Lisa

No, I don't think 'all people should have the right to decide their own rights', because a pluralistic democratic society can't function that way. Which rights are trans women and 'fans of Pride' missing?

I was sexually abused from the age of 5. I still feel the hands on my skin. I still get night terrors. I still struggle with relationships and trusting others. But apparently the mass rape of little girls is just a joke to these leftist cretins.

Aye, such a "formidable voice" that the BBC first silenced her and then bullied her out. Save us your crocodile tears

This is insane. 25-year-old men should never be allowed to box with teenage girls and to withdraw a course for girls after a mother complains about that very basic lack of safeguarding shows how badly gender ideology has rotted some charity sector brains.

In case of any lingering doubt, this is what the Green Party thinks of women and women's rights.

I want my daughters to live in a country where their right to single-sex spaces isn’t under attack from their own government.

Children as young as ten will be told to think about freezing eggs or sperm if they sign up to controversial NHS-backed puberty blockers trial | Daily Mail Online dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1…

This is a photograph of me at eight years old. I remember that jumper clearly. I had dragged my dad into GAP, straight to the boys’ section, and begged for it instead of the girly blouse that had been suggested. At that age, I refused to wear any colour other than blue. I pleaded to have my hair cut short, properly short, like the boys. My parents would not let it be shorter than a bob. I am sparing you the photograph. It was truly dreadful. From about the age of three, I was unmistakably a tomboy. I asked for toy soldiers and a football shirt for Christmas (Chelsea- Blue is the colour!). I was the only girl invited to a friend’s football party. I was the only girl who turned up dressed as a prince to a ‘princes and princesses’ party. I read and wrote obsessively. I gravitated towards The Lord of the Rings, spy novels, all the familiar ‘boy’ stories. In every story, in every game, I imagined myself as a male protagonist. His name was always Theo, the boy version of my own. If someone had told me then that it was possible to actually BE a boy, that there were drugs I could take to transform myself and my body, I would have seized the opportunity. And deeply regretted it later. As I moved through my teenage years, I began to realise something crucial. I was perfectly capable of loving all of these things while still being a girl. I had despised the words ‘girl’ and ‘woman’ because I had bundled them together with every restrictive feminine stereotype I had encountered. Today, I would have almost certainly been described as having ‘gender incongruence’ or ‘dysphoria’. And on that basis, I might have been offered medical interventions that risk infertility and amount to chemical castration. Then when I’d been brainwashed enough, I might have been pushed towards a double mastectomy or cross-sex hormones. The Pathways trial MUST BE STOPPED. #StopTheTrial

The absolute state of this… Women’s Institute sob that they can no longer invite men in dresses into their WOMEN-ONLY org I’m embarrassed for them. Pathetic.

“Girl guiding is for girls. Yay girls.” “In April, we were surprised and saddened to learn that girls are female.” “It’s been eight months, but we really can’t find a workaround.” 🙄

We are extremely pleased to announce that we have just received, on the one-month anniversary of our launch, confirmation that our society is now officially registered with the University of Cambridge.

Last night on Times Radio, @HelenWebberley openly bragged to @HJoyceGender that the puberty blocker ban is being circumvented right now by prescribing children powerful off-label hormone drugs that were never licensed, never studied, and never approved for suppressing puberty in kids. Her exact words when asked what happens to young people who “can’t have puberty blockers”: “There are many different medicines to suppress their natural hormone production or the effects of their natural hormones… many different ways and many different schedules.” Translation: clinics like hers (GenderGP) are switching children as young as 11 to drugs such as - spironolactone (risk: kidney damage, life-threatening hyperkalaemia) - cyproterone acetate (risk: severe depression, blood clots, meningioma tumours) - anastrozole/letrozole (aromatase inhibitors – risk: permanent bone density loss, chronic joint pain, lipid disorders) These are cancer and blood-pressure drugs being used long-term on healthy children after a 20-minute Zoom call and shipped into the UK from abroad. The Cass Review looked at puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) and said the evidence was “remarkably weak” and the risks unacceptable outside proper trials → emergency ban. So the response from the gender clinics isn’t “let’s wait for better evidence.” It’s “let’s use even less-studied drugs the ban doesn’t cover.” This is not medicine following the science. This is activists rewriting prescriptions to dodge the law while still giving children lifelong medicalisation, infertility risk, and zero long-term data. If you thought blocking puberty with experimental drugs was a scandal, they’ve literally just changed the packaging and carried on. Every MP, every regulator, every journalist needs to ask one simple question today: Exactly which drugs, at what doses, are being prescribed to which ages, and who is monitoring the outcomes? Because right now, no one is. @wesstreeting Our children deserve better than back-door chemical experimentation because activists don’t like the rules. #CassReview #ProtectTheKids #PubertyBlockers #genderdebate

OK folx, so Webberley has not said ONE WORD about our debate, posted a clip, or link - nuffink! So do me a favour and share the link far and wide please! My article on the experience is in the first reply, and here is the YouTube of the whole horror: youtube.com/watch?v=wBnuee…

We are the Cambridge University Society of Women. As the only openly and proudly single-sex society for women at the university, our mission is to facilitate women speaking freely in an all-female environment. We will be campaigning and fundraising to help women's sex-based causes. Launching today, we are now offering membership to female students of Cambridge University! Please contact us via X or Instagram for more information.

