All men banned from Labour Women's Conference

[lcakethereforeIam]

Good news

archive.ph/TnEww

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/12/05/labour-ban-trans-women-womens-conference/

Although I wish the article had remembered women with some flavour of trans-identity can still attend.

The lads have been given a good long heads-up. They've got plenty of time to piss in bottles and order the crickets.

I love the cuckoo reference, Professor Lady Doctor😄

I realised that although I know what a cuckoo sounds like, like a lot of people I have no idea what a cuckoo looks like, so I googled it.

I found this photo of a poor, marginalised cuckoo [on the right] experiencing such blatant, hate-fuelled, literal violence from a privileged, worm-hoarding bigot that maybe I should I have put a 'sensitive image' filter on it😏

John Mcdonnell's not happy. Love Cathy Devines response

x.com/cathydevine56/status/1997653658327019743?t=dywUHpJKcH3D2E6bNR_K3Q&s=19

Labour Party Rule Book
Chapter 10: 'All individual members of the Party aged between 14 and 26 years inclusive shall be members of Young Labour.'
John McD: This is truly shocking. How is this to be enforced? Are we going to see 74 year olds dragged from meetings? Etc 🙃

This is truly shocking. How is this to be enforced? Is the Labour Party bureaucracy seriously suggesting that checks will be made on entrances to the conference hall on whether a person is trans? Are we going to see trans women being dragged from the hall?
https://x.com/johnmcdonnellMP/status/1997406371550306523?t=qqXejYXQv1cshbwNVOjjwg&s=19

Respon

John McDonnell must have a very low opinion of TiMs. It's like he thinks they can't be trusted.

The ratio on that John McDonnell post - let alone the quotes - is glorious

She doesn't want to. The Kelly v Leonardo judgement is now a reason for holding matters up still longer. Kelly intends appealing.

Cobblers
an ET is not binding on ANY other court.

The Supreme Court is binding on ALL other courts

An EAT sets precedent - this is where Forstater was so impactful. Although yes, of course, the SC takes precedent over all other decisions.

We know that and Philipson knows that but this knowledge is apparently not having any hastening effect on her completing the process of getting the EHRC guidance issued 🤔🤷‍♀️

I hope they get up to their usual intimidating antics outside the venue so people can see what they're like.

So far, on my bingo card, I've got tras being tras outside the venue. Performative boycotts. Performative denunciation from speakers. Disruption within the venue.

That doesn't mean the government likes what the SC said. However, I have had a thought about this and supporting biological sex means really annoying the phramaceutical firms that peddle the drugs and surgeries 'needed' by TiMs and TiFs - this is perhaps what the government is worried about. Should do it anyway, the costs to the NHS of picking up the pieces far outweighs any narked Big Pharma' revenge - they still have to sell the other medicines they produce.

I would think Philipson would like a version of guidance somewhat like the mess of yesterday's judgment.

It will not however work, as the SCJ demonstrated thoroughly and in small words.

This will be the basic impasse. Even yesterday's judgment had to admit that women's rights can't be ignored any more, and that the SCJ applies (damnit.)