Baroness Nicholson on twitter

[Winesalot]

I have been lurking on twitter lately and noticed Baroness Nicholson has been very active recently. Amongst her tweets are quite a few gems - letters to Liz Truss, tweets asking for evidence about Stonewall’s involvement CPS guidance just to name two.

This tweet I found very encouraging too.

It is imperative to restore the rights of women.I foresee a single issue, cluster approach;we make a new Women’s Rights movement lasting one year,solely to rescue womanhood from its destruction through today’s legal and social denial of our existence.Emma,BNoW

She has today written to Liz Truss again but this time with her concerns about the gross misinterpretation of the ECHR in the trans toolkits used in schools and recommends that such toolkits are removed from use now. Such support is great news.

twitter.com/baroness_nichol/status/1256326753850556418?s=21

I will try to post the letter for those not on twitter.

I look forward to seeing what what happens next.

Copy of her letter to Liz Truss today.

Excellent. It's great that she is calling out these repeated false claims about legislation.
Adult groups repeatedly trying to place children in conflict with their parents need shutting down - not being funded and fawned over by the government and other agencies.

Her thread is really fascinating at the moment. Her interest in what has been happening has been ‘piqued’ .😀

It is interesting that she talks about “toolkits”; in plural.
It sounds like she is gunning for all of them.

Hopefully she is someone who will be listened to.

I predict that her interest will ignite in a spectacular conflagration from the reaction she'll get.

She is answering many tweets. People are tweeting her lots of information (she is interested in reading Dr Em’s uncommonmedia series). She is encouraging people to do things like follow up information requests and ask the difficult questions they have put off. She is pointing out the conflicts of interest in inviting in such a strong lobby group without a balancing view.

I am so hopeful that her clear letters, the GEO logo having to be removed and Liz Truss’ announcement might start to dismantle the hold stonewall has gained. It has to be damaging to their reputation to say in the least. What borough, government department or education provider is going to trust them near their guidelines again?

She's on a roll. And it certainly looks as if Liz Truss is listening AND acting decisively. It's cheering stuff at last...

The green crayon brigade (or whatever the current equivalent is) is out on twitter, so MPs will be getting tear-sodden missives of woe no doubt.

I predict that her interest will ignite in a spectacular conflagration from the reaction she'll get.

She’s moving the Overton window with her utterly clear, objective statements.

Was/is she a lawyer? Her letters seem to suggest so.

She is fuckinfv awesome

I like her ‘call to arms’ to restore rights. I thought it might a take longer than a year though

If I were on twitter, I’d also point her to demand answers as to why the Olympic committee is dilly dallying over male bodied people competing against women.

I could be wrong, but I thought she wrote to the minister about Rory Stewart’s claim recently?

Was/is she a lawyer? Her letters seem to suggest so.

She was an MP for many years Aesopfable, and then an MEP. I have always liked her but until this I had assumed she had retired or was certainly less active politically.

Her interest in what has been happening has been ‘piqued’ .😀

She’s been aware of these issues for some time. She hosted a WPUK meeting in the House of Lords in 2018 and then facilitated a submission to the GRA consultation from a group of academics opposed to self-ID.

She also spoke in the Lords (the Lucas debate) about single sex wards in the NHS etc. She isn’t new to the debate by any means but like many of us she has realised exactly how far the tentacles of this ideology have spread and has said ‘enough, this must stop’.

She has access most of us could only dream of, and I think some civil servants are feeling quite relieved that she is unable to corner them in their offices just now.

She has also said she believes ‘full surgery and hormone treatment’ should give some men the status of some sort of honorary womanhood (not her exact words but I can’t see Twitter at the moment) so she isn’t perhaps quite all the way there, but as many people politely pointed out to her, many women were at a similar stage once but quickly realised it was ‘problematic’ and gave themselves a talking to .

many women were at a similar stage once but quickly realised it was ‘problematic’ and gave themselves a talking to

And here we are now!

Emma Nicholson was a computer systems analyst before becoming a Conservative MP. She defected to the Libs. She is deaf.

She has a really impressive record on human rights, knows her way around the process of legislation and is absolutely dogged when pursuing a subject. Excellent that she has become involved.

@DickKerrLadies and @MrsSnippyPants I'm quite new to all this (but very enthusiastic!) Could you explain to me why the 'honorary womanhood' isn't a good idea?
I agree full woman is a ridiculous notion 'adult female' is a woman full stop in my eyes...

