The EA states: 'man' = "a male of any age"; 'woman' = "a female of any age".
The SC said that 'man' and 'woman' refers to biological sex.
Everyone without a GRC has *always* been legally their biological sex.
The SC ruling changed nothing re. under 18s. Trans girls were always legally boys.
The SC said that 'man' and 'woman' refers to biological sex.
Everyone without a GRC has *always* been legally their biological sex.
The SC ruling changed nothing re. under 18s. Trans girls were always legally boys.
December 5, 2025 at 9:30 PM
The EA states: 'man' = "a male of any age"; 'woman' = "a female of any age".
The SC said that 'man' and 'woman' refers to biological sex.
Everyone without a GRC has *always* been legally their biological sex.
The SC ruling changed nothing re. under 18s. Trans girls were always legally boys.
The SC said that 'man' and 'woman' refers to biological sex.
Everyone without a GRC has *always* been legally their biological sex.
The SC ruling changed nothing re. under 18s. Trans girls were always legally boys.
Goodness, imagine daring to decide which charitable causes you want to donate your own money to? And only giving away £200 million so far, mainly to help vulnerable women and children.
Lumos helps children around the world. Volant also covers international projects.
But still .... what a bitch.
Lumos helps children around the world. Volant also covers international projects.
But still .... what a bitch.
August 31, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Goodness, imagine daring to decide which charitable causes you want to donate your own money to? And only giving away £200 million so far, mainly to help vulnerable women and children.
Lumos helps children around the world. Volant also covers international projects.
But still .... what a bitch.
Lumos helps children around the world. Volant also covers international projects.
But still .... what a bitch.
Interesting. SM posted about attempts to take their life
- when Scotsman published an article
- after de-selection
- when JKR shared an image
Yet has never claimed SP drove him to such an attempt due to her 'wicked harassment' (until now). Even in his first failed complaint about her to the BSB.
- when Scotsman published an article
- after de-selection
- when JKR shared an image
Yet has never claimed SP drove him to such an attempt due to her 'wicked harassment' (until now). Even in his first failed complaint about her to the BSB.
August 30, 2025 at 8:37 AM
Interesting. SM posted about attempts to take their life
- when Scotsman published an article
- after de-selection
- when JKR shared an image
Yet has never claimed SP drove him to such an attempt due to her 'wicked harassment' (until now). Even in his first failed complaint about her to the BSB.
- when Scotsman published an article
- after de-selection
- when JKR shared an image
Yet has never claimed SP drove him to such an attempt due to her 'wicked harassment' (until now). Even in his first failed complaint about her to the BSB.
"..the Supreme Court ruling, which is not the law"
Oh dear, Alice. I think you need to ask your boss at the GLP about the role of the Supreme Court.
Oh dear, Alice. I think you need to ask your boss at the GLP about the role of the Supreme Court.
August 28, 2025 at 3:52 PM
"..the Supreme Court ruling, which is not the law"
Oh dear, Alice. I think you need to ask your boss at the GLP about the role of the Supreme Court.
Oh dear, Alice. I think you need to ask your boss at the GLP about the role of the Supreme Court.
Can you explain how you think that an Employment Tribunal decision, in relation to the Equality Act, is in any way relevant to someone tweeting about a public figure? Is the barrister here "Kate"s employer or work colleague? Or providing Kate with goods or services?
August 28, 2025 at 3:12 PM
Can you explain how you think that an Employment Tribunal decision, in relation to the Equality Act, is in any way relevant to someone tweeting about a public figure? Is the barrister here "Kate"s employer or work colleague? Or providing Kate with goods or services?
Sarah is the Chair of the WOMEN and Equalities Committee. And the majority of women do not want trans women in their spaces or sports, per yougov.
June 14, 2025 at 3:53 PM
Sarah is the Chair of the WOMEN and Equalities Committee. And the majority of women do not want trans women in their spaces or sports, per yougov.
Nope. The legislation/guidance around Boards gave rise to the appeal. The subject matter of the appeal heard by the SC was:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
June 14, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Nope. The legislation/guidance around Boards gave rise to the appeal. The subject matter of the appeal heard by the SC was:
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
It IS the law. And it has been since 2010.
May 1, 2025 at 7:21 PM
It IS the law. And it has been since 2010.
Oh dear 🤦
It is you relying on Google, sweetie. That screenshot is from the National *ARCHIVES*.
Maybe try more 'authoritative' sources - such as Press for Change (you know, an actual trans lobby group).
You are embarrassing yourself.
www.pfc.org.uk/olderleglisl...
It is you relying on Google, sweetie. That screenshot is from the National *ARCHIVES*.
Maybe try more 'authoritative' sources - such as Press for Change (you know, an actual trans lobby group).
You are embarrassing yourself.
www.pfc.org.uk/olderleglisl...
April 26, 2025 at 12:11 PM
Oh dear 🤦
It is you relying on Google, sweetie. That screenshot is from the National *ARCHIVES*.
Maybe try more 'authoritative' sources - such as Press for Change (you know, an actual trans lobby group).
You are embarrassing yourself.
www.pfc.org.uk/olderleglisl...
It is you relying on Google, sweetie. That screenshot is from the National *ARCHIVES*.
Maybe try more 'authoritative' sources - such as Press for Change (you know, an actual trans lobby group).
You are embarrassing yourself.
www.pfc.org.uk/olderleglisl...
Of course they are still protected under multiple categories - the same as everyone else.
Are you speaking today as a lawyer, medical doctor, consultant psychiatrist, surgeon, endocrinologist or a commercial pilot?
You were found out on X and got banned. Now you're lying on here. 🤡
Are you speaking today as a lawyer, medical doctor, consultant psychiatrist, surgeon, endocrinologist or a commercial pilot?
You were found out on X and got banned. Now you're lying on here. 🤡
April 26, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Of course they are still protected under multiple categories - the same as everyone else.
Are you speaking today as a lawyer, medical doctor, consultant psychiatrist, surgeon, endocrinologist or a commercial pilot?
You were found out on X and got banned. Now you're lying on here. 🤡
Are you speaking today as a lawyer, medical doctor, consultant psychiatrist, surgeon, endocrinologