The right side of history strikes again

[Apollo441]

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b52af465-f370-4c6f-9ff2-3d98bd919b33?shareToken=3e662d7ec04e388dd71cf30fb0994a66

I think he fancies himself as the next Gerry Adams tbh.

How would one go about reporting something to Prevent?

https://actearly.uk/contact/

I believe you have to give your own details, though, so just bear that in mind!

I'm not in the UK, so i wonder if i can even do that.
but thanks for the warning. I will think about it.

I just want to make clear, before someone decides to twist it and claim we're all being vindictive, that reporting to Prevent is serious. Personally I think the actions involved warrant it and that the behaviour is dangerous and accelerating. I can just see a load of false reports being done as revenge against the mean old TERFS if Prevent do become involved.

I know no one here would report for any reason other than a serious one but I think it is important to get a statement out there that is clear on motivation.

anyone who grew up in the UK (including NI, especially NI) knows that balaclava look. And it is immediately associated with terrorism.

Coupled with what they did at Brighton and Streeting's office, and the threats and "tips" - Prevent is the right place to record concerns.

They’re talking about the article being fascist propaganda. And that anyway the nasty terfs deserve it because genocide & concentration camps.

Although some of them do seem concerned about the optics.

Exactly.

I was thinking more Paul Gadd...

Come on. Come on.
Do you wanna be in my gang
I'm a leader.

Mumsnet of course is far too benign to have a death pool, unlike some sites users here may be familiar with, but Gadd is a hot pick for points currently

There are several tests - the 2nd one requires the “extremists” to want to

“undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy or democratic rights”

Erm sorry to point out the obvious but surely the following fits the bill way more than stating that no woman has a penis:
a) ignoring a Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of sex
b) threatening and coercing women and homosexuals (in person and via social media) to agree to the removal of their human right to bodily autonomy/privacy/dignity etc
c) forcing everyone to say they believe in a counter factual secular religion
d) ETA mandating medicalisation of gender questioning minors such that they miss out on their human right to natural puberty

Yes! To say nothing of Bash Backs encouragement to target MPs offices. Undemocratic, violent terrorism.

They’ve definitely reported GC people to Prevent before.

They can't see themselves, can they?

The lone voice of sense on there reminds everyone of the Forstater judgement:

'111. Most fundamentally, the Claimant’s belief does not get anywhere near to approaching the kind of belief akin to Nazism or totalitarianism that would warrant the application of Article 17. That is reason enough on its own to find that Grainger V is satisfied. The Claimant’s belief might well be considered offensive and abhorrent to some, but the accepted evidence before the Tribunal was that she believed that it is not “incompatible to recognise that human beings cannot change sex whilst also protecting the human rights of people who identify as transgender”: see para 39.2 of the Judgment. That is not, on any view, a statement of a belief that seeks to destroy the rights of trans persons. It is a belief that might in some circumstances cause offence to trans persons, but the potential for offence cannot be a reason to exclude a belief from protection altogether
....
Where a belief or a major tenet of it appears to be in accordance with the law of the land, then it is all the more jarring that it should be declared as one not worthy of respect in a democratic society.
....
Just as the legal recognition of Civil Partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender “for all purposes” within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the Claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.'

Bolded the key definition there, although 'gc' beliefs are spelled out a little more fully elsewhere.

Since the SC now appears to share roughly those beliefs, it'd be very interesting to see someone try to demonstrate that 'humans come in 2 sexes, you can't change sex, sometimes sex matters' is an 'extremist' belief and not WORIADS.

Also on that thread is a link to a complaint that TACC organisation which has cropped up before (I can’t remember the exact details of who is behind it) has made to the EHRC about Sex Matters.

We’ve submitted a formal complaint to the EHRC asking them to investigate Sex Matters for sustained conduct that appears to amount to harassment and discrimination against trans people. This is about their repeated messaging that frames a protected group as inherently deviant, predatory, or dangerous, while persistently denying their identity.
Sex Matters has an unjustifiable influence across policy, media, and public bodies. If this kind of language and treatment were directed at any other protected group, it would not be tolerated.
We’re asking the EHRC to assess the evidence, apply the law properly, and explain their reasoning either way. Accountability matters.

https://tacc.org.uk/2026/04/02/weve-asked-the-ehrc-to-investigate-sex-matters/

I assume this is laying the ground for some sort of legal challenge against EHRC and/or SM if their complaint isn’t dealt with to their satisfaction.

This is about their repeated messaging that frames a protected group as inherently deviant, predatory, or dangerous, while persistently denying their identity.

Sex Matters doesn't do that, I do, I consider that description to be a very accurate summery of my stand on the matter.

A man getting off on dressing as a women = deviant
Targeting valuable children and young adults with lies = predatory
Threatening anyone who speaks out against this ideology = threatening
GI is a load of made up bollocks = no such thing

Yep it definitely sums up my position on the batshittery.

I saw that earlier on in that particular Subreddit, they mentioned the case of the mod of one other sub being convicted for indecent images. It looks like the users there revile the users on the "MTF" subreddit

Sex Matters has an unjustifiable influence across policy, media, and public bodies.

This is plainly batshit given the prevalence of TRAs active in every position of authority in the police, in government, in the NHS, in private companies...

If this kind of language and treatment were directed at any other protected group, it would not be tolerated.

"not be tolerated" how are they not going to "tolerate" the further existence of Sex Matters. I want to know more details about that... oh wait, they have a manifesto and a poster that details EXACTLY how.

Another one? They do pester.

You only have to look at TACCs glossary of transphobic terms to see how controlling they are. These include using phrases like: biologically male/female, protecting single sex spaces, detransitioners, you can’t change sex etc etc.

A protected group?

It's a protected characteristic. Just like sex.

Therefore, men are a protected group, in the same way that they are portraying. And women, obviously.

Are they really going to say that it's not men who are predatory, who have the paraphilias, who commit the rapes, the murders?

Does the fact that they are deploying a protected characteristic mean that any deviance, predatory behaviour, or threats of violence don't count, for some reason? Because that doesn't work with any other 'protected group'.

It's almost as if they expect to be able to persuade people that having a protected characteristic means you can get away with anything you fucking like.

Haha the subreddit talking about gender critical people being extremists when they do that stuff all the freaking time. It's ok for them to throw tantrums and threaten woman, but god forbid you call them a hurty word.