GLP are going after Sarah Philmore and are going to lose

[fromorbit]

Get the popcorn folks. GLP is getting ready to lose again.

They are going after barrister Sarah Phillimore for referring to a man as a man. They think they are going to lawfare her into silence.

Her blog:

Here we are now: Entertain us
I have had now 7 years and counting of the various tactics used to 'silence' those who won't comply with prevailing orthodoxy. How are those tactics holding up?
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/here-we-are-now-entertain-us?

The only thing is other TAs have already tried this on Phillimore multiple times. They went to the Bar Council their claims were dismissed. They all failed. More to the point this ‘Kate’ is the same guy complaining again who already failed. Sarah Phillimore knows the law and likes explaining it to TAs and making them lose. So she doesn't even resent the attempt.

As Sarah has stated "They pick on someone who not only enjoys this but has now a vast repository of knowledge about the law in this area."

Sarah Phillimore

Because I don’t tweet as a public body, an employer or provider of goods or services. I am not subject to the Equality Act. I tweet as a private individual and I will say again. You can’t change sex. A man cannot be a woman. I cannot be compelled to call a man a woman.

A trans identifying man such as ‘Kate’ who frequently takes to the public stage to urge violence against women and declare his intent to enter women’s spaces, is a dangerous man and one who will attract public comment.

Follow the fun on X
https://x.com/SVPhillimore

'off the boards'

I would love to know what that means!

🤣

They threw him in the harbour.

With concrete galoshes on.

Sammybabes swims with the fishes.

Straight to bed with no tea?

Changed the WiFi password

😂😂😃

Apart from the inevitable outliers - there are people who claim that the earth is flat - that is a settled scientific fact.
There is no spectrum, there is no way to swap around from one sex to the others, the biological fact of being male or female is coded into your body, and you remain in the sex you were born into, full stop.

@MarieDeGournay my impression from younger adults is that they do not try to argue that people can actually change sex.

The belief is that gender is as or more important than sex. It rests on the erroneous premise that if someone identifies as the opposite gender and is denied hormones or surgery, or is just denied being treated as the opposite sex, that this will result in a high chance of suicide / suicidal ideation.

And when you’re young and sympathetic, you go along with that threat of suicide. Transgenderism myths have so utterly saturated the internet, schools, healthcare, government messaging - along with living your life online - that it’s a wonder there are any young people at all who see it with clear eyes.

“And when you’re young and sympathetic, you go along with that threat of suicide.”

Yes. It took me a long time to understand the coercion of suicide threats. Decades.

Catching up with the thread… maybe Sammybabes is the fox botherer’s wife? Though that film 😳😱 Cannot believe anyone happy to watch it is of sound mind or body. Bizarre that the FB would post about seeing it.

He is a worrying example of how autistic individuals are so suggestible to strong messaging (indoctrination) at any age and despite having an education that, seemingly, ought to be a guardrail against this happening.

Same. And many more years of letting go of my #bekind gender conditioning and recognising that as another form of oh so subtle coercion.

I agree.

It seems to me that saying 'I know I'm not changing sex, I'm just changing my gender' should be met with a shrug and an 'OK then', not massive legislative and societal upheaval.

Although in everyday language 'sex' and 'gender' often refer to the same thing, legal language is different and should be as precise and unambiguous as possible - the GRAs in both the UK and Ireland are both quite unclear and waffly as to what they mean by 'gender'.

But if we take this as a reasonable definition:

Defined difference between men and women based on culturally and socially constructed mores, politics, and affairs. Time and location give rise to a variety of local definitions. Contrasts to what is defined as the biological sex of a living creature. The Law Dictionary
GENDER

it follows that a trans-gender person can play around with the 'culturally and socially constructed mores' associated with people of their biological sex
[a] without changing, or claiming to change, their biological sex and
[b] without it being a matter for legislation.

