We Will Never Surrender
Update 479. Never Surrender Special. #BeMorePorcupine
This is another long one, dear readers.
I am very grateful to Glinner for re-posting Ireland’s Call:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/cp/152068661
You will I hope excuse me for a repeat of a previous film in our British Heroes season, suggested to my addled brain by events in the States ( in terms of the fight back beginning against the gender borg).
Gary Oldman is Winston Churchill in Darkest Hour. Notice Neville Chamberlain ( Ronal Pickup) mopping his brow with his handkerchief to indicate to the Tories that they should support Churchill. In the gallery is his secretary, Elizabeth Layton ( Lily James) who mouths the next words to Churchill at one stage.
I am confident that the Terfs will never surrender.
Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Some of the linked pieces below may be behind paywalls.
For Women Scotland
The Supreme Court hearing is on Tuesday and Wednesday and I hope to be there. Sex Matters have provided a very comprehensive final round up including a very helpful link to all submissions (apart from Amnesty International for some reason!?). I was worried about not getting a seat, so I am very pleased to see that there will be overflow rooms with screens. I hope to try and get a few interviews with people.
You may have heard about the For Women Scotland legal case. This email explains what that is, why it matters to us all, and how you can help.
Since Sex Matters launched in 2021, we have been asking government to clarify that “sex” in the Equality Act has the ordinary biological meaning, and that this applies across the whole Act.
An important legal case will be heard in the UK Supreme Court on 26th and 27th November that may decide the matter. This is the third round in an ongoing legal fight by the campaign group For Women Scotland to establish that “sex” in the Equality Act really means sex.
How did this get to the Supreme Court?
The case began in 2018 when the Scottish government passed a law with the stated aim of increasing female representation on public boards in Scotland. It gave as its definition of “woman” someone who is “living as a woman”. For Women Scotland challenged this in court and won.
But then the Scottish government replaced this with guidance that suggested that the term “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 means not just a person born female but also includes men who have obtained a gender-recognition certificate, and excludes women who identify as men and have got a certificate.
For Women Scotland went to court again to challenge that definition. Sex Matters intervened in support. The appeal court in Scotland (called the Inner House) ruled against them and for the Scottish government. Now For Women Scotland are bringing the argument to the highest court in the UK, the Supreme Court.
Why Sex Matters has intervened
The stakes are high. The decision is pivotal for women's rights, freedom of expression and sound government in the UK. This case will change the course of history.
If the Supreme Court agrees with For Women Scotland that sex retains its ordinary meaning, this will give a hugely powerful legal signal that policy makers and organisations need to recognise that sex is real; women and men are two clearly separate groups with interests and needs that are not always the same.
Or it might rule that the law is such a mess that Parliament should sort it out.
Or it might agree with the Scottish Government that “sex” in the Equality Act really is just a piece of paper.
Whatever the outcome, we are not just stopping there.
Support Sex Matters’ intervention in this landmark case
Our intervention
Sex Matters was given permission to intervene with both written and oral submissions. That means the court decided that we had something important and useful to add. Our submissions make complementary arguments to those made by For Women Scotland. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, a lesbian group and Amnesty International have also been given permission to intervene. Sex Matters is the only civil-society organisation invited to make oral submissions.
Read a summary of our intervention
Sex Matters will be represented in court by Ben Cooper KC and Scottish barrister David Welsh on day one of the hearing. Our written submission argues that the correct statutory interpretation of the law is that section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act which says a GRC changes a person’s sex for “all [legal] purposes” does not apply to the Equality Act.
Gender Recognition Act 2004
addresses the “difficulties and anomalies” resulting from a lack of legal recognition for transsexual people in relations with the state such as marriage, pensions, retirement and social security
Equality Act 2010
prevents unfavourable treatment of individuals because of their protected characteristics by employers, service providers and others.
This is because the purpose of the Equality Act is to protect people against discrimination and harassment. Sex discrimination is not something that happens to people because they have a certificate but because they are (or at least are perceived to be or are associated with being) male or female.
The alternative interpretation of the Equality Act, which views sex as being a purely administrative matter not tied to bodies, creates nonsensical and illogical outcomes.
How you can follow the hearing
You can watch the case online on the Supreme Court’s YouTube channel (you don’t need to log in or watch in real time).
The hearing is in Court 1 of the Supreme Court in London. It is open to the public but there are limited seats (about 70 spaces). There will also be overflow rooms with screens set up, so hopefully everyone who comes along will get to watch. Both days start at 10:30am.
Tuesday 26th is FWS and Sex Matters
Wednesday 27th is the Scottish Government and the EHRC
Tribunal Tweets will be live tweeting.
Read all the written submissions that have been published so far.
The judgment is expected in spring 2025.
How you can help us
Bringing these cases takes a lot of money and hard work behind the scenes. Your support for Sex Matters has helped us to bring our intervention. We still need to raise £20,000 to cover legal fees. You can donate to support the legal fees for the intervention.
For Women Scotland’s crowdfunder also still needs a bit more funding to reach their total (and you can read their update on the case).
