Break it down for me? 2 - General Break it Down archive thread

SEX REJECTION

This is an interesting attempt to change the language to be more accurate.

https://x.com/v_sivadge/status/2085845959444136332?s=46

the tweet:

“Did you catch the language?

“Sex-Rejecting Procedures” has entered the chat.

“Gender-affirming care” is out.

That didn’t happen by accident. My incredible legal team fought to keep this language in the agreement—and succeeded. I’m told TCH was not thrilled about the change. 🖕🏼

For years, we've surrendered the language and allowed activists to wrap irreversible sex rejecting interventions in cute euphemisms designed to silence questions and disarm criticism.

No more.

Words matter because words shape reality.

And these procedures don't affirm a child's sex.

They reject it.”

The tweet is about the following text:

"Sex-Rejecting Procedures" means any medical, surgical, or pharmaceutical intervention provided to an individual that is intended to suppress, alter, or eliminate endogenous pubertal development, or to modify primary or secondary sex characteristics, for the purpose of aligning with or affirming an individual's asserted gender identity rather than the individual's sex, where such intervention would not otherwise be indicated for a congenital, pathological, or non- mental disorder or disease-related condition. These include, but are not limited to:
**
a Puberty suppression: prescription or administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists or functionally equivalent agents, intended to pause or suppress pubertal progression.
**
b Hormone administration: prescription or administration of estrogen, testosterone, or synthetic analogs, or any other medication which blocks or otherwise inhibits the effects of the body's natural production of sex hormones, in a manner intended to induce physical traits associated with the opposite sex or to suppress traits associated with the individual's sex.
**
c Surgical interventions: any surgical procedure intended to alter, remove, or reconstruct primary or secondary sex characteristics, including but not limited to mastectomy, breast augmentation,
genital reconstruction or modification,
hysterectomy, oophorectomy, orchiectomy, phalloplasty, vaginoplasty, and other surgeries performed primarily to approximate sex-typical appearance.
**
d Voice modification interventions: clinical interventions intended to masculinize or feminize a person's voice to approximate sex-typical vocal characteristics, including but not limited to speech-language therapy when undertaken to alter pitch, resonance, intonation, or speech patterns to align with a gender identity or pharmacological, surgical, or procedural interventions to affect the larynx, vocal cords, or related structures to modify sex-typical voice characteristics.
**
e Other ancillary or preparatory interventions provided in connection with any medica or clinical services described in the above sections (a)-(d).

EA2010 EHCR GUIDANCE HISTORY SUMMARY

by KISHWER FALKNER AND AKUA REINDORF

5th August 2026

https://archive.is/iiXxD

This is a good short summary of the history of the guidance and how we got here

“The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) revised statutory code of practice for services, which is effective on Wednesday, is 342 pages long, but only a small part of it has received public attention: the section explaining how to implement the 2025 decision of the Supreme Court in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.

The judgment did not change the law. It just clarified that in the Equality Act 2010 the words “woman”, “man” and “sex” refer to biological sex. On that point, the 2011 version of the code was wrong. It said that transgender people should generally be permitted to self-identify into single-sex services for the opposite sex.

It had been known that the old code was wrong since 2022, when another case established that “self-ID” is not the law. That is when hospitals should have stopped making female nurses share changing rooms with male colleagues who identify as women. It is when male prisoners who discovered a transgender identity between the courtroom and the prison cell should no longer have been placed into women’s jails. Female-only rape crisis centres should have refused entry to men who said they were women. And shops, leisure centres and pubs should have taken down the signs telling customers to use whichever toilets they felt comfortable with.

But those things did not stop. The law was widely ignored until the Supreme Court judgment hit the headlines. Legally, that judgment was about a minor issue: whether the 9,000 transgender people who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs) should be treated as their biological sex under the Equality Act, in the same way as transgender people who do not hold GRCs. The court decided that they should.

Stonewall quickly announced that the judgment was “not law” until the revised code took effect. That was irrefutably wrong, but it took hold. From the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinates policy for central government departments, to the Scottish parliament and government, to NHS bodies, police forces, local authorities and private sector businesses, organisations which were still operating on a self-ID model carried on, repeating the mantra that they were “waiting for the EHRC guidance”. So too did employers and unions, even though the code does not cover the law applicable to workplaces. “

And it continues on ..

