A handful of the good news stories from the gender beat this week. Enjoy! Taking Stock The brilliant Professor Kathleen Stock OBE has been shortlisted for Columnist of the Year by the UK Press Awards. “Kathleen Stock is that rare thing, a weekly columnist who never fails to say something new. Her range is remarkable… Armed with a logician’s brain and an entertainer’s panache, she shows a remarkable ability to make the gnarliest of subjects accessible. Her analysis is watertight; her flourishes are filled with vim. Stock’s calm head and capacity for erudition has turned her into a must-read columnist.
What a fantastic and well deserved comment on Kathleen Stock. The fact that it makes the twerps at Sussex look even more pathetic for losing such a brilliant mind, is a bonus.
I love the fact that the judges said that the word gender, in the gender recognition act, refers to a binary concept, male or female. Brilliant! 😆
WPATH losing members, excellent.
Now the Conservatives just need to get on and do what they keep promising.
Yes indeed! Judge Jennifer Young, found that Westmarland “was effectively telling the claimant off for having expressed gender critical beliefs ... Prof Westmarland knew that likening the claimant to a racist was upsetting for the claimant. We conclude that its purpose was to violate the claimant’s dignity because inherent in the comment is an insult of being put in the same category as racists” and in Tribunal Judgement in the case of Prof Jo Phoenix "We find that Dr Downes believed that gender critical beliefs were harmful to trans and non binary people and considered such beliefs transphobic. We find that the use of the term transphobic in respect of gender critical views is being used as a term of insult by Dr Downes. We find that throughout this case where the term is referenced, that is how it is being used." [J Phoenix v The Open University and others: 3322700/2021 and 3323841/2021 22 Jan2024] I had been wondering when calling someone a 'transphobe' might be judged discriminatory? That day has arrived.
And that's also hot on the heels of Rachel Meade winning her case. Her employers flinging the accusation of transphobe was found to be baseless and therefore to continue to accuse her amounted to harassment (if I can remember or am able to check to see the specifics and nuance I will edit this). Buried in all these judgments is a nasty layered mix of direct and indirect discriminations and now plenty of examples of using accusations of 'transphobia' as a vehicle.
Yes. Lots of specifics and nuances. The Rachel Meade judgement was lengthy - a judgement that relentlessly erodes the institutional capture that's given such traction to the trans cult. It's a judgement that criticises not just those individuals who said things about Rachel Meade, but also the agencies those individuals represented - Social Work England and Westminster City Council. e.g and this is just a smidgin of what the tribunal said about SWE! "Social Work England’s (SWE) failure to check if Mr Woolton’s complaint could be malicious, and not checking his previous social media history, is indicative of a lack of rigour in the investigation, and an apparent willingness to accept a complaint from one side of the gender self-identification/gender critical debate without appropriate objective balance of the potential validity of different views in what is a highly polarised debate. ....(continuing) (1) Being the subject of a prolonged investigation into her beliefs from November 2020 to June 2021; (2) Being sanctioned by SWE’s Case Examiners on 8 July 2021; (3) The failure of SWE to set aside the Case Managers’ decision in September 2021 when presented with the evidence in support of the Claimant’s application for a review; (4) The consequences of the failure of SWE to train its Case Examiners to respect protected beliefs; (5) SWE failing, when requested to do so, on 16 and 24 December 2021, to remove the flawed Case Managers’ Report from its website; (6) SWE referring the complaint against the Claimant to a Fitness to Practise hearing, communicated to her on 31 January 2022; (7) SWE putting forward a statement of case dated 6 July for the FtP hearing.' How this cavalier treatment of Rachel Meade resonates with what Dr Hilary Cass uncovered in the Tavistock GIDS treatment of the young people referred to them.
Although a good read I sometimes wish these were shorter...! So many of these are totally and utterly damning and still the HMS Genderology refuses to turn. Every opportunity they had to not be quite so cruel yet on they go, seemingly blithe to how bad it will all look when it comes out. And to quote Naomi from I think her skeleton for Meade last year:
'Malcolm Feeley called his seminal 1979 study of criminal justice in the US “The Process is the Punishment”. That phrase has resonance for this case and many like it; Rachel Meade’s story of silencing and intimidation is only one of many similar stories. The fundamental question raised by this case is “Can colleagues, regulators and employers lawfully use regulatory and disciplinary processes to punish engagement in the urgent, important and increasingly ubiquitous public debate about sex and gender?” Naomi Cunningham, Outer Temple Chambers.'
My family have had experience of litigation - winning in the 2000s a case involving false arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. It went on for three years. The process is rightly described as the punishment with the defendant using all the now familiar delaying tactics to run us - the plaintiff - out of money. Our win before a jury got the money back with damages but not the time. That's where courage becomes a determining element in success. We're all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in these matters!
I think often they are long to very clearly set out the facts, the submissions and the reasoning at full length in order to bullet proof them from any appeal ( we hope)
These rulings are sometimes corkers and the really nasty series of behaviours they engage in to squeeze people out whilst acting all pretendy inclusive and defending their poor trans and NB colleagues - it's all there when their emails are revealed. Bit sad there was no support squirrel for this one.
Case No: 3322700/2021 & 3323841/2021
p25 of 155
72. We don’t accept Dr Drake’s explanation. We find by writing “problematic/scary/interesting”; Dr Drake regarded the Claimant’s gender critical beliefs as problematic and scary and that it was interesting that the Claimant signed the Sunday Times Letter as it was not something that she thought the Claimant would have done.
HA! Problematic and scary huh? Hmm interesting. Truth is isn't it? Let's not have any of this wrongthink now now, not in the esteemed OU. They also had a fit that the OU wasn't written out in full which showed just what little minds they are. Concentrating on such tiny inessential nothings to make work and get all riled up about and with their non-job Head of non-job job titles. When I read that Jo was taking one witness and they had so many lining up against her I thought this is a bunch of people who worryingly are super confident and clearly think they are in the right and might realise very soon how they appear as bullies in lining up so many against her. To propose that many witnesses? All the better to show just how many acted so badly.
Also in the OU case, the judgement refers to an article by an OU student:
“374. …Transgender identities are a protected characteristic, and if you are contributing to an environment where my trans, non-binary and gender non- conforming siblings no longer feel safe, supported or welcome, you can get the hell out of my university, because it’s Open to everything but bigotry, no matter how you try and disguise it.” [1664]”
This student thinks the Equality Act 2010 has transgender identity as a protected characteristic (this is what Stonewall would like the law to say) but this is untrue. I think there are too many people being trained in EDI with incorrect information, and this is a huge problem.
This is what I really do not understand and even when it's explained. Those caught up in the righteousness of their goodness seem to be not very bright people and many seem to struggle with reading comprehension when you can check most legislation in seconds with the device in your pocket. Some particularly nasty, juvenile and apparently unhinged people are being allowed to gather a real head of steam and aren't cautioned, advised, warned or stopped. They are encouraged by their profs, HR, unions and 'LGBTQ+' identity reps. It's then the rumour of a rumour of a rumour. Because they pay fees (many won't ever pay back in full) is it now that the 'customer is always right'? And it's students openly and repeatedly breaking the law in attacking members of staff who are more educated, more experienced in life and education, and these are still supposed to be universities. Where is basic decency and respect? It's all back to the fanatical assertion of bigotry which is then the green light for literally apparently anything. We've concluded this truth so anything logically stems from that and they must be attacked and destroyed while still claiming the opposite. Take them down!! Burn the witch! Each time this happens and spreads like wildfire, they all have meetings for months and bully staff and students out in unpleasant and as it turns out oops illegal ways. And encouraging a pile on is then usefully defended as 'academic freedom'. How convenient.
It was a threat wasn't it? These are open threats. Who does this? Writing articles chock full of threats. That's not critical analysis. And it's such childish use of language 'my' this and that and 'siblings'? No wonder they didn't want to repeat the article in full :-)
I liked this bit too: 'We conclude that by Dr Downes tweeting the link and encouraging OU staff to add support to the Open Letter that the effect of the tweet was to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant.' Oof.
Yet this person does what at the OU? Dr Downes, Dr Leigh Downes (ws225-244) (formerly referred to as Dr Julia Downes), is a 'Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy with a specific interest in trauma-informed learning.' Sorry, what now? Trauma? And does 'PhD Supervision' and 'I welcome PhD applications in the following areas:
- violence, abuse and harm
- grassroots activisms
- informal and community responses to harm
- survivor resistance, healing and recovery
- trauma-informed praxis'
Oh the multiple ironies. The total hypocrisy is staggering. This is EDI is it? So what about the harm you dished out to Prof Jo Phoenix huh? How would you suggest she resists, heals and recovers? Trauma-informed praxis my a*se. Look at this article from September 2023: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/emotions-distance. 'Leigh brought their expertise in researching and teaching gender-based violence'. Yup Leigh sure is teaching that.
I'd like to know what that particular student thought about the result! There are a lot of 'experts' in the Equality Act who are learning what it actually says or who are in for some big surprises!
I am amazed at how many organisations are still acting in this way!! Maya Forstater's case followed by several others and now Rachel Meade and Jo Phoenix spell it out each time!! This is a protected characteristic to believe in gender critical views ( we would say it is a fact of course but you have to squeeze it within the terms of the legislation). The problem is - the process is the punishment ( at least until you get a hopefully stonking damages award!)
Of course. Got to keep their legal team busy. Maybe Jolyolyolyon is busily preparing a groundbreaking statement (pro bono natch) that 'we won!' despite losing. It's another reminder that when you live in your own fantasy world, and won't be told, and believe what you want, you really will insist on lying about anything and everything. I am unsure what will make the penny drop for some of these zealous proponents who have set their course and careers on this.
Thank you for gathering these stories - they really help me feel braver to state my gender critical position to other people when the opportunity arises.
Also just want to thank Graham personally because he is defending women and girls when he doesn't have to. He could have just kept quiet about it like most other comedians and public people. It doesn't affect him directly, personally. So many people pick up causes and start fundraising only when they are personally affected, say by a personal health issue or life event. They start fundraising and telling everyone about it wanting them all to get involved and donate, but they had zero interest in the subject before it directly affected them, so I am always a bit cynical when it happens. Graham is the opposite - he's gone into this war without being directly personally affected. He's never going to be confronted by one of these men in dresses in the change room like we are, or have his prize or medal taken away because a bloke claims he is a woman. Graham, you are a total legend and I just wanted to thank you so much!!!!
I know most of the famous names involved, but I wonder who first raised a small voice against slavery that gained traction through Wilberforce and his black and white allies; who first questioned the given role of women in society that became the tsunami driven by contrary Mary Wollstonecraft and all who bravely surfed on her insight and pluck, men as well as women; who first raised questions about the effects of ECT, or dared challenge the wonderful success of lobotomy? Thank heavens for such people. One day you and a very few others will be listed among those who stood up against the toxic insanity of transgenderism – the Jester who risked his neck to tell truth to power.
Thank you JL! I do really look forward to seeing these notifications pop up and wondered which ruling you'd be able to cram in this week. Ambassador you are really spoiling us - you do a lot to improve our mental health and I am incredibly grateful :-)
The good news is such a pick-me-up - thanks JL for the antidote to the madness! It's about time EDI BS was wiped from the civil service. However, this will not stop it as in many places it has already taken hold. Most people at least share their pronouns and some have statements of allyship in the signatures as we were all "encouraged" to do (you know, to show we weren't a threat as anyone who doesn't is apparently "unsafe"). The women's network in one department was changed to the "women's inclusive network" (WIN - but ironically a big loss), to include men so basically just a workplace network where women are no longer talking with other women about issues that affect them. My point is that it is embedded and insidious and will actually take some action to root out. Just stopping EDI, or moving it to lunchtimes and evenings will not be enough.
Yes, but with the emphasis on "start" as it must be followed up by further action but I fear it will not be. It's too embedded to simply fizzle out. Too many useful idiots waving the ally flag and using it to as a vehicle to get ahead.
A wonder interpretation of the ballad ‘tenderly’. cracked me up when i was 10 still does! Thanks JL. I’m off to live out the rest of this bullshit in a cave. There’s probably not wifi so if someone could bob down when its over that would be great. Cheers.
Without raising hopes I think some of the judges' comments in the (bonkers) Castellucci case may be of use ( probably unintentionally) in our arguments against the GRA. Bear with me!