Support Sex Matters’ intervention in this landmark case
Free Speech
Nigel Farage on GB News discusses the Allison Pearson case that we have been covering recently.
Luke Gittos, Allison Pearson’s lawyer, discusses the case on The Academy of Ideas site and especially looks, of course, at the legal position, discussing the Online Safety Act and the lowering of thresholds.
Harry Miller On The Warpath
Harry Miller of Fair Cop gets called in for another interview by the police but, this time, turns the tables on them!
Irish Hate Crime Bill
David Thunder discusses this awful bill. We have been featuring the bill quite a lot recently.
Freedom In The Arts
Rosie Kay is co-founder with Denise Fahmy of Freedom in the Arts. Excellent discussion with Rosie on Andrew Doyle’s Free Speech Nation.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-152032327
Strip-Searching and the Law
Academic lawyer, Michael Foran on his substack, Knowing Ius looks at the law with regard to strip searching.
Strip-Searching, Gender Identity, and the Law
Nov 23, 2024
The Telegraph has today reported that British Transport Police have issued new guidance allowing biologically male police officers to strip-search women if those officers have a Gender Recognition Certificate. One might think that this is an obviously unlawful policy, but there is conflicting legal authority on this exact question that requires some detailed analysis to work through. In this post, I give an overview of the law in this area and offer some thoughts.
The Legal Default
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) makes provision for a lawful search by a constable. Without express authority, searching someone’s person or property is unlawful and would constitute a trespass. Section 1 of the 1984 Act permits a constable to search someone prior to arrest in circumstances where he reasonably believes that he will find stolen or prohibited items. This power, along with other powers to search a person prior to arrest, is subject to s2 of the 1984 Act which provides, inter alia, that:
‘Neither the power conferred by section 1 above nor any other power to detain and search a person without first arresting him or to detain and search a vehicle without making an arrest is to be construed—
(a) as authorising a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves; or
(b) as authorising a constable not in uniform to stop a vehicle.’
The law relating to searches once an arrest has been made was changed with the passage of the 1984 Act: s53 states that
‘there shall cease to have effect any Act (including a local Act) passed before this Act in so far as it authorises—
(a) any search by a constable of a person in police detention at a police station; or
(b) an intimate search of a person by a constable;
and any rule of common law which authorises a search such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above is abolished.’
This means that the only power to search upon detention at a police station or to conduct an intimate search derives from PACE. Sections 54 and 55 of PACE provide for the circumstances when a a strip search or a EIP (exposure of intimate parts) search can be carried out. For non-intimate searches, s54(9) states that “The constable carrying out a search shall be of the same sex as the person searched”. For intimate searches involving the exposure of the buttocks, genitalia, and (female) breasts, s55(7) states that “A constable may not carry out an intimate search of a person of the opposite sex”.
The question that must now be answered is what the term “sex” means in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Michael concludes that the current policy which permits intimate searches on the basis of Gender Recognition Certificates is unlawful. For the full legal reasoning, the full piece is here:
Trump’s Victory
Jonathon Van Maren on his substack, The Bridgehead discusses the crucial importance of ‘trans activism’ in the US Presidential Election (an issue we have touched on before).
How trans activists won the election for Trump
Nov 22, 2024
This column was first published at The European Conservative.
If you’re happy with the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election, you might want to thank the transgender movement.
The post-election autopsies are coming in, and there is plenty to discuss and debate. But one conclusion is already approaching consensus: The Democrats’ embrace of gender ideology hurt them, and badly. The Democrats are now engaged in a minor civil war over how to deal with the T in LGBT, with accusations flying thick and fast. In fact, progressive congresswoman and ‘squad’ member Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has already quietly removed her pronouns from her X bio, while late night TV hosts such as John Oliver desperately insist that trans issues are an easy sell.
The polls, however, tell a different story. According to the Associated Press’ VoteCast, a survey of over 120,000 people who voted this fall found that more than half of voters said that “support for transgender rights in government and society” has “gone too far.” Only 2 in 10 said that support hadn’t gone far enough, and only 2 in 10 said “it’s about right.” 85% of those who voted for Trump said support for the transgender agenda has “gone too far.” A quarter of Harris voters agreed.
The full piece is here:
https://jonathonvanmaren.substack.com/p/how-trans-activists-won-the-election
The States - Keep Men Out Of Women’s Spaces
Megyn Kelly weighs in in support of Congress Woman Nancy Mace ( and see Men in Women’s Spaces in the last update https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/jesus-in-the-barn):
Nancy Mace
And here is Nancy who is ‘here for this fight’ 😊
https://x.com/theposieparker/status/1860320774688477608?s=58
The Saga of Tim McBride
Kat Highsmith looks at the situation of Tim (Sarah) McBride on her substack. All thoughts on this piece gratefully received.
First Troon in Congress: The Saga of Tim McBride
He's Not A Woman And There's Only One Kind
Nov 23, 2024
Kat concludes:
For his part, Tim publicly stated that if he is barred from the women’s bathroom, he will follow the rules.
This is a significant statement because if he can comply when that boundary is drawn, that means he can comply with all boundaries. And if he can, why can’t all men?