This man works for the NHS. #LetWomenSpeak

Holy shit. This is an MP justifying the harassment of rape victims, sex trade survivors, and international feminist organising because it upset a bunch of narcissistic men who have made their aggression and intent to disrupt women meeting quite criminally plain. Resign.

@sianberry @BrightonHoveCC Which other parts of the UK are no-go areas for women? Can you provide a list and what we are permitted to say/wear/do in those regions? We would HATE to think we are putting men in the situation where they are FORCED to violently assault us. Thanks.

This is almost unbelievable from Sian Berry here @sianberry Brighton is currently hosting the Filia conference #Filia25, a huge feminist meeting that attracts diverse speakers from all over the world on topics like: Sex work Surrogacy Reproductive choice laws Menopause Domestic violence Rape Experiences of minority and migrant women Medical and psychological violence Self defence Experiences of lesbian and bisexual women Family law Professional networking …and so much more. Last night, a group of violent trans rights activists smashed venue windows and daubed the remainder with paint, including the nonsensical motto that: “Feminism is the refusal to define a woman”. I mean, huh? Instead of condemning the activists - whose intention is to intimidate and scare women in Brighton - Berry actually condemns the council for hosting the conference on one of its properties. She says she tried to avoid the TRA violence by - the only reasonable inference - asking them to not host #Filia2025. Ms Berry, it is 2025 and you are not allowed to cancel women speaking. Public authorities have a duty to all their constituents and facility users, and they have to obey laws. I basically thought she’d say nothing. To say this is mind-blowing. @CarolineLucas Any thoughts?

I'm seeing quite a bit of comment about this, so I want to make a couple of points. I'm not owed eternal agreement from any actor who once played a character I created. The idea is as ludicrous as me checking with the boss I had when I was twenty-one for what opinions I should hold these days. Emma Watson and her co-stars have every right to embrace gender identity ideology. Such beliefs are legally protected, and I wouldn't want to see any of them threatened with loss of work, or violence, or death, because of them. However, Emma and Dan in particular have both made it clear over the last few years that they think our former professional association gives them a particular right - nay, obligation - to critique me and my views in public. Years after they finished acting in Potter, they continue to assume the role of de facto spokespeople for the world I created. When you've known people since they were ten years old it's hard to shake a certain protectiveness. Until quite recently, I hadn't managed to throw off the memory of children who needed to be gently coaxed through their dialogue in a big scary film studio. For the past few years, I've repeatedly declined invitations from journalists to comment on Emma specifically, most notably on the Witch Trials of JK Rowling. Ironically, I told the producers that I didn't want her to be hounded as the result of anything I said. The television presenter in the attached clip highlights Emma's 'all witches' speech, and in truth, that was a turning point for me, but it had a postscript that hurt far more than the speech itself. Emma asked someone to pass on a handwritten note from her to me, which contained the single sentence 'I'm so sorry for what you're going through' (she has my phone number). This was back when the death, rape and torture threats against me were at their peak, at a time when my personal security measures had had to be tightened considerably and I was constantly worried for my family's safety. Emma had just publicly poured more petrol on the flames, yet thought a one line expression of concern from her would reassure me of her fundamental sympathy and kindness. Like other people who've never experienced adult life uncushioned by wealth and fame, Emma has so little experience of real life she's ignorant of how ignorant she is. She'll never need a homeless shelter. She's never going to be placed on a mixed sex public hospital ward. I'd be astounded if she's been in a high street changing room since childhood. Her 'public bathroom' is single occupancy and comes with a security man standing guard outside the door. Has she had to strip off in a newly mixed-sex changing room at a council-run swimming pool? Is she ever likely to need a state-run rape crisis centre that refuses to guarantee an all-female service? To find herself sharing a prison cell with a male rapist who's identified into the women's prison? I wasn't a multimillionaire at fourteen. I lived in poverty while writing the book that made Emma famous. I therefore understand from my own life experience what the trashing of women's rights in which Emma has so enthusiastically participated means to women and girls without her privileges. The greatest irony here is that, had Emma not decided in her most recent interview to declare that she loves and treasures me - a change of tack I suspect she's adopted because she's noticed full-throated condemnation of me is no longer quite as fashionable as it was - I might never have been this honest. Adults can't expect to cosy up to an activist movement that regularly calls for a friend's assassination, then assert their right to the former friend's love, as though the friend was in fact their mother. Emma is rightly free to disagree with me and indeed to discuss her feelings about me in public - but I have the same right, and I've finally decided to exercise it.

