Cathy Larkman 💚🤍 💜🦢🏃‍♀️

Proud to stand with all these brilliant women, and all the women who will not be silenced. #InternationalWomensDay2024 #IWD2024 @HeatherB_WRN @MForstater @HJoyceGender @RosieDuffield1 @SonyaDouglas @K_IngalaSmith @EmmaBatemanGPW Sally @WDI_Scotland dailymail.co.uk/femail/article…

@PlaidExposed Bear in mind that the @FAWales STILL permit in the women’s game though.

The now-Deputy First Minister, Sioned Williams, and the present Culture Secretary, Heledd Fychan, wrote to the WRU in 2022 to express their opposition to the banning of men from women’s sports and changing rooms. They’re gender extremists.

@history99917180 @Debbbooo Very clear. Most sensible. Agreed 100%

If you think this is a woman, you’re a fucking idiot. If you tell me to ignore reality and my own integrity and demand I call him a woman, you’re a fucking idiot. If you try and defend this bloke and call him a woman, you’re a fucking idiot. Hope I’ve made myself clear.

Bestselling authors Helen Joyce and Kathleen Stock have afaik never been invited to the @hayfestival, but every year the ‘we have no idea what a woman is’ crowd is everywhere. Luxury beliefs fit with the demographic I suppose.‘Woodstock of the mind’, my arse.

Poor lad. Just 18 yrs old. The person shouting the loudest at an incident isn’t necessarily the victim. This applies even if ‘racism’ is mentioned. As tragically has been found out here, too late. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

@jamesmurray_ldn @RachelReevesMP @wesstreeting Congratulations. Have you worked out what a woman is yet though? Very important in the health and social care field.

Deeply honoured to be appointed by the Prime Minister as Health & Social Care Secretary. Huge thanks to @RachelReevesMP for my time as part of her fantastic team. Can't wait to get started and continue @wesstreeting's brilliant work on such a critical mission for our country.

So actually do SOMETHING about your terrible, anti-women laws @SenatorCash. Legislators in Australia betrayed women and girls. Legislators must now clear up their own mess. #IStandWithSallGrover

@ClownfishReady @RosieDuffield1 x.com/wommando/statu… Here we go again.

@RosieDuffield1 Do you know if he's GC? I can't find anything. I liked Wes for (most of) his stance on trans. Clearly the PB trial came too close to happening for comfort.

Dear God. Apparently the 9th Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in 9 years (one of them did it twice) is that Starmer Treasury guy James Murray 🤦🏼‍♀️ Awesome.

@carrielbjohnson Thank you Carrie - it's clear that your voice made a real difference. Outstanding courage and tenacity from all of you 👏

It has been a hugely anxious wait knowing that Worboys was up for parole again. The relief I feel knowing that he will remain behind bars is hard to put into words. Women and girls across Britain are safer as a result of this decision.

We have written today to Gavin Stephens, the Chair of the National Police Chiefs Council @PoliceChiefs, expressing our concerns about their Pagan Police Association. Official police networks should not be misrepresenting the law, and must maintain professional behaviour. 1/

@LakeTania @IndyLassie @ClaireLoneragan @PoliceChiefs You aren’t

@JackMerched @IndyLassie @ClaireLoneragan @PoliceChiefs Am I the only one that thinks this looks like a dick?

An astonishing blog by @ClaireLoneragan 👇 Why is a police network publishing misinformation on the Supreme Court judgment? And why does a serving officer think a ‘trans hammer’ is needed to ‘smash bigots’? And why are @PoliceChiefs allowing this? womensrights.network/post/the-myste…