The truth is that clashing over whether or not Tim can use the women’s bathroom is putting a Band-Aid over a bullet wound. It will not really solve anything.
The real solution is he should have been told NO when he declared himself to be a woman at 21-years-old.
He did not need estrogen, a hair makeover, makeup, surgeries (assuming possible genital surgery as he has not had facial surgeries), birth certificate/drivers license/passport changes, or anything else.
The problem is created when this falsehood is “affirmed” in any way because all problems that follow it are simply unavoidable. There is no way to allow just a little bit of crazy.
Adults cannot do whatever they want to themselves. They can and must be given boundaries.
Furthermore, the narrative around this topic is simultaneously unrelenting, irrational, and at times enraging.
It is unrelenting because this is apparently an enormously important issue, so much so that it must be present in nearly every Netflix, HBO, or Hulu show, in every novel particularly for young adults, and in every discussion of social issues.
It is irrational because the moment “trans” defenders get any push back on their claims, the immediate response generally is “there are more important things to solve!”
Then why do we have to hear about this constantly? Is it important or not? Why is it only unimportant when men are told they cannot do whatever they want?
Every problem on earth does not need to be solved before women can tell men that they are not one of us and do not belong in our spaces. And if it is not important, the men threatening suicide over pronouns and demanding transfers to women’s prisons should be told that.
Finally, it is enraging because the people who defend the “trans” lie are truly some of the most unintelligent extremely online people, and they cannot argue their way out of a wet paper bag.
They have not figured out that crying about Donald Trump, calling everyone Nazis, comparing female bathrooms to racial segregation laws, and pretending to be moral by defending male rapists in women’s prisons actually repulses and repels normal people.
As Democratic female politicians in Congress fail to stand up to this, it is a shame only Republican women in particular have the backbone to draw a line at women’s safety in spaces like restrooms.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene is among the few who actually called Tim out using TERF language.
If other prominent figures, especially Democrats, cannot do the same then they will just continue the consistent betrayal of women, who are adult human females…as all readers should know by now.
Tim McBride must stop skin-suiting womanhood, get a haircut, and stay out of women’s spaces full-stop because he is a man, and if he cannot do that then he should resign from Congress.
Nothing more is to be said about him.
The full piece is here:
New Book
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic. I haven’t, as yet, read this book I hasten to add.
Gender Ideology, Social Contagion, and the Making of a Transgender Generation – Cambridge Scholars Publishing (23 November)
This unique, comprehensive book on the global child and adolescent transgender crisis highlights the fallacies of gender ideology and explains why social contagion is a major factor in the upsurge of young people wishing to transition. It underscores for the first time how social contagion also influences the many professions involved in treatment of gender dysphoric young people. The book includes a discussion of the many perils of medicalized gender treatments, including puberty blockade, cross sex hormones, and genital surgeries that create lifelong patienthood. The book concludes with a detailed discussion of psychotherapeutic management of gender dysphoric young people and their families. Drawing on years of clinical experience, the author offers new insights and many case studies from her own practice that delve into the complex factors that contribute to the desire to change sex. In an epilogue, the author calls for an informed government response and a public health campaign to curtail the medical madness of “gender affirming care.” This book has international appeal and will be an invaluable resource for paediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, general practitioners, psychologists, sociologists, legislators, politicians, educators, and parents.
In Brief
There are two articles that sound very interesting but I haven’t managed to get to them yet. Therefore I am just providing links here. If you get to them before me and have any comments, please let us know.
Malcolm Clark What Did the BBC Know About LGBT Youth Scotland?
Kathleen Stock Stonewall and the search for meaning: What made daft dogma so appealing?
Endpieces by Liz and Dusty
Here is Nigel Farage on the new Jaguar ad:
And here is someone’s suggested new version 😂
https://x.com/Marcus_Byrne/status/1859931383831081188
And -stop press- I will add in my sixpennorth care of wonderful Giles Coren at The Times:
https://x.com/Jan_Leeming/status/1860329307760955623/photo/1
#BeMorePorcupine
#LetWomenSpeak
#Grassroots Army
#GenderIdeologyIsEvil
#VoteAontú
#Woman:AdultHumanFemale
Thanks, Dusty. One day I will get to one of these important events, such as the Supreme Court hearing, but childcare comes first. I look forward to reading your reports with enthusiasm - ScotGov looks to be in a very difficult position, but the courts are ideologically captured. I hope the bench for this case show more independent thought than their compatriots in lower courts.
I’m really pleased to hear that you’re going to the For Women Scotland hearing Dusty. I’m feeling anxious about it, it’s so huge.
Luke Gittos is the bloke at the end of a phone line if you’re a member of the Free Speech Union and get visited by the police. So join if you can.
Love the Megyn Kelly rant even though she gets a bit muddled in the middle 😁. Things are happening in the US though, so let’s hope we get a knock on effect.
Thanks for posting the Michael Foran piece. I don’t subscribe to him so couldn’t read it in full when I saw it. Can’t believe that this is even considered acceptable. 🤬
Thanks Dusty as ever.
Btw, the Malcolm Clark piece is shocking but will the BBC be held accountable for its decisions ? I doubt it.