“The code is finally coming into effect today. It feels like a victory for those of us who devoted months of anxious scrutiny to its creation.

But in reality it changes nothing. The law was already the law, and it will continue to be the law. It will still be disregarded by those who oppose it, especially if encouraged by continued government apathy about women’s rights to privacy, dignity and safety. And it will remain unenforced by the EHRC, which simply cannot take up the cudgels on its meagre funding.

It is not a historic day for women’s rights. But the code is at least a tool in the armoury of those women and grass-roots groups who will have to carry on fighting this uniquely ferocious war. We salute them.”

It is like a MN FWR thread in a video.

thanks Teawithliberty.

x.com/teawithliberty/status/2080686524773937169?s=46

NAOMI CUNNINGHAM ON PRONOUNS AND WHY SHE NO LONGER USES INCORRECT SEX PRONOUNS

This thread, by the way, was in answer to beccajiggens posting:

"Deliberately misgendering trans people in such aggressive ways is conduct unbecoming of a barrister. Again.
@ barstandards"

(my edit to remove auto formatting, but the barstandards was a tag on twitter, intended to bring Naomi's post to the attention of the regulation board)

Naomi's answer:

https://x.com/LoudBonnet/status/2079302831215902930?s=20

" Because I am a dissenter from gender ideology, the pronouns I use are almost invariably determined by the sex, not the gender identity, of the person I am referring to.

I understand that some people think my choice in this is unkind, or rude. I might have thought that myself a few years ago.

I no longer think that, for a number of reasons.

The first is that courtesy is freely given. A "courtesy" demanded with menaces loses its quality as such, and becomes a gesture of submission to bullies.

The second is about truth. If I say "she" of a man, I am implying that he is female. Men aren't female, so I am saying something untrue.

We all tell polite lies sometimes when it doesn't matter much. I think back when I was willing to tell this one, I thought it didn't matter much.

I know better now. What I know now is that many of the men who want to be referred to by feminine pronouns also want everyone to be forced to treat them for all purposes as if they were women, to the detriment of actual women's privacy, dignity and safety.

I think it matters a lot that we should be able to say "no" to those men, and to explain in plain words why we say no (because they are men).

The third is about clarity. Even if everyone knows in theory that the man we're all referring to as "she" is a man really, referring to him as "she" is confusing.

Clarity is fundamental to my job as an advocate: I need to be able to put my arguments as clearly and vividly as possible.

The fourth and perhaps the most important is about what's known to propagandists, advertisers and psychologists as the "repetition effect." People will believe almost any lie, however obviously untrue, if you repeat it often enough.

Lies don't get much more obviously untrue than "trans women are women."

It is repeated like a mantra by trans activists and those who see themselves (or want to be seen) as "allies."

But this lie has a superpower. The superpower is pronouns.

The near-universal compliance with "preferred pronouns," even by many of those who dissent in other ways from gender ideology, means that the lie is repeated with almost every utterance about a man who says he is a woman (or a woman who says she is a man).

And it's repeated not as an assertion, but insidiously, subliminally, by the use of little grammar-words that are normally handled on autopilot and barely registered by either speaker or listener.

It's brilliant propaganda. It's especially brilliant that so many dissenters have been induced to reinforce the lie in this way.

I'm not prepared to.

end/ "

Thank you, Naomi. This is succinctly worded yet detailed.

ANOTHER ANALYSIS OF HOW DIFFERENT EMOTIONALLY MANIPULATIVE ARGUMENTS WORK.

Another video that analyses the arguments used that we so often see. Often they are in the same post or in subsequent posts.

x.com/hothingsgirlsay/status/2051375505362784316?s=46

“This is a masterclass in persuasion layering:

– Presuppositions disguised as questions
– Emotional stacking (past harm → present threat → urgency)
– Moral framing that makes disagreement feel unethical
– And a critical factor bypass at the end

“Even if you don’t understand…”

That line removes the need for thinking and replaces it with alignment.

That’s not accidental. That’s design.”

It covers things like the emotional manipulation we see.

The ‘if you don’t understand our identities, that is ok, you just need to support us any way you can’.

This speech she is analysing even uses moral arguments to support groups and people financially through ‘giving back’ or making purchase choices. And it is an interesting one because it uses the sacrifice argument we sometimes see. The ‘it is hard to make ethical decisions about supporting this group but it is worth it’.

