H

@Whiterosehip01 @narindertweets @PolitlcsUK @Telegraph That's a great way to check exactly which charities I should no longer be donating to , or businesses I shouldn't support. Each of those in that image.

@narindertweets @PolitlcsUK @Telegraph Marginalized my arse. They get more promotion than anybody else on the planet.

🚨 NEW: HMRC has given trans taxpayers lifetime access to a VIP phone line which answers calls twice as fast It claims access is needed to ensure “greater protection” of trans people under equality laws [@Telegraph]

@Kat_Says_Stuff @narindertweets @PolitlcsUK @Telegraph Shouldn't be getting special treatment. Files should be as open as everyone else's.

@narindertweets @PolitlcsUK @Telegraph They haven’t been help though, this was passed in 2005. It’s because trans people with a GRC have their details restricted so need HMRC workers who can edit restricted files.

@BOATMAN4TRUMP @narindertweets @PolitlcsUK @Telegraph That is a lot of nonsense. What about the rest of the population driven to suicide after listening to Pachabel's Canon for three weeks straight? And then get cut off just as they reach No 1 in the queue? Oh no, we've got to think of the tranz.

@narindertweets @PolitlcsUK @Telegraph Seeing as 40% of Trans ppl are deemed a Suicide Risk I can see the logic behind this

@Joe19892024 @PolitlcsUK @billcurtis0 @daisyeastlake That what many in 1930s Germany thought about the Nazis. Don't be naïve

@PolitlcsUK @billcurtis0 @daisyeastlake If she isn’t rage baiting I’m utterly astounded. I’m fairly certain they spout all this horse shit these days as pure distraction. These aren’t serious people.

🚨 NEW: The Green Party’s Makerfield candidate Sarah Wakefield runs a charity which calls for British farming to be “decolonised” with “inclusive spaces” It also shared a report arguing perfectionism is an example of “white supremacy culture” [@billcurtis0 / @daisyeastlake]

@Here4thevi38022 @Tigerted9999 @salltweets @SwipeWright @Meta Men would dominate there also

@Tigerted9999 @salltweets @SwipeWright @Meta Feminists focused on the wrong thing imo. Instead of demanding to be in higher paid jobs like policemen, they should have demanded higher pay for jobs dominated by women - like teachers and nurses.

Today, I was given a permanent ban of posting on my Facebook page, @Meta. The page can exist - apparently - but I am not allowed to post on it anymore. The page has been deemed controversial due to the Giggle v Tickle case and increased popularity of 25,000 new followers in a week. I don't want to labor the irony of being banned on a social networking platform while fighting in court for the right to ban men from a woman only social networking platform, it is what it is. Frankly, I'd love to have the same right that you do, @Meta. Women are routinely punished for not accepting men as women. It doesn't turn those men into women. Nothing will.

@Tigerted9999 @salltweets @SwipeWright @Meta This is not feminism

Im totally in agreement but have to be honest. I find this derivative of feminism (transgenderism) interesting. It is threatening to do to women what feminism has been doing for half a century. It appears to have claimed the political advantage in victimhood and is imposing ridiculous destabilisation of societal norms which is incredibly dangerous. At the same time it’s holding a mirror up to feminists.

@Scottishpbjg @sarahstuartxx That wins the internet today!!

@MForstater 😳

Who came up with the bright idea that the EHRC should say that sex is "likely" to be special category data? Maybe it was whoever managed to collect 52 signatures for this petition.

@CatherineHume10 @FondOfBeetles should not be a requirement . Many have no religion,still entitled to the same rights to privacy, dignity, safety as every other woman

@FondOfBeetles Nope, no one has to disclose anything. Simply quoting religious reasons - especially Islam - is usually enough. Culture, too, especially Islamic, Pakistani, etc is enough. Workplaces fall over themselves for such cases.

Useful thread regarding recent UK tribunal. The claimant is a Muslim woman with PTSD (a disability) whose workplace allowed men to use female facilties. Her claim for discrimination was successful *on the basis of her being a woman.* Her being Muslim (assumed modesty) and disabled (potential trauma) were unsuccessful claims. That is (IANAL), neither of those characteristics were judged to have placed her at a specific disadvantage over and above the baseline of *being a woman*. Many women have been weaponised in the general debate. Women have felt pressured to reveal sexual trauma to justify why they want safe, female-only spaces. Religiously modest women have been held up as rhetorical shields. No more. Being a woman is sufficient.

That access generated sex-based discrimination and hostile environments for women. Stonewall told providers a different story. Stonewall were wrong. And now it’s recognised.

