In France, Dora Moutot convicted of transphobia for identifying a TW as male when asked.

Because they're a bunch of **s who won't obey the law?

Why do we have to hold each and every organisation to account one by one though it’s mad

Seems to me the Supreme Court should have the power after a year, and certainly no longer, to have a review to see if a ruling has been implemented, and if not the politicians have to come to Court to explain why they haven't.

Sounds fair to me.

It's very frustrating to see the nonsense being played out.

But that misses the real point.

The Supreme Court made a ruling.

Then the mass media, and politicians(!) then decide to ignore the Surpreme Court.

A judge doesn't make a ruling think this will satisify X or Y group!

It was, is that those who should put this ruling into practice just aren't doing it.

Have there ever been another case where the Supreme Court made a ruling and politicians just shrugged their shoulders and said we dont care, we are going to go on doing what we want.

Seems to me the Supreme Court should have the power after a year, and certainly no longer, to have a review to see if a ruling has been implemented, and if not the politicians have to come to Court to explain why they haven't.

Sorry I forgot to react to the real topic of the thread and express my support for Dora M.
My experience of French society is that it is has clear rules and regulations which have to be adhered to strictly, and they are very back and white, no wriggle room for cultural customs or personal preferences.

When I lived in France, I felt conflicted - I believe in a secular state, but I also think people should be allowed wear what they damn well wanted to wear.

So it surprises me that they've taken to genderwoo so thoroughly. I would have thought that the male/female distinction is as clear as the secular/non-secular.
When women said they wanted to wear a hijab because it was part of their cultural tradition, not necessarily an expression of a religion, they were told ta-ra-ta-ta, it's a religious symbol, we don't allow those in public places, you'll participate in society bareheaded, or you won't participate in society at all.
Full stop. Some places even tried to ban women from wearing swimsuits that covered most of their bodies - a local authority telling women that they are not displaying enough skin to be acceptably secular!

It's odd, therefore, that the same kind of response isn't given to someone who claims to have changed sex - 'Désolé, monsieur, but your papers say you are a man, so....'

The idea of strict record-keeping, and the importance of being able to produce your ID papers, have been embedded in French society for ages.
If the idea of retrospectively changing something on a person's birth cert is shocking to Irish or British people, I can't get my head around how it has become acceptable in France for the precious state records of their citizens to be altered to say they have changed sex.

I'll be following Dora M's appeal with great interest.

I'm gonna say it - one of the very clear benefits of BREXIT is not dealing with this shit and getting further and further away from their madness by the day.

It was Theresa May, Maria Miller and Penny Mordaunt who wanted to bring in gender self id.

It was Liz Truss and later Kemi Badenoch, who stopped it. People make fun of Liz Truss, but we should be grateful to her for knocking gender self id on the head.

The SC ruling only covered the EA2010, leaving the trans lobby able to say 'Ah yes but there nothing to say that any other law that says 'sex' means 'biological sex'.

Justice Swift said it also applied to workplace regs, in a way that suggested that he would also apply sex=biological sex to any other law or regulation, because duh.

It needs to be confirmed somehow that if the highest court in the UK has ruled that sex=biological sex in one piece of legislation, sex=biological sex in all legislation.
It seems so obvious, doesn't it?😒

Given that the clarification was a year ago, and the government and other state bodies are ignoring it, it's beginning to feel like less and less of a victory and I'm starting to come around to KJK's view.
I'm not sure we're any better off than the women in France, not if we have to keep taking recalcitrant state bodies, and others, too court to force them to follow the law.

Yes, though I heard KJK say that the SC ruling was a sop to shut women up on a Spiked podcast.

She's got an article in Unherd

https://archive.ph/eKviC

https://unherd.com/2026/05/how-france-stole-my-freedom/?edition=us

It's long but worth a read. The whole thing is insane but this struck me as an excellent point

Then there was the phrase “people with penises”. The judge suggested that it sounded like a punchline, a provocation. I explained that I was in fact using a term that is deemed by many progressives to be more inclusive than merely “men” (since as we now know, not all men have penises). Indeed, “people with penises” comes from the same <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/eKviC/saskatoonsexualhealth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Guide-to-Inclusive-Language-in-Sex-Ed-2-1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">discursive universe as “people with uteruses”, “people who menstruate”, “sex assigned at birth”, and so on. However, it seems that when linguistic logic is applied in the wrong direction, it suddenly becomes indecent.

She says she's going to appeal.

This is horrendous, she basically said that women have good reason to be wary of people with penises.

I mean, fucking hell.

Merde de taureau

I cant find all the threads but there were a few, women who have spoken up about women's sex based rights have faced real violence.

See https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5170737-trans-activists-attack-feminists-with-fire-in-france

There are other threads from that time.

So not just the establishment - but also antifa politicos.

I think that to put it mildly, patriarchy is entrenched in France.

Reading that Unherd piece reminded me of the very beginning of The Handmaids Tale, when Serena and Fred were just sitting around in cafes, sipping lattes. How easily it all happens; frog-boiling, if you'll forgive the phrase! 😁

Asked a question, then taken to court for telling the truth. If I live to be 100 I will never understand how they are getting away with this.

Ludicrous judgement (IANAL and not familiar with French law so it may be entirely correct in law but it is still ludicrous). I feel so sorry for Dora and just 🤯 that journalists in France are not all rushing to condemn this.

How close the UK came to be in this very situation. I will never forget the feeling of my thoughts being silenced and my words being policed for simply stating true biological facts. Never thought it possible in our land of liberty. It's a scary position to be in where for speaking the truth you risk being prosecuted. And that journalists and media are forbidden from reporting the truth. So thankful here that the Supreme Court saw through it. Thankful to FWS who we are all indebted to.

France, Australia, Ireland, Spain, Canada and others all have that hill to climb. I wish Dora strength in her case and that she will have success in her appeal.

I am saddened that Dora has lost her case and I hope that she can appeal.

I have watched a panel discussion with her and Marguerite where they pointed out that a male caller phoning in to comment was very clearly male and not a female person. They are very clear in their campaign to support female single sex provisions.

It was May. Liz Truss’s opposition to it was one of her few redeeming features.

I agree. I think we are very lucky indeed to have that Supreme Court ruling to back us up.

Thank heavens we had JK Rowling and others (Sex Matters?) to finance the Supreme Court case. It will be the saving of us from this kind of horror show.

Only a few weeks ago Australia found the organiser of a female only online group guilty of discrimination against a trans identified man.