The swerve that ‘well-informed people need to see us as people, not as political ideologue or ideological’ was a great to see this male speaker try to us.

He then swivels into the historic reference. The false leverage of historical groups opressed for being same sex attracted that actually have nothing to do with transgender identities. And then ties it to this ‘new wave of trans hate that seeks to erase’ trans people.

The next segment tries to then use the ‘you know us’ plea which reassures people that people with transgender identities are in everyone’s lives in an attempt to reassure people. MJ Murphy points this out as Proximity anchoring as a part of the emotional manipulation. Well, this one we know and what is strange is the number of times though, that activist posters accuse us of not knowing any trans people. It seems to always be an exaggeration - they are everywhere and never cause any concern or we have never met them.

I think she raises some good points here.

The most significant point though was the call to ‘bypass critical thinking’. That bit about ‘if you don’t understand us, that is ok, just support us’.

Just a reminder of this resource of the list of male criminals in female prison. In the USA.

notourcrimes.info/prison-data.html

This sums up some of the dynamics that we regularly point out on FWR

https://x.com/hothingsgirlsay/status/2049144814344474760?s=46

This comment is a masterclass in linguistic persuasion tactics disguised as common sense.

First comes the decoy analogy: “A man can’t be a frog.” That sounds clever, but it distracts from the real issue. Nobody claims humans can become another species. The comparison is there to make the listener feel the speaker has already won before the real discussion even starts.

Then comes frame control. They shift the conversation away from sex and into gender, because sex is concrete, measurable, and biologically relevant, while gender is often defined in vague, flexible, self-referential ways. When you can move the debate onto softer ground, you gain rhetorical advantage.

Next is semantic drift. They use the word woman after redefining it. Historically, woman referred to the female sex class. Now the term is quietly swapped to mean identity, while still borrowing the emotional, political, and legal significance attached to the original meaning.

That leads to borrowed moral capital. Women have faced oppression, exclusion, reproductive control, violence, legal inequality, and systemic barriers across cultures for thousands of years because they were female. That history belongs to the female sex class. If you redefine woman while keeping all that historical weight attached, you are inheriting a struggle built on sex while denying sex matters.

Then we get presupposition. “Sex is different than gender” is presented as settled fact rather than a contested framework. Saying something confidently does not make it universally agreed upon.

Then comes category collapse. Gender roles, stereotypes, clothing norms, and personality traits are mixed together with the category woman itself. But rejecting stereotypes does not change your sex. A woman who hates dresses is still a woman. A man who loves makeup is still a man.

Then there is false consensus language. Statements like “No trans person is saying…” attempt to speak for an entire population and close off examples that contradict the claim.

Then social proof through vagueness. “Gender has changed throughout history” sounds deep, but usually refers to changing expectations and norms, not literal changes in who is male or female.

The clean distinction is simple:

Gender roles can change.
Fashion norms can change.
Personality expression can change.
Stereotypes can change.

But women were historically oppressed on the basis of sex, not identity.

Words matter because categories matter. If language becomes infinitely flexible, protections, data, fairness, and reality become infinitely negotiable.

THE ULTIMATE NEOLIBERAL INDIVIDUALISM OF GENDER IDENTITY EXPLAINED BY DR EMMA HILTON

A comeback on the inclusion of transwomen strengthens feminism myth and right wing vs left wing debate.

In answer to this tweet:

Gender identity isn’t “neoliberal individualism”—trans people face real, material discrimination in healthcare, work and safety. You can defend class politics and trans rights at the same time. Inclusion strengthens feminism and the left, it doesn’t weaken it.

https://x.com/mozzer39/status/2045946294678564979?s=46

Dr Emma Hilton wrote this.

https://x.com/fondofbeetles/status/2045968169479639046?s=46

”Of course it is. It’s the ultimate neoliberal individualism. It’s literally identity supremacy ahead of class politics. And I - as a lifelong leftie - have no idea how you’ve failed to realise you are so far from the left, it’s almost hilarious.”

“ You can’t defend class politics while also allowing people to pretend a given class doesn’t exist as a politically relevant group.

You are defending individualist claims of oppression while ignoring what that means for class politics”

“ Women are a class of people who are politically relevant. I assume you broadly agree with that, at least on paper.

Now think. Really think. About what it means to say that the oppressor class - men - can just say that they are women, and therefore women as a politically relevant class are now women plus their oppressors who say they are women.