Hi Forgiven

Personally, I don't like the idea that if a male is not deemed sufficiently manly enough by society that we're perfectly happy to put him into the category 'woman', as if women are just non-men. Men have been calling each other girls as insults for generations - run/jump/cry like a girl.

Also, I do not understand what it means to identify as a woman. The only times I have ever felt 'like a woman' in anyway have involved actual biological functions such as pregnancy and breastfeeding. I don't see how any male can become an 'honorary woman' in that way.

Forgivenandsetfree (nice username) 'Honorary womanhood' is a bad idea IMO because:

It's sexist. Performing sexist stereotypes does not make a man a woman. It's perfectly fine to be a feminine man.

Blurs boundaries, slippery slope

Womanhood' isn't ours to give away. Some women will never consent to males in female spaces. Their 'no' is a deal-breaker

I totally love Baroness N. She is very much invested in the breeching of women's hard-won sex-based rights. She invited women to come and speak to her in the HoL last year about the importance of single-sex wards when Stonewall effectively rewrote NHS guidelines and started "retraining" local heath authorities.

Baroness N has now seen with her own eyes how the law is being misrepresented and she is determined to reassert the ACTUAL LAW. In her endeavours, she is now beginning to realise just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Personally I find it very hard to understand how the likes of Stonewall and Mermaids have not been shut down by the Charity Commission.

The activities of both these charities - and others - is in direct contradiction of Charity Commission rules. Specifically, from their website...

Complain to the Charity Commission if a charity is, for example:
harming people
involved in illegal activity

Stonewall, Mermaids et al are directly involved in harming children and deliberately misrepresenting the law.

forms.charitycommission.gov.uk/raising-concerns/

Blurs boundaries, slippery slope

This. The huge problem with the argument that some men should be legally counted as women, based on how much how much effort they’ve gone to, has been clearly demonstrated in recent years.

The ability to legally change sex was granted officially to alleviate problems relating to other restrictions, such as same-sex marriage and sex differences in retirement ages. Those have since been removed.

I suspect that many women refrained from objecting, largely out of sympathy for a group who claimed deep levels of suffering.

But this sympathetic understanding has been continually abused in recent years. It has allowed activists to argue that women have had male bodies in their spaces for years without problems or objections. It has allowed activists to argue that some men are already women, so stopping other men from being women is a removal of rights.

So when we are faced with people in a privileged position (having the legal right to change sex is not a human right, it’s a special dispensation) who have allowed their privilege to be used over and over as a wedge, the answer has to be to remove that privilege.

There are a few transexuals who have objected to the extremists agenda, but equally there are those such as Burns, Whittle and Morton, who have been central to the campaign to remove women’s rights.

The GRA should be repealed (with a grandfather clause for those who have already made legal changes). Creating the legal fiction that anyone can change sex is not an appropriate response. Trans people should be protected from discrimination, but we cannot do that by continuing with the pretence that anyone can change sex as we have seen the very clear signs of where blurring that line leads.

But the inevitable highly emotive hyperbolic stories of woe that are always used by the lobby to try and sway people are still based on exactly what BN is pointing out :

That an extreme creative re interpretation, extreme stretching and manipulation of the text and the facts for the lobby's personal benefit is not in keeping with the original purpose of the law, the intention of the law and the shared meaning of the law. The lobby's case is they believe this is ok when it comes to trans people, and any boundaries or refusals = 'hate' (a useful word, again through exploitation and extreme stretching of the law, enabled by useful idiots.) The end always justifies the means.

That feelings (of some people, and only those people) are purported as what matters: not facts, nor the necessity for law and policy and language to be one common shared meaning that every citizen can know. Those people should be entitled at all times to the utmost consideration and value. The feelings of people not belonging to this group however should be entitled to less consideration and value than is the minimum under current law, and the impact upon them of actions to protect the feelings of the other group should not be considered or even mentioned. That is also 'hate'. As is thwarting any feelings-based wish or attempt to repurpose or redefine law to personal benefit. Facts and other people's rights and best or even equal interests are not ever acceptable reasons to challenge feelings of this group. This exception bias and desire for supremacy is always inbuilt into everything, and always without exception ends in the rights of those born biologically male being superior and dominant to the rights of those born female. Always.

This creates a hierarchy of law and practice, a hierarchy of importance of people, placing some at the top in a highly privileged place while others are relegated to a status below that of current law. In almost all cases, the privileged group turn out to be primarily or wholly those born male, and the relegated humans those born female. This is openly explained by the whole 'privilege' narrative. It is incompatible with all the laws, national, EU and international, that treat each citizen the same, and recognises the particular needs of those born female due to sex based oppression.