Naomi Cunningham Legal Feminist blog response to KC on podcast about single-sex spaces/court cases

[singthing]

As per usual, a cracking read by Naomi Cunningham:

A KC somewhat incoherently explains why he thinks SSS are bigoted/illegal/whatever on a third-party podcast.

NC listens to the podcast and in this blog, takes him apart piece by piece.

Get a cup of tea and enjoy the read!

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2026/03/25/podcasting-and-partisanship/

I might say that I cannot wait for Dan Stillitz's thoughtful and professionally considered response to NC's blog but I suspect that I will be drawing my pension before that happens.

NC. Brain the size of a galaxy. The vast star system kind, not the chocolate bar.

Dan Stillitz. Brain the size of the Milky Way. The chocolate bar, not the collection of stars.

A great read as always from Naomi.

Nice one, Riverpaddling, we should team up😁

Excellent - I thing I have a girl crush on her intellect

Not just any old KC either, GLP’s leading KC for their ongoing and so far unsuccessful challenge to the single sex EHRC guidelines following the Supreme Court judgment. Which might tell you something.

It’s a brilliant response. As pp say, I doubt he’ll acknowledge it.

That was enjoyable, thanks for sharing.
NC impressive as ever. Dryly witty and clear as a bell.

Stillitz appears to be arguing a long debunked point. It's akin to him being the Church and Naomi Gallileo.

As we all know, the sun goes round the Earth...

she's just great

So Stillitz is at GLP? I wonder if there is any chance SingleSexSpacesinSchools will instruct NC, then we can all watch while they each present their arguments directly…….🤞

So measured. And clear. Legally and intellectually.

But for the detail that he had uttered the performative words “I am a woman” and thereby gained the Trust’s permission to use the women’s changing room, there was nothing to distinguish him from any other male employee of the Trust.

I don’t think I’ll ever get over how so many men have managed to persuade whole swathes of professionals across the globe that all is required to switch from man to women are those 4 words.

And her analysis of the phrase “visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable” (from a woman) is powerful and thought provoking.

Anyone who imagines that the construction of such a cavity between a man’s legs makes him a woman would appear to equate womanhood with the presence of an accommodating hole into which another man may ejaculate. On that measure, a blow-up doll is a woman. I am not quite sure how to do justice in words to how insulting and morally repugnant I find this proposition.

What do men mean by saying someone is ‘for all practical purposes’ a woman? What practical purpose do we serve? Do enough powerful professional men, consciously or unconsciously, see women as primarily sexual objects to serve men’s needs? Before Epstein I may have argued no, but after seeing those photos from his files, I’m inclined to say yes.

I read that yesterday when NC posted on LinkedIn and thought, bloody hell, she's awesome. She's right though, it is the fact that the podcast claims it is going to set out the law neutrally and objectively, and then does the opposite, which makes it so offensive. I had not realised until this thread that Stillitz was a fav of the GLP, so now it all makes sense.

This Daniel Silitz is touted as being a " thought leader" on his chambers webpage. I wonder what that is supposed to mean, and also in what respects he so highly ( apparently) esteeemed?

It seems he is obviously a partisan actor and a Labour party activist to boot......and his past twitter conduct has caused him considerable trouble.

Both the earth and the sun orbit their common centre of mass ...
but that is located within the sun, so it's good enough to talk about the earth orbiting the sun. The earth causes the sun to wobble slightly.

My pedantry here reminds me strongly of TRAs talking about DSDs as if they threaten the sex binary.

What do men mean by saying someone is ‘for all practical purposes’ a woman? What practical purpose do we serve? Do enough powerful professional men, consciously or unconsciously, see women as primarily sexual objects to serve men’s needs? Before Epstein I may have argued no, but after seeing those photos from his files, I’m inclined to say yes.

Apart from all their skills, intelligence, practicality etc etc, many women serve the practical purposes of gestating and giving birth to babies. So no man is 'for all practical purposes' a woman. Obvious, but this seems not to have occurred to a KC!

She is very clever. But you don't need to be clever to win this debate, because ultimately, we have objective reality on our side. Everyone knows that humans can't change sex, therefore men can't be women or vice versa, and so any argument that starts from the premise that humans can change sex is wrong by definition. They try to win by taking something simple and making it complicated, but it just means that they have to put themselves through ever-greater contortions to make reality fit their insane worldview.

This isn't an original comparison, but it's like when you argue with a flat earther and they have to come up with more and more complicated reasons why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or why we have different time zones or why photographs taken from space clearly show the earth is round. The truth - that the earth is round - offers a simple, logical explanation for all these things, just as the truth that humans can't change sex offers an easy explanation for why we organise society around sex-based categories rather than imaginary gender-based ones.

And the podcast is there for all to access, as is NC's point by point rebuttal, as are the relevant Laws and Judgments.

Anyone can sit with all relevant documented resources and check for themselves what is truthful, correct and (crucially) lawful, and what is not. Nothing is hidden from view.

Unless of course your agenda means "you are determined to find a way around the judgment of the Supreme Court".

Absolutely brilliant article, thanks Sing and ❤️Naomi

But for the detail that he had uttered the performative words “I am a woman”

If I didnt love her already, the (rarely seen) correct usage of "performative" here would have won me over!

NC clarifies matters beautifully, even if I have to concentrate seriously hard. I should imagine lawyers read her arguments after this podcast with the same delight you welcome an astringent drink after something overly rich or sweet.

Cunningham is right to note that the issue hinges on neutrality. It's fundamentally impossible to make the the pro-trans case under anything other than extreme subjectivity because it relies on the trans person in question being something other than their biological sex - a subjective determination. Prime example is the the judge in the Sandy Peggie case who proceeds on the grounds that he felt Upton was a convincing woman. That's not impartiality or objectivity, and it's a primary reason why his ruling ran amok.

It's why eventually this issue will be resolved in court, although it will at immense expense and time - because eventually the subjectivity will have to be stripped away little by little for rulings to stand.

It's also remarkable that Labour, who whose entire political personality under Starmer has been the re-centering of society under the rule of law (after the supposed lawlessness of Johnson) is being shipwrecked by this this topic - it shows them as the ultimate band of skofflaws.

NC is brilliant, her definition of whataboutery is legend.

Given Dan Stillitz's association with GLP, I assume these thoughts of his are destined for ECHR but given the lack of success, I have some (though slight) sympathy with him. He must have thick skin. She is brilliant

From NC's piece, on repeat a lie often enough, remember Denton's ...The lie in question is that some men (those sometimes called “trans women”) are women. It is certainly repeated with great regularity and insistence. My suspicion is that this particular lie has a superpower. Because it consists in a claim that some people are not the sex they are, it becomes impossible to speak of those people without either rejecting or assenting to and reinforcing the lie in the pronouns by which you refer to them. The reason it has been so determinedly made taboo to refer to trans-identifying men by masculine pronouns is that feminine pronouns serve as a compelling method of reinforcing the lie with every utterance about such a person, and of co-opting bystanders (and often even dissenters) into active collusion in their own brainwashing.

Thank you for sharing. Cracking is putting it mildly. Cunningham's dissection is devastating.

Her description of the faux vagina these men have to continue to dilate sums up the misogyny at the root of this debate.

"Anyone who imagines that the construction of such a cavity between a man’s legs makes him a woman would appear to equate womanhood with the presence of an accommodating hole into which another man may ejaculate. On that measure, a blow-up doll is a woman. I am not quite sure how to do justice in words to how insulting and morally repugnant I find this proposition."