Think. Think about what this really means in your pseudo-leftie-but-more-rightie brain.”

“ Because when your sympathies are with the oppressors who are literally breaking a class of people I assume you think are politically relevant, you are nowhere near class analysis.”

In fact, you sound pretty right wing.”

EXTRACTS FROM THE BSB LETTER RE: GLP AND WEDDELL COMPLAINT ABOUT SARAH PHILLIMORE

https://x.com/svphillimore/status/2037522867626062198?s=46&t=ZXbLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

PRONOUNS

Reference to SW's gender by use of pronouns, and/or or by saying SW is a man We have considered the posts identified in the report, and the wider context in which they were made. There are a number of events referenced above, but in particular:

03 July 2024 SW publishes the BSB's decision on her report,
10 January 2025 SW posts her definition of a 'TERF',
17 April 2025 SW posts that no one will ever stop her using female spaces, 19 April 2025 the Dundee rally where SW shouts comments about 'TERFs', JK Rowling, and use of single sex spaces,
2 May 2025 BSB decision on review, and on the same day SW posts about the right to use female toilets,
31 May 2025 a radio discussion on the Supreme Court Women for Scotland case.

We do not consider SP's posts to cross the threshold for investigation. SP has the right to manifest her gender critical beliefs. In the context of the legal and political landscape, of the tension between SW's trans status and SP's beliefs, of SW's own actions over the relevant period and before, we do not consider SP's references to SW's gender, by use of pronouns or by saying SW is a man, is either seriously offensive or otherwise a potential breach of CD5 by being harassing, bullying, victimising or discriminating. Whilst we note the volume of times that this occurred over this period, this was a particularly turbulent time for trans people and for people holding gender critical beliefs, and both SW and SP frequently use the public arena to express their views.

DEADNAMING

Deadnaming SW As with the misgendering issue, we have considered the posts identified in the report, and the wider context in which they were made. SW's online profiles say that she is transgender. SW has been a musician for some time, and was previously known as Euan Weddell (EW), posting music videos and being interviewed in that name. A simple search online reveals this media content; any curious person could discover SW's previous identity, and deadnaming by SP does not have a significant impact in the public's knowledge of SW's history. An example is a piece published online by Wings over Scotland on 30 May 2024, which references SW's previous name.

The deadnaming incidents reported all show a context in which there is discussion about SW's rights as a trans woman. The January 2025 thread is a discussion about SW's published report to the BSB and SP's use of speech marks in reference to pronouns, the April 2025 discussion is about SW's expression of her right to use female only spaces. Another reference in April 2025 refers to the anniversary of SW's complaint to the BSB.

These references by SP are made in discussions relevant to her beliefs. Deadnaming may be unpleasant for SW, and there may be circumstances where it is used in a way which would cross the threshold for investigation because, taking account of the context, it would diminish trust and confidence in SP or in the profession. However, we do not consider the threshold to have been crossed here.

HARASSMENT

Harassment (other than for issues above) The post on 14 March 2024 was considered by the BSB as part of SW's earlier report and was not accepted for investigation. The posts on 03 July 2024, 27 January 2025 and 20 February 2025 are part of discussions prompted by SW publishing the BSB's decision; we do not consider these to be harassment. The BSB does not consider the post on 28 May 2025 to be harassing. The post on 05 January 2025 compares SW to a photo of Eddie Izzard, a trans comedian. SW frequently posts selfies online and has a strong online presence. There is no evidence to show why the comparison made by SP is harassing.

The thread on 31 March 2025 starts with SW referencing her genital surgery. SP's post in response briefly describes what this will entail and links it to SP's belief about the use of single sex spaces, commenting on SW's use of toilets for the purpose of her post-operative care. SP's response is a manifestation of her belief; the reference to the post-operative care is personal and potentially offensive, but we do consider the comment be part of SP's manifestation of her belief, and we do not consider the comment is such as to cross the threshold for investigation on the basis that it is seriously offensive or otherwise harassing such as to diminish trust and confidence in SP or in the profession. Notwithstanding this, even if it could be said that the post was objectively seriously offensive, taking account of the context of the wider discourse, the BSB does not consider the single reference to the post operative care to pose sufficient risk for it to be proportionate to investigate.