Having now read the judgment in full, I suspect some institutions may find their current policy positions considerably more unsettling than they presently appreciate – not least because of the financial exposure they may have unwittingly created for themselves. This is not merely because the Tribunal found malicious intent. It did not. Quite the opposite. The judgment accepts that the employer’s aims were likely motivated by inclusion, dignity, and a belief that they were acting lawfully. But the Tribunal draws a sharp distinction between intent and effect. In essence: your aims may be considered noble by some, but good intentions do not absolve liability. Nor do they remove the obligation to consider the rights of all, rather than simply the group currently most institutionally fashionable. The Tribunal effectively says: you may genuinely believe your policy is compassionate and progressive. You may have relied upon external guidance. You may have acted without animus. But if the practical operation of that policy creates a hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for another protected group, benevolent intent does not rescue it. Saying stonewall told me I had to is not a magic shield. Indeed, one passages states: “reliance on contemporaneous guidance or good practice advice cannot justify an incorrect interpretation of the law. Employers must seek their own legal advice and ensure that they are applying the law correctly.” That paragraph alone should cause many organisations to pause, think, and potentially re-evaluate their position. For years, institutions have increasingly treated external guidance, internal social consensus, and reputational anxiety as though they were substitutes for statutory interpretation. The judgment also rejects the increasingly fashionable institutional proposition that objections themselves are inherently irrational, malicious, or fringe. The claimant was found not to be “hypersensitive” for her objection. Nor did the Tribunal treat the claimant’s policy disagreement as evidence of hatred. In addition, the tribunal also addressed enforcement of legally compliant policies: “We accept that it would not be possible for the respondent to guarantee that the single-sex toilets would only be accessed by women. However, this does not mean that the respondent could not take reasonable steps to ensure that such a policy was complied with by its employees and visitors, for example by making it a disciplinary offence to breach any employee policy or by requiring visitors to comply with appropriate policies.” For years, many organisations have behaved as though imperfect enforceability extinguishes the legitimacy of single-sex provision altogether, and therefore absolves them of obligations towards the women who work for them. The Tribunal rejected that proposition. And perhaps most significantly of all, the judgment expressly states: “there is no express legal right for a transgender person to use the single-sex facilities of their gender identity under the Act or under the Workplace Regulations.” That is a profoundly important conclusion because it directly challenges the common institutional assumption that identity-based access was a settled legal entitlement. It never was. This was established in FWS, yet the myth is still proving difficult to dispel. This judgment is, in effect, a warning that guidance, aspiration, and law are not the same thing. For a long time, many institutions attempted to dissolve these tensions rhetorically – by insisting that safeguarding concerns, privacy objections, religious modesty concerns, and sex-based boundaries were either irrational or merely pretexts for animus. Whilst this judgment is not binding, I hope organisations take heed of the warnings it offers. If they continue to ostrich, they may well regret it – as it may prove a financial exposure they failed to budget for.

@jillyg3 @JeanHatchet @KemiBadenoch It is. I agree, beautiful clothes.

@JeanHatchet @KemiBadenoch Think this is from The Fold, gorgeous clothes well out of my price range.

Got to be acknowledged surely - even cross party - that @KemiBadenoch is the best dressed woman in the House. This dress is beautifully tailored.

One interesting detail is that the Good Law Project’s failed attempt to challenge EHRC draft guidance has helped create binding case law so that “an employer who permits trans women to use the women’s toilets in effect no longer provides single sex facilities for women”.

@silverhairedms @ClaireLoneragan @PoliceChiefs They do. Lord knows what view is taken of this. Presuming it hasn’t raised an eyebrow.

@JackMerched @ClaireLoneragan @PoliceChiefs Do officer's get re vetted every now and then? Wouldn't this come up and be dealt with? It should be...

@MsPollyClark @OldRoberts953 Fabulous dress (I know where it's from) and what an impressive woman she is!

@OldRoberts953 Also, not to be shallow, but what a dress. She is majestic.

Glorious

This judgment should send shockwaves through NHS and beyond. It is to my knowledge the 1st to decide that allowing trans identifying men into women's workplace facilities is in itself discrimination and harassment against women.

📣 @FayeRCTribunal who has won her case against NHS England! Congratulations to Naomi Cunningham and Liz McGlone representing 👏👏👏 Tribunal finds the policy of permitting "trans women" to use female facilities was harassment in relation to sex & GC belief and its trans equality proceedure was harassment in relation to GC belief.

@MForstater @FayeRCTribunal Another important victory. Well done everyone 👏👏 But women should not have their lives decimated and have to fight these cases. Where is the leadership, the accountability, the law? And where is @bphillipsonMP?

The first 2 episodes of ITV’s Believe Me raised important questions about how rape reports are handled when investigations fail. This is where the Human Rights Act matters setting standards under the ECHR for how the state must respond to serious violence #ECHRProtectsWomen

@rachelsfletcher @ClaireLoneragan @PoliceChiefs @HertsPolice What explanation can they possibly have? They’ve either no clue what a high profile officer in their force is posting or they don’t care and/or approve. Whichever it is, incompetent or complicit- not a great look.

@JackMerched @ClaireLoneragan @PoliceChiefs @HertsPolice care to explain??