A THREAD TO RECORD ALL THE APOLOGIES TO GC WOMEN SINCE THE SUPREME COURT RULING

[MarieDeGournay]

Don't all rush at once!🙄

Hold the front page! A real genuine apology. Mark Smith, Herald.

archive.ph/FN89Q

@Nichebitch Most if not all GC people in the UK are not crowing - as I suspect would have been the case if the judgement had gone the other way - and the rights of this "marginalised group" (albeit one that has been centred by the NHS, Labour, LibDems, Greens, BBC, Guardian, C4News et al) have not changed, simply been spelled out.

Errrrr nope. That’s not the rule I’m afraid.

Perhaps they should have used competent and specialist counsel instead of letting Jolyon Maugham boost his own failure record yet again.

I'm quite emotional reading that. Good to hear about beliefs changing over time as that is how it has been for so many of us. Thanks for posting

Ricky posted a post about the book he read the most as a teen; a biology text book, on the 16th

I always thought that the term marginalised meant a person or group that is being treated insignificantly, pushed to the margins of society and rendered powerless.

I don't understand how the trans community can claim to be marginalised when they have the support of the nation governments, civil service, all public institutions, judiciary, police forces, local government, charities and many many private companies. It's just a nonsense claim - for example they are the only protected group which gets a specific equality policy written by every NHS Trust. Special extra protections. Surely you can only be marginalised without that level of protection? Once you have special protections in place you aren't marginalised any more?

Excellent.

Men may be 49% of the population but I wouldn’t call that marginalised.

they can’t be discriminated against or harassed in law. So marginalised definitely isn’t the word.

There was a fantastic series of podcasts on how stonewall effectively infiltrated and influenced government organisations and other employers with their, decidly wrong, interpretation of the equality act. I do think we need to learn from this and possibly have robust ways of dealing with “misinformation campaigns”. Kudos to those who stood strong but the government should of been standing up years ago to clarify the position.

Ooo, what was the podcast, do you remember? Would like to listen to that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/search?q=nolan+stonewall

I do appreciate the irony of the series coming from the BBC itself a captured organisation but it’s really worth a listen.

I appreciate your irony appreciation.

(also, thank you!)

Also, the BBC was the home of Hannah Barnes while she was doing her research into the Tavistock, so I do understand that sometimes even a captured institution can house uncaptured people.

Absolutely. The depressing fact is that it may need to be highlighted in mainstream media before the Labour government agree to undertake an investigation.

Thank you for the bbc podcast - I look forward to listening to it. I can’t actually believe they did it?!!

Omg. I’ve just listened to the 3minute pre brief. It is all there about Stonewall.

2021- this should definitely be part of the Netflix show.

We all knew this, us TERFS, GR’s. Whatever we’ve been called.

However, here it is about Stonewall published 4 years ago. Simon’s voice wasn’t enough. This wasn’t enough.

Urgh Ruth Hunt gloating about her private briefings with ministers. Tax payers money.

This is a huge scandal of our times. Can it be linked to the failure to address the child rape scandal by grooming gangs?

Probably. Let’s not offend people, misogyny rules. And a whole lot more. The whole thing stinks.

Clearly their application to intervene wasn't good enough. That's on them for not getting decent legal representation (and in their profession you'd think they'd know who'd have been best among their colleagues).

It's quite clear that Stonewall and other trans advocate orgs didn't take this very seriously or they'd have applied to intervene. But they didn't. It's a bit late to complain now.

I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court is or how it works.

I suspect you are similarly underinformed about biology and the nature of objective reality.

Not convinced you understand why the Supreme Court (and indeed the lower courts) accept interventions.

Except the UKSC didn’t this time- not from trans people looking to intervene. Only from Sex Matters, who it is not at all clear had anything to add to the discourse other than repeating FWS.

It's quite clear that Stonewall and other trans advocate orgs didn't take this very seriously or they'd have applied to intervene. But they didn't. It's a bit late to complain now.

It couldn't possibly be that Stonewall and other trans advocate organisations thought they could leave the job to their catspaws/puppets the Scottish Government and Amnesty, could it?

I wouldn't be surprised if they thought they were so right that there was no need to intervene.

They somehow believed that their own made-up law really was law (aka they drank their own kool-aid).

You do have to laugh (bitterly) at trans organisations saying they haven't been listened to. During every stage of the GRR Bill, women's rights organisations and individuals who disagreed with self id were ignored. Reem Asalem (UN) wasn't invited to be involved until the last possible moment.

If you enjoyed that - I did - then do write to them to ask for a follow up episode on the end to update with this week’s ruling? I.e. How can the BBC report without bias on the SC ruling? How will they deal with the inevitable Stonewall enquiries?

I was gripped. Great show and story well told.

No coincidence that it was 2 guys from Northern Ireland to do it - they’ve had to deal with much worse than some shrieking TRAs I’m sure