A law that says that a man who challenges the 'culturally and socially constructed mores' associated with being biologically male - i.e. gender not sex, - is legally a woman is...
words fail me, maybe it's too early on a Sunday morning and I need another cuppa to understand it.
I think I'm right in saying that the law aspires to clarity, to the avoidance of ambiguity. Life being what it is, there will always be times when absolute clarity is impossible, that's accepted.

But to actually write an ambiguity, i.e. is it 'sex' or is it 'gender', into a legislation seems perverse.

Off to have another or three. Maybe it's because IANAL, but I just can't understand how it made sense to legislators and lawyers to actually introduce a lack of legal clarity by produce something so waffly, ambiguous and socially damaging😠

Did Maugham post about it, or was it someone else's post?

I think that film may be usefully instructive for all the 'protect the vulnerable marginalised dolls' types. So I hope it's widely viewed.

Maybe it's because IANAL, but I just can't understand how it made sense to legislators and lawyers to actually introduce a lack of legal clarity by produce something so waffly, ambiguous and socially damaging.

Soooo much legislation is appallingly-drafted. It's something you discuss at law school, as it's a feature not a bug. God knows who teaches those drafting it how to draft.

but I just can't understand how it made sense to legislators and lawyers to actually introduce a lack of legal clarity by produce something so waffly, ambiguous and socially damaging

Because those poor brave men actually cutting off their bits! Goodness knows why they do it, but for a man to do something so horrific, well it must mean something serious, and it is the natural role of women to be sympathetic. If we just pass the legislation, we won't have to discuss it again.

Is what I imagine they thought.

I can even imagine it all in an episode of Yes Minister.

I had a look at Maugham' Bluesky. He posts A LOT.

And especally got angry about Alice Sullivan.

12 posts in three days, absolutely furious. He doesn't like women speaking.

I got bored before I found posts about the castration film.

This is what we're dealing with. Posted on trans Reddit yesterday, on a thread moaning about the BBC:

Before I transitioned, I'd be happy to say I was biologically male. But your genes only determine which genitals you have, it's then your genitals that produce hormones that determine the growth of the cells of your body, as either male or female. After 15 years of HRT I have fewer male cells in my body than any cis woman who gave birth to a male child. Don't try and tell me I'm biologically male now. It's ridiculous. I transitioned late in life, so if you absolutely must I'd kind of accept skeletally male, except my skeleton is maintained so badly by my female body that I have brittle bones. I'm post op, so I don't even have the genitals that could produce those male hormones. How am I biologically male? What you are, Mister BBC, is biologically ignorant.

Just totally, totally batshit.

🤯

Put down of the year😂

I'd love to hear their explanation of what a "male or female cell" is in the first place. Because the only way a cell can be sexed is according to the chromosomes in its core, and those don't change through the administration of cross-sex hormones... Mind you, maybe they really believe that getting cross-sex hormones can change chromosomes, in which case they are truly beyond help.

Also: what about those of us trans people who take cross-sex hormones but also retain our original sexual organs? Are our cells male or female? Both? Neither? This simple consideration should be enough for them to realise how much nonsense this whole reasoning really is. But then again, they are very very used to handling nonsense, so you know, I suppose a bit more or a bit less doesn't make much difference to them.

my skeleton is maintained so badly by my female body that I have brittle bones

The misogyny is just dripping off this comment.

Just a thought, but maybe your cross sex hormone regime has fucked your bone density?

That TransReddit guy trying to claim that taking HRT* has made him no longer biologically male needs to think about men with prostate cancer who are also taking HRT. Are they no longer men too?

*I know it isnt HRT but cross-sex hormones.

Aren't they misgendering the BBC? I always thought that venerable institution was referred to as 'Auntie/Auntie Beeb'

Congratulations to that Reddit poster - who is now a Eunuch (that has damaged their skeleton with wrong sex hormones) - *goal achieved!

*I am assuming that that was their body-modification goal?

'After 15 years of HRT I have fewer male cells in my body than any cis woman who gave birth to a male child'

😂