Trans Rights: The Conjuring Trick at the Toilet Door - AND left vs Liberalism ID

He uses the word 'liberal' to mean 'identifies as liberal but is really authoritarian', which is a USA framing.

A liberal state seeks to maximise individual freedom whilst protecting common goods and preventing predation of the strong on the weak.

Labour and Conservative are both liberal parties, who disagree on where to draw the lines.

For some reason, Labour voters have decided that transwomen are weak actors who require protection, but women are not (there's a similar distressing reversal in their attitude to the Jews).

Conservative voters are just as likely to be misogynistic (or antisemitic) as Labour voters, and to believe, or not, in magical things. But they really don't like the state interfering by giving a visible minority additional rights.

TLDR – Being GC doesn't mean you have to become a Nazi.

Thanks for that. It was heartening to be reminded that an authentically socialist, material analysis of this crap ideology would pierce straight through to the meretricious garbage at its core.

As a left wing GC person, the article is very affirming. I've said all along that the prioritisation of the demands of a minority of men to do as they please over the greater good of women (and indeed society as a whole when you think of the cost to the public purse its caused) is extreme Liberalism, rather than the 'far left' its branded as.
Its incredibly frustrating that people on the left have embraced TIM as an oppressed group and decided their 'struggle' deserved diverting resources away from the genuinely oppressed.

We all know this is BS. Unless he wants everything to be Unisex he still wants segregation, but on his terms.

Yes, the Let’s Go Back to 2007” thread here is illuminating.

That's a great article. A pleasure to read and perhaps one that might be read (rather than dismissed) by some of our serially disappointing Labour MPs.

The honest version of the argument would require its advocates to say plainly: we want the legal category “woman” to be defined by identity rather than sex, and we want that definition to take precedence over the sex-based protections women currently hold in law. Made plainly, that argument would lose. It would lose because most people, without requiring a Supreme Court judgment to guide them, understand that bodies are not merely opinions about bodies, that the reality of male violence against women is not dissolved by a change of identity, and that half the population did not spend a century fighting for legal protections only to be told those protections were a form of prejudice.

This is why the TRAs' response in the last year has been so incoherent, relying on vague legal challenges to FWS itself, political manoeuvres to stall its implementation, and naked appeals to institutions to break the law by ignoring it, when the logical response would be to lobby for an amendment to the law. They know that doing the latter would reveal what they're really about.

I don't agree that EA2010 was not intended to have the GRA applied to it. It was a mistake, for the reasons set out in FWS, but it was not accidental, as the explanatory note to Schedule 3 Paragraph 28 alone proves. Lord Tebbit pointed out all the potential problems when the GRA itself was debated years earlier - and EA2010 paid lip service to that, but its attempts to provide even a minimal bit of safeguarding were obliterated by TRAs. They overreached.

Brilliant article.

Thank you. What a clear, well-written piece.

Such a good article. thank you.

One part that stood out for me was:

"....[Trans] people’s rights matter. Let that be stated plainly and without any qualification. The right not to be harassed, not to be discriminated against in employment, not to be subjected to violence or cruelty: these rights are absolute and non-negotiable. Protecting them costs women nothing, and any decent society provides them without hesitation.
But rights are not the same thing as demands. And the demand that half the population, fifty-one per cent of the people in this country, surrender sex-based protections won through generations of organised political struggle, is not a rights claim. It is a power claim. It is the assertion that the rights of one in two hundred must take legal and moral precedence over the rights of one in two, and that any woman who objects is not exercising her own right but committing a prejudice."

There was a piece in the Grauniad (where else 🙄 ) by a transwoman bemoaning the 'loss of rights' because of the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC guidance, which just comes across as "s'not fair" whining.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/may/27/trans-people-segregation-parliament-supreme-court-ehrc