. Davies could not. Monica asked how an employer could accommodate employees with different beliefs about pronouns. Intentional “misgendering” is harassment, replied Davies, adding that saying that “trans women are men” would be offensive. I pointed out that this is a basic statement of gender-critical belief and asked the panel of experts how employers could word their anti-harassment policies to avoid harassing anyone. They retreated, quoting the Equality Act. It didn’t seem as if Garden Court had learnt anything from the Allison Bailey case.
For readers who don’t know about Allison Bailey’s case, see here:
https://oldsquare.co.uk/bailey-v-stonewall-garden-court-chambers-and-others/
Readers will be interested to know that Allison is continuing with an appeal against the dismissal of the part of her claim against Stonewall. Anyone got information about the progress of this appeal?
The City University event included a keynote speech by Baroness Ruth Hunt, formerly CEO of Stonewall, and contributions from Stephen Whittle, a veteran transactivist; Sharon Cowan, a law academic at Edinburgh University; Davina Cooper, a professor of law and political theory at King’s College London; and Flora Renz of Kent Law School, who is a contributor to the Future of legal gender project at King’s College London. I asked one panel what it means to “live as a woman” – “Different things in different contexts,” replied Cowan. I could not get a straight answer to why the state should regulate such a nebulous concept, and no one was keen to recognise that women – actual female people – might be harmed by any attempt to do so.
Towards the end Professor Cowan said something extraordinary. “I’m going to say something that is probably going to annul my entire life’s work… whether gender was one of those things that could have been a temporary intervention to move us away from the really difficult projections being made on the basis of sex, and it has stuck. It’s stuck in all sorts of ways and places; sometimes it’s quite useful to have it as a term to understand what’s happening and other times it’s not quite… and I wonder what might have happened if it hadn’t stuck and it had been just a temporary intervention.”
We all wonder.
I think it’s worth attending events like these for the conversations, and I appreciate everyone who talked to me. All the same, I’m glad that I don’t have to walk every day with my head held high, smiling and polite, into spaces where it feels as if people like me are not welcome. I ended the week with a renewed respect for Rosie Duffield, Rachel Meade and everyone else who sticks it out in institutions where people are trying to freeze them out. Workplaces should be where all kinds of people collaborate fruitfully together and discuss ideas and differences. Instead transgender ideology turns them into tense, unhappy places where many people feel – and are – unwelcome.
Women’s Rights Network
Their excellent newsletter is just out ( 25 February) and I feature here the wonderful work by WRN Australia:
Women meet women in Australia
Street stalls and leafleting are effective the world over. Sometimes barriers are broken down by seeing the faces of those perceived as an opposition.
In Australia, WRN members leafletted with, ‘Lots of positive responses, surprisingly many among young teen girls. Best chat: a very woke-looking but also lovely young woman who randomly gave us roses then had a big talk where we all agreed that, yes, sex DOES matter for some things.
Great work from everyone.
WRN Australia is a volunteer-led and not-for-profit organisation. They use all funds to directly support women's rights activism in Australia, which includes running their website, renting billboards, printing high-quality leaflets, and creating banners. Get involved.
PITT Parents
PITT stands for Parents With Inconvenient Truths About Trans.
Thanks to another wonderful reader for directing me to their regular news review - here is the latest one:
https://www.pittparents.com/p/saturday-pitt-review-february-19?r=7ogxh&open=false
The Weaponising of Suicide
Hopefully many of you might have caught the Queens’ Speech. I am emphasising it not only because of the very interesting discussion of the amazing events this last week in the House of Commons involving Sir Keir Starmer and the Speaker but also because of a detailed discussion about a Finnish report which blows out of the water the oft repeated and outrageous lie about children with gender dysphoria ( so called) being likely to commit suicide if they don’t receive ‘gender affirming care’.
https://clivesimpson.substack.com/p/queens-speech-episode-79-xl-bullies
Endpiece
Even if you are not a rugby fan, you may well admire the amazing try by that well known Scottish player ( 😂), Duhan van der Merwe against England yesterday:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/68393552
Since this is a bit of an Irish edition, let’s have the great Irish tenor, John McCormack ( we have had this before but it’s worth a repeat I hope you agree):
Why was the obnoxious bully not sent off the basketball court as soon as he had injured another player? Doesn't basketball have rules about that sort of behaviour?
A marathon report, Dusty. Thank you. Agree with you & TT about the basketball bully; it’s a disgrace. I think if all the women downed tools, so to speak, these bullying men, would be forced to leave every female sport for good. Will post on X as usual.