Bye bye WPATH but now we need to do something about the WOO WHO!! How do these ****ers ever get approved as the WORLD association!? What about sovereignty? Can us voters actually vote for (or not) a party that has this in their manifesto?? I am going to set up the World Association for Potato Planting in my garden shed. Do you want to join.
Hope the Civil Service crackdown on the WOO actually happens. I am increasingly fielding reports on the invasiveness of DEI!! It is like the plague!!
Great news all round. Many congrats to Kathleen Stock! And I'm glad the 'non-binary' man was shown the door with his silliness. Is it legally significant that the judges said that gender refferred to in the Act pertains to the male / female binary?
So very silly to call oneself “non-binary “. If there is no binary of sex, how can there be a “non-binary “of sex? nobody has ever explained this conundrum. But I’m glad this silly person was told off.
Great news , especially about Kathleen Stock and Wpath ( I hope it sinks without trace )!! Well done to Kathleen. She deserves it .👍👏 Hope she gets the prize 🙏 Thanks ,JL x
What a fantastic and well deserved comment on Kathleen Stock. The fact that it makes the twerps at Sussex look even more pathetic for losing such a brilliant mind, is a bonus.
I love the fact that the judges said that the word gender, in the gender recognition act, refers to a binary concept, male or female. Brilliant! 😆
WPATH losing members, excellent.
Now the Conservatives just need to get on and do what they keep promising.
Thanks JL, wonderful news.
Yes indeed! Judge Jennifer Young, found that Westmarland “was effectively telling the claimant off for having expressed gender critical beliefs ... Prof Westmarland knew that likening the claimant to a racist was upsetting for the claimant. We conclude that its purpose was to violate the claimant’s dignity because inherent in the comment is an insult of being put in the same category as racists” and in Tribunal Judgement in the case of Prof Jo Phoenix "We find that Dr Downes believed that gender critical beliefs were harmful to trans and non binary people and considered such beliefs transphobic. We find that the use of the term transphobic in respect of gender critical views is being used as a term of insult by Dr Downes. We find that throughout this case where the term is referenced, that is how it is being used." [J Phoenix v The Open University and others: 3322700/2021 and 3323841/2021 22 Jan2024] I had been wondering when calling someone a 'transphobe' might be judged discriminatory? That day has arrived.
And that's also hot on the heels of Rachel Meade winning her case. Her employers flinging the accusation of transphobe was found to be baseless and therefore to continue to accuse her amounted to harassment (if I can remember or am able to check to see the specifics and nuance I will edit this). Buried in all these judgments is a nasty layered mix of direct and indirect discriminations and now plenty of examples of using accusations of 'transphobia' as a vehicle.
Yes. Lots of specifics and nuances. The Rachel Meade judgement was lengthy - a judgement that relentlessly erodes the institutional capture that's given such traction to the trans cult. It's a judgement that criticises not just those individuals who said things about Rachel Meade, but also the agencies those individuals represented - Social Work England and Westminster City Council. e.g and this is just a smidgin of what the tribunal said about SWE! "Social Work England’s (SWE) failure to check if Mr Woolton’s complaint could be malicious, and not checking his previous social media history, is indicative of a lack of rigour in the investigation, and an apparent willingness to accept a complaint from one side of the gender self-identification/gender critical debate without appropriate objective balance of the potential validity of different views in what is a highly polarised debate. ....(continuing) (1) Being the subject of a prolonged investigation into her beliefs from November 2020 to June 2021; (2) Being sanctioned by SWE’s Case Examiners on 8 July 2021; (3) The failure of SWE to set aside the Case Managers’ decision in September 2021 when presented with the evidence in support of the Claimant’s application for a review; (4) The consequences of the failure of SWE to train its Case Examiners to respect protected beliefs; (5) SWE failing, when requested to do so, on 16 and 24 December 2021, to remove the flawed Case Managers’ Report from its website; (6) SWE referring the complaint against the Claimant to a Fitness to Practise hearing, communicated to her on 31 January 2022; (7) SWE putting forward a statement of case dated 6 July for the FtP hearing.' How this cavalier treatment of Rachel Meade resonates with what Dr Hilary Cass uncovered in the Tavistock GIDS treatment of the young people referred to them.
