nd paid lip service to ever since. Crucially, the government must urgently enforce a zero-tolerance stance by establishing a system of escalating financial sanctions for non-compliant institutions.
Failure to do so not only threatens Jewish students but the integrity of universities as safe spaces for all.
to that support that she was able to fight back — and win.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that “woman” means biological female under the Equality Act, the FA has now U-turned, scrapping its transgender inclusion policy: from June, males will be barred from the female game. That’s the right decision — but it comes too late for girls like Cerys, who were punished under speech codes that should never have existed.
Female players in single-sex football leagues should never have been forced to compete against men, given how much stronger, faster and more physically aggressive male players are, on average. For a teenage girl to receive a six-game ban simply for asking whether an opposing player was a man was a grotesque injustice — and we’re proud to have helped her get the decision overturned.
Telegraph report here.
‘I don’t think the opinions of a very, very small minority should be put over the opinions of thousands and thousands of women throughout the country. I think we should be prioritised’
"I want London to grow and thrive over the next decade and our creative industries have a central role to play. They help make London the greatest city in the world"
– Sadiq Khan, announcing backing for the film industry
The unwanted company of Gal Gadot's filming crew, today. pic.twitter.com/maxw3UX5AI
— habibi (@habibi_uk) May 9, 2025
ont-size: 11pt”>Denyer’s Deputy, Zack Polanski, who reportedly once set himself up as a hypnotherapist for breast enlargement, has recently launched his campaign to be Leader. I would challenge him on how a party can remain credible for telling the truth on climate science but continue to tell lies about what constitutes a biological woman. The Party is so negligent about equality law, they’ve retained gender self-identification as a criterion for eligibility to satisfy quotas for the leadership contest.
The Greens are clearly now, as Julie Bindel argued the other day, the bonkers party.
Stella O'Malley draws a parallel between the grooming gangs scandal and the explosion of "gender dysphoria":
It’s striking how two seemingly unrelated issues can sometimes reveal the same deep-rooted problems in society. On the one hand there are the UK grooming gang scandals – horrifying crimes, ignored for decades, involving networks of Pakistani Muslim men who targeted vulnerable teenage girls. On the other, there’s the sudden explosion of teenagers, particularly girls, identifying as trans – many of whom are suffering irreversible harm as a consequence of inappropriate medical transition. At first glance you may not think these two crises have much in common, but scratch the surface and a disturbing pattern emerges.
In both cases, the adults in charge looked the other way. Institutions minimised. Social workers made the wrong calls. Mental health professionals rarely helped – and often caused harm. Journalists stayed silent. Officials deflected. Very few people in positions of authority had the courage to confront the shocking reality, and those who did were labelled as bigots.
Meanwhile parents’ pleas were ignored and dismissed as either “Islamophobic” or “transphobic”…
On that new digital ID system:
Digital forms of ID will soon replace paper docs. If you’re a disabled woman & want a female carer you may ask for proof of biological sex. But if data for digital ID is taken from any document other than birth certificate, the sex marker may be false. Who cares, say Labour MPs! https://t.co/bVexmfAgtl
— Miriam Cates (@miriam_cates) May 8, 2025
/span>
There's no way around this. A service is either single sex, or mixed sex. If it's mixed sex, it can't lawfully exclude some men because they are men, while admitting others who say they are women. If it's single sex, by definition it excludes all men.
The idea that a genuinely single-sex service might still face challenge as indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment is, to coin a phrase, an obvious absurdity.
The slam-dunk justification would be: "We can't let you in, or we'd be a mixed-sex service. We'd lose the protection of whatever exception we're using, and we'd have to let all the other men in as well."
Let's get one other thing straight, while we're at it.
Women have been gaslit, bullied, threatened, dismissed, smeared, and sometimes physically attacked for standing up for these rights to ordinary, everyday privacy and dignity.
We have been told that even asking politely for these rights is "transphobic" and "not worthy of respect in a democratic society". Even the right to talk about such things at work has had to be bitterly fought for, in case after case in the employment tribunals.
Now the Supreme Court has authoritatively ruled that sex is real, and sometimes matters. In other words, what trans activists have tried to paint as a niche belief is now beyond doubt the law of the land.
That vindication leaves a great deal of anger in its wake. Anyone who instructs their lawyers to try to find a way of wiggling round the clear, unequivocal ruling of the Supreme Court can expect to have a fight on their hands.
For too long, a vocal, bullying minority has terrorised employers and service-providers into operating everything that should be single-sex on a "trans inclusive" basis, for fear of lawsuits.
Well, women fighting for their single-sex spaces now unequivocally have the law on their side.
So employers and service-providers will probably face lawsuits for a while whatever they do. If tempted to continue to permit men to violate the privacy of their female colleagues or fellow-customers, they should ask themselves a simple question.
"Do we feel lucky?"
Ff”>https://t.co/cEORwELIFf
— Graham Linehan 🎗️ (@Glinner) May 8, 2025
ge at-xid-6a00d83451ebab69e202e86100ad06200d img-responsive” src=”http://mickhartley.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/mt_imported_image_1758236668.jpg” style=”width: 550px” title=”Romain-2-1536×1131″ />
[Photos © Romain Jacquet-Lagrèze]
From the photographer's book Echoing Above.
which of its patients and staff are male and which are female in order to fulfil its public service equality duty,” says Samantha [not her real name], a director of service transformation at an NHS trust. “If the data used for the digital ID is not accurate it drives a coach and horses through public bodies’ duty of care. The law says this must be achieved via biological sex, but data sets that don’t accurately record sex cut across all that. The same applies to chaperones for intimate care. That’s unacceptable and potentially unlawful because the patient did not consent to it. The new ID scheme would make the operation of the NHS really difficult.”…
Those familiar with the Bill as it is currently written are concerned it paves the way for a scandal waiting to happen, akin to the SNP’s endorsement of trans activism. In Scotland, Isla Bryson, a biologically male transgender rapist, was initially taken to a women’s prison, and Nicola Sturgeon drew fierce criticism for refusing to call Bryson a man.
“There will be some kind of equivalent of the Nicola Sturgeon/Isla Bryson scandal where the whole country will go ‘How did we get to this?’,” says Samantha. “And the politicians will just be left looking at their shoes. So let’s not mess it up in the first place.”