A MALE TELLING CONGRESS THAT WOMEN NEED TO GET OVER SEEING WOMEN WITH PENISES

And then goes on to make the false comparisons with racism

x.com/salltweets/status/2036986604695544014?s=46

CANADIAN PAROLE BOARD USE FEMALE RISK ASSESSMENT FOR MALE PEOPLE

The Parole Board of Canada uses risk assessment tools that are based on male and female re-offence rates for their decision making.

This is corrupted when a man claims a woman identity. The PBC currently considers such men to be "female" and assesses risk based on a lie.

https://x.com/womenarerealcan/status/2033672852273037571?s=46

For example, Patrick "Tara" Pearsall was assessed as a female with a CRI score of 15. His risk for re-offence was determined to be 16%, but should have been 22%.

The PBC did this despite otherwise noting that genital surgery wouldn't reduce his risk for sexual recidivism.

https://x.com/womenarerealcan/status/2033672855573901607?s=46

A reminder of how long these discussions have been happening.

This letter from Angela Douglas back in 1977 is something to remember.

(The tweet linking it also has an article from Germaine Greer which is also a very good reminder.)

https://x.com/hennieinglis/status/2031067162975117536?s=46

Dear Sister,

In regards to the Sandy Stone controversy: genetic women- Gennys-have never had to suffer the discrimination, self-hatred or fear that a transsexual must endure and survive in their lives. Genetic women are not ridiculed as severely, killed, tortured and arrested simply because they are
transsexual, as are transsexuals. Genetic women have many rights, in comparison to transsexuals, who have
none.

Genetic women cannot possess the very special courage, brilliance, sensitivity and compassion-and overview-that derives from the transsexual experience. Free from the chains of menstruation and child- bearing. transsexual women are obviously far superior to Gennys in
many ways.

As some of you have discovered. because of the severity of the genocidal attitudes we must deal with all of our lives, many transsexuals have learned how to fight without giving any quarter or showing any mercy.

Genetic women are becoming quite obsolete, which is obvious, and the
future belongs to transsexual women. We know this, and perhaps some of you
suspect it. All you have left is your “ability" to bear children, and in a world which will groan to feed 6 billion by the year 2000, that's a negative asset.

Transsexual and veryproud,
Angela Douglas
Berkeley
Reprinted from Sister August-September, 1977

Here is a tweet that links to a clip from an early UK TV show with men discussing how they are women .

https://x.com/Jonnywsbell/status/2030798915423887413?s=20

"1973: Transsexuals smugly declare: "we chose to be women, transsexualism is the tip of the iceberg, sex is fluid, and birth certs must change"..
2026: They played the long game and won, biology is erased, dissent is crushed and women's rights are gutted...mission accomplished..."

A self published video from Alexandra Billings here.
https://x.com/gaynotqueer1/status/2032811484271817092?s=46

I am stashing this here because I think it is good to keep records of just why female people want female single sex provisions.

This male person Amy Sousa is responding to is a great example of the reaction that we should not have to face at anytime we are asking for single sex provisions. This male celebrity’s video is menacing in nature. It really is chilling.

https://x.com/knownheretic/status/2032639781658833142?s=46

Rachel Baxendale wrote to all Australian states and the Federal Service to get numbers on how many Australian children received Puberty Blockers.

Here is some of the article:

"Six of Australia's eight states and territories have refused to release any data on the number of children prescribed puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, maintaining a veil of secrecy that prevents proper oversight of the highly controversial.

Experts warn the lack of information wouldn't be countenanced for "any other medical condition", and is allowing claims of good outcomes to go 'completely unchecked', with little monitoring of the long-term impacts of medicalised gender therapy.

As The Australian revealed last month, documents obtained under Freedom of Information reveal the Therapeutic Goods Administration - Australia's medical safety regulator - is unable to assess the risk-benefit profile of puberty blockers as it does for other medicines.

This is both because public gender clinics and the health departments and governments that fund them have chosen not to collate official data about their use, and because the drugs are used "off label" in the treatment of gender dysphoria, meaning they have not been tested for eflicacy or safety when used from this purpose.

Ironically this means that while there is sufficient regulatory oversight when the same drugsare used to treat conditions such as prostate cancer and precocious puberty, no such oversight exists of their use to treat gender dysphoria in children."

Some editorial to go with the article too:

https://archive.is/7w96B

Sorry the editorial it is cut off on archive.