Although a good read I sometimes wish these were shorter...! So many of these are totally and utterly damning and still the HMS Genderology refuses to turn. Every opportunity they had to not be quite so cruel yet on they go, seemingly blithe to how bad it will all look when it comes out. And to quote Naomi from I think her skeleton for Meade last year:
'Malcolm Feeley called his seminal 1979 study of criminal justice in the US “The Process is the Punishment”. That phrase has resonance for this case and many like it; Rachel Meade’s story of silencing and intimidation is only one of many similar stories. The fundamental question raised by this case is “Can colleagues, regulators and employers lawfully use regulatory and disciplinary processes to punish engagement in the urgent, important and increasingly ubiquitous public debate about sex and gender?” Naomi Cunningham, Outer Temple Chambers.'
My family have had experience of litigation - winning in the 2000s a case involving false arrest, wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution. It went on for three years. The process is rightly described as the punishment with the defendant using all the now familiar delaying tactics to run us - the plaintiff - out of money. Our win before a jury got the money back with damages but not the time. That's where courage becomes a determining element in success. We're all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in these matters!
I think often they are long to very clearly set out the facts, the submissions and the reasoning at full length in order to bullet proof them from any appeal ( we hope)
Dusty
These rulings are sometimes corkers and the really nasty series of behaviours they engage in to squeeze people out whilst acting all pretendy inclusive and defending their poor trans and NB colleagues - it's all there when their emails are revealed. Bit sad there was no support squirrel for this one.
Case No: 3322700/2021 & 3323841/2021
p25 of 155
72. We don’t accept Dr Drake’s explanation. We find by writing “problematic/scary/interesting”; Dr Drake regarded the Claimant’s gender critical beliefs as problematic and scary and that it was interesting that the Claimant signed the Sunday Times Letter as it was not something that she thought the Claimant would have done.
HA! Problematic and scary huh? Hmm interesting. Truth is isn't it? Let's not have any of this wrongthink now now, not in the esteemed OU. They also had a fit that the OU wasn't written out in full which showed just what little minds they are. Concentrating on such tiny inessential nothings to make work and get all riled up about and with their non-job Head of non-job job titles. When I read that Jo was taking one witness and they had so many lining up against her I thought this is a bunch of people who worryingly are super confident and clearly think they are in the right and might realise very soon how they appear as bullies in lining up so many against her. To propose that many witnesses? All the better to show just how many acted so badly.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ae82d58bbe95000e5eb1f7/Ms_J_Pheonix_v_The_Open_University_3322700.2021___other_FMH_Reserved_Judgment.pdf
Also in the OU case, the judgement refers to an article by an OU student:
“374. …Transgender identities are a protected characteristic, and if you are contributing to an environment where my trans, non-binary and gender non- conforming siblings no longer feel safe, supported or welcome, you can get the hell out of my university, because it’s Open to everything but bigotry, no matter how you try and disguise it.” [1664]”
This student thinks the Equality Act 2010 has transgender identity as a protected characteristic (this is what Stonewall would like the law to say) but this is untrue. I think there are too many people being trained in EDI with incorrect information, and this is a huge problem.
This is what I really do not understand and even when it's explained. Those caught up in the righteousness of their goodness seem to be not very bright people and many seem to struggle with reading comprehension when you can check most legislation in seconds with the device in your pocket. Some particularly nasty, juvenile and apparently unhinged people are being allowed to gather a real head of steam and aren't cautioned, advised, warned or stopped. They are encouraged by their profs, HR, unions and 'LGBTQ+' identity reps. It's then the rumour of a rumour of a rumour. Because they pay fees (many won't ever pay back in full) is it now that the 'customer is always right'? And it's students openly and repeatedly breaking the law in attacking members of staff who are more educated, more experienced in life and education, and these are still supposed to be universities. Where is basic decency and respect? It's all back to the fanatical assertion of bigotry which is then the green light for literally apparently anything. We've concluded this truth so anything logically stems from that and they must be attacked and destroyed while still claiming the opposite. Take them down!! Burn the witch! Each time this happens and spreads like wildfire, they all have meetings for months and bully staff and students out in unpleasant and as it turns out oops illegal ways. And encouraging a pile on is then usefully defended as 'academic freedom'. How convenient.
It was a threat wasn't it? These are open threats. Who does this? Writing articles chock full of threats. That's not critical analysis. And it's such childish use of language 'my' this and that and 'siblings'? No wonder they didn't want to repeat the article in full :-)
I liked this bit too: 'We conclude that by Dr Downes tweeting the link and encouraging OU staff to add support to the Open Letter that the effect of the tweet was to create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the Claimant.' Oof.
Yet this person does what at the OU? Dr Downes, Dr Leigh Downes (ws225-244) (formerly referred to as Dr Julia Downes), is a 'Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy with a specific interest in trauma-informed learning.' Sorry, what now? Trauma? And does 'PhD Supervision' and 'I welcome PhD applications in the following areas:
- violence, abuse and harm
- grassroots activisms
- informal and community responses to harm
- survivor resistance, healing and recovery
- trauma-informed praxis'
Oh the multiple ironies. The total hypocrisy is staggering. This is EDI is it? So what about the harm you dished out to Prof Jo Phoenix huh? How would you suggest she resists, heals and recovers? Trauma-informed praxis my a*se. Look at this article from September 2023: https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/emotions-distance. 'Leigh brought their expertise in researching and teaching gender-based violence'. Yup Leigh sure is teaching that.
I'd like to know what that particular student thought about the result! There are a lot of 'experts' in the Equality Act who are learning what it actually says or who are in for some big surprises!
I am amazed at how many organisations are still acting in this way!! Maya Forstater's case followed by several others and now Rachel Meade and Jo Phoenix spell it out each time!! This is a protected characteristic to believe in gender critical views ( we would say it is a fact of course but you have to squeeze it within the terms of the legislation). The problem is - the process is the punishment ( at least until you get a hopefully stonking damages award!)
Dusty
😊
Thank you for this good news, Graham. More good news is that Jo Phoenix has won her against against the Open University. Much to celebrate today.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/22/open-university-academic-wins-tribunal-case-over-gender-critical-views
The OU mentions an appeal? On what grounds? I think the judgement was pretty damning. If I were them, I'd crawl away and lick my wounds.
Stonewall probably still in the background somewhere...?
I guess OU has to bluff they will appeal, to try and make it look like they haven't just resoundingly LOST the case
Of course. Got to keep their legal team busy. Maybe Jolyolyolyon is busily preparing a groundbreaking statement (pro bono natch) that 'we won!' despite losing. It's another reminder that when you live in your own fantasy world, and won't be told, and believe what you want, you really will insist on lying about anything and everything. I am unsure what will make the penny drop for some of these zealous proponents who have set their course and careers on this.
Thank you for gathering these stories - they really help me feel braver to state my gender critical position to other people when the opportunity arises.
Also just want to thank Graham personally because he is defending women and girls when he doesn't have to. He could have just kept quiet about it like most other comedians and public people. It doesn't affect him directly, personally. So many people pick up causes and start fundraising only when they are personally affected, say by a personal health issue or life event. They start fundraising and telling everyone about it wanting them all to get involved and donate, but they had zero interest in the subject before it directly affected them, so I am always a bit cynical when it happens. Graham is the opposite - he's gone into this war without being directly personally affected. He's never going to be confronted by one of these men in dresses in the change room like we are, or have his prize or medal taken away because a bloke claims he is a woman. Graham, you are a total legend and I just wanted to thank you so much!!!!
❤️
Hear, hear.
Echo that !! 👏👍❤️
I know most of the famous names involved, but I wonder who first raised a small voice against slavery that gained traction through Wilberforce and his black and white allies; who first questioned the given role of women in society that became the tsunami driven by contrary Mary Wollstonecraft and all who bravely surfed on her insight and pluck, men as well as women; who first raised questions about the effects of ECT, or dared challenge the wonderful success of lobotomy? Thank heavens for such people. One day you and a very few others will be listed among those who stood up against the toxic insanity of transgenderism – the Jester who risked his neck to tell truth to power.
“the Jester who risked his neck…” brilliant comment.