My thoughts on the @EHRC guidance laid yesterday; this is not about non-existent "rights". It is about the safety of women - mothers, sisters, wives, daughters. We men need to hear their voices. Virginia Woolf : "Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes". My intro on @TimesRadio yesterday: Where I live there are two different routes to and from the tube station. One, let’s call it Acacia Avenue, is quiet and residential. The other, London Road, is a busy major route with lots of traffic. At all times of the day, I automatically head for Acacia Road. It’s just much nicer. The women in my family, on the other hand, will never willingly make that walk after dark. They live with an anxiety that most men find it hard to imagine, and frankly, rarely think about unprompted. Last year 739,000 women were sexually assaulted in Britain. Virtually all such assaults - nine out of ten - are perpetrated by men. One in four women have been attacked at some time in their lives. Acacia Avenue is exactly the sort of place in which most women fear that they become vulnerable, and they are right. As the author Virginia Woolf once wrote " Though we see the same world, we see it through different eyes". I think this is the right context in which to understand the furore over the guidance being laid today by the government, over the meaning of the words man and woman when it comes to providing services and facilities in workplaces. Many men think this is about a rather arcane dispute about who gets to use what loo. For their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, it isn’t. In a previous life, as Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I had a hand in writing this country’s equality laws, in particular the 2010 Equality Act. It never occurred to any of us that there could be any confusion or dispute over the meaning of the words man and woman. But it has taken a decade of campaigning, a Supreme Court judgement and now hundreds of pages of guidance to settle the issue. This is not about so called trans rights, which are completely unaffected by this guidance, since no-one has ever had the right to walk into a changing room reserved for teenage girls. What it does mean is that women and girls are guaranteed the protection they deserve, and that their safety, which we spent half a decade drafting law to ensure, is protected. But the whole business illuminates some serious issues in our politics. First that many of our institutions, in spite of the fact that they always knew what the right thing to do was, decided to ignore the fears of their women customers and employees, under pressure from noisy pressure groups. Instead, the people who were supposed to be the grown ups behaved as though the law said what campaigners wanted it to say, rather than what it actually said. They settled for what they hoped would be a quiet life. In a democracy, there’s little point in Parliament deciding anything if the law is then made an ass by activists intimidating bosses in companies, schools, universities and the media into doing something different. Second, at the heart of the campaign to undermine the Equality Act is an idea that we specifically rejected in 2010, so called self-identification. That is to say, that it should be up to the individual to decide whether they have what’s called a protected characteristic - are you male or female, are you black or white. The problem is that self-ID would destroy the operation of any law against discrimination. Look, it would almost certainly have been to my advantage as a young man to self-identify as a handsome, white public schoolboy. None of those things is true of me. And at various points I am pretty sure it’s been to my disadvantage. It is certainly statistically likely to have been to my disadvantage. But according to the logic of those who say that self-ID should be the rule and that anyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they are male or female, black or white or Asian, were I to complain about racial discrimination, it would be difficult for anyone prove that I’d been discriminated against because of my race since anybody to whom I’d lost out could just tell the courts that they too were black. I know that sounds like Alice in Wonderland but you can google the case where a chap, both of whose parents are white, insisted he should get money from the Arts Council because he so identified with the black struggle that he considered himself black, and everyone should accept his point of view. In the United States and Brazil exactly such outlandish claims have been made and people rewarded to the disadvantage of people actually born into minority families. I have even been told about firms who, when reporting their gender pay gaps have put men who just happen to like wearing dresses at weekends - nothing wrong with that, let me be clear - into the female column and told their women employees that they really haven’t got anything to moan about because statistically they are paid equally, and they should get back in their box. So today’s guidance isn’t just another tiresome chapter in culture wars. It is , I hope, a halt to the efforts to undermine one of the most important pieces of legislation on the statute book, by people who, for their own reasons, would prefer us to be living in the 1950s world of Mad Men.

@MinnOrchia @michaelpforan You did this to yourself.despite the revolting threats your group has made to women I do not wish to see you harmed(you probably don't care if women are).Wherever any male prisoner is housed it must NEVER be the female estate.Women are not human shields for men & their identity

@michaelpforan Full isolation is the only sensible way to accommodate trans women in prison. We‘re going to be raped and killed if you lock us up with men.

Important legal opinion from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, written by Ben Cooper KC, on the lawfulness of housing trans women (biological men who identify as women) in the female prison estate: crimeandjustice.org.uk/legal-opinion-…

@te_pania @RoyalFamily I think the Queen would be more than disappointed with this son of hers, as she stripped him of all his honours

Her Majesty The Queen’s coffin has left Balmoral. Accompanied by The Princess Royal and Sir Tim Laurence, the cortege will travel to the Palace of Holyroodhouse. The Wreath on the coffin features Dhalias, Sweet Peas, Phlox, White Heather and Pine Fir from the Balmoral Estate.

@prettyboyjohn__ @RoyalFamily You wouldn’t understand

@CNN Remember the pilot who landed on the river? Cool,collected and totally in contro. He was amazing

Two pilots are believed to have fallen asleep and missed their landing during a flight from Sudan to Ethiopia. cnn.it/3QYwgBz