Longish summary of responses to points offered on my timeline for full decriminalisation of abortion, even up to birth, using at-home abortion pills for non-medical reasons (which has just been voted for, absolutely crazily imo, by UK MPs) a) You may not be able to know or say at what precise point some grains make a heap but you still know unambiguously when you can see a heap. Same goes for cells, and for baby. Late-term abortions kill babies. Viable babies. This position does not require there to have been a baby/human/person there all along. Pushing back on full decriminalisation is not arguing for no abortions ever. (Which obviously could be done, but I'm not doing it). b) Babies at late term have unambiguous interests of their own. They are not just narcissistic extensions of mother. They are not parasites or invaders. They are human beings. They are dependent human beings and is weird to see feminists who talk about value of care and dependence become psychopathically detached about the value of the life of a dependent, viable baby because the mother doesn't want it. It sounds dementedly callous to try to deny the interests of babies in this sort of issue by defining them out of existence, or just ignoring the fact they do exist at all. If you said "yes, babies have been/ will be killed by use of at-home abortion pills for non-medical reasons, but that is less important than that their mothers don't face the stress of prosecution" I would at least respect the honesty. c) The law against late-term abortions acts as a deterrent against mothers killing their babies. If you lift it, you will get more deaths. You say it’s only a few - is that really supposed to be an argument? And; If I am not supposed to care about “only a few” baby deaths, why am I supposed to care about only a few prosecutions? Again, if you are reasoning like this, and especially if you are weighing it up only against the mother's alleged right to non-prosecution, then you have your priorities badly skewed, and have conveniently forgotten that deaths of babies are also involved. And while we are at it: how do you know it will only be a few baby deaths in years to come? Do you know what happens when new social norms get embedded around new technology, and other ones – say, around contraception – shift? The use of at-home abortion pills is relatively new, who knows where it will be in ten years time? d) If you have to excuse the death of a baby by hyperbolically depicting the only sort of women who would ever have a late-term non-medical abortion as "desperate" and otherwise blameless, it's a tell for motivated reasoning. There are many kinds of women in the world, who act for many different kinds of reason. Do you think all infanticides or child murders are only carried out by "desperate" and otherwise blameless women? (If you do, probably stop reading, there is no hope for you.) There are also, of course, men in the world who can get their hands on abortion pills and force women to take them. Your backing of decriminalisation is making that more easy too. e) It is fascinating that some of you think both of these things are true at the same time: a) “women should never be prosecuted for carrying out their own late-term abortions, even for non-medical reasons ’ and b) “people providing assistance for late-term abortions for non-medical abortions should still be prosecuted” (as they will continue to be). So you *do* think there is something wrong with these abortions then, do you? What? Could it be that *a baby dies*? f) The idea that it is really important we repeal this law because of the possibility of false prosecution of women is bizarre (and again, the histrionic depiction focusing on "women who have suffered miscarriages being dragged away from their children in police vans in the middle of the night" etc is a tell, like you have to amp up the drama to make the point. Also, how interesting: suddenly it's ok to care about the interests of young dependent children again, is it? But I digress…) Anyway, let's apply this logic to rape law. We must repeal rape laws because falsely accused men are being dragged away from their children in the night.. um, no? The law has a point, it has a deterrent function, and that point is more important than the inevitable possibility of false prosecution given the existence of any law in the first place. f) Those telling me that academics and NGOs have done all the thinking on this already and I should just outsource my brain to them are really having a laugh. I've looked at their arguments and do you know, it's really weird, but they don't talk about the baby's interests, even in late-term abortion for non-medical reasons. They just act like that issue isn't there. And it is. g) The UK is not the US. With best will in the world, Americans reading their own issues into the UK situation is unhelpful. There is no good case for full decriminalisation as voted for today. And there is no genuine political will for it either, because most people haven’t been slowly boiled in a vat of hyperliberal feminism and progressive technocracy like overheating frogs, until they can't tell which way is up. All this will do is further undermine the legitimacy of feminism generally (by association, even if some feminists are actually against it) and also undermine public trust in lawmakers (How could this have been decided so quickly without any proper consultation or discussion of a wide range of views? Why wasn’t it in the manifesto, if it is so important?).