Thank you JL! I do really look forward to seeing these notifications pop up and wondered which ruling you'd be able to cram in this week. Ambassador you are really spoiling us - you do a lot to improve our mental health and I am incredibly grateful :-)
😊
Thanks very much, JL. Plenty to make us happy.
The Times has an article on Jo Phoenix, who won her case against the Open University as mentioned by Cavatina https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/open-university-professor-gender-critical-wins-tribunal-m2sghj6x7 d
And, of course, loved the Muppets clip.
May I also recommend the best of Babylon Bee, the 2nd sketch with the alien is tremendous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMH628Ka2rk
Goverment cracking down on woke civil servants? Great if it happens but I'll believe it when I see it.
The good news is such a pick-me-up - thanks JL for the antidote to the madness! It's about time EDI BS was wiped from the civil service. However, this will not stop it as in many places it has already taken hold. Most people at least share their pronouns and some have statements of allyship in the signatures as we were all "encouraged" to do (you know, to show we weren't a threat as anyone who doesn't is apparently "unsafe"). The women's network in one department was changed to the "women's inclusive network" (WIN - but ironically a big loss), to include men so basically just a workplace network where women are no longer talking with other women about issues that affect them. My point is that it is embedded and insidious and will actually take some action to root out. Just stopping EDI, or moving it to lunchtimes and evenings will not be enough.
But it will be a very good start 😊😊😊
Dusty
Yes, but with the emphasis on "start" as it must be followed up by further action but I fear it will not be. It's too embedded to simply fizzle out. Too many useful idiots waving the ally flag and using it to as a vehicle to get ahead.
I take your point but thy will not be as powerful as a whole DEI department. I am in midst of DEI special as it happens :)
Dusty
Many thanks JL. Kathleen S deserves the award!
As always🌹
😘
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXd4ekmp1w
A wonder interpretation of the ballad ‘tenderly’. cracked me up when i was 10 still does! Thanks JL. I’m off to live out the rest of this bullshit in a cave. There’s probably not wifi so if someone could bob down when its over that would be great. Cheers.
Thank you for the added laughs, that will be my earworm for the forseeable!
Haha!
Thanks as ever, JL.
Well done Kathleen S 😊
Without raising hopes I think some of the judges' comments in the (bonkers) Castellucci case may be of use ( probably unintentionally) in our arguments against the GRA. Bear with me!
Bye bye WPATH but now we need to do something about the WOO WHO!! How do these ****ers ever get approved as the WORLD association!? What about sovereignty? Can us voters actually vote for (or not) a party that has this in their manifesto?? I am going to set up the World Association for Potato Planting in my garden shed. Do you want to join.
Hope the Civil Service crackdown on the WOO actually happens. I am increasingly fielding reports on the invasiveness of DEI!! It is like the plague!!
Well done , Glinner as ever. Go, Sall Grover.
Dusty
Great news all round. Many congrats to Kathleen Stock! And I'm glad the 'non-binary' man was shown the door with his silliness. Is it legally significant that the judges said that gender refferred to in the Act pertains to the male / female binary?
So very silly to call oneself “non-binary “. If there is no binary of sex, how can there be a “non-binary “of sex? nobody has ever explained this conundrum. But I’m glad this silly person was told off.
Jo Phoenix was also interviewed by Emna Barnett on Woman’s Hour this morning.
WHAT!!! A reason to actually tune in again!! :-)
I hold my hands up and say it wouldn’t be like me if I’ve missed something !
But there was a piece in the mail ( yes yes I know ) about Graham and others suing some pub about his quite frankly shocking views ( obvious sarcasm )
It mentioned a fundraiser but I couldn’t find a link
Help required please and thank you 😀
Your wish is my command, Petal. Here ya go! 😁
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/assaulted-and-refused-service/
I’m surely not the only one that’s missed this ?
I'm sure not! So I'm giving it a wee plug in this week's GNS.
Yay 😀
Done , not much but as like tesco ….. lol
Thank you muchly off I trot to donate a few quid 😀
Bless ya, Petal! 😘
Great news , especially about Kathleen Stock and Wpath ( I hope it sinks without trace )!! Well done to Kathleen. She deserves it .👍👏 Hope she gets the prize 🙏 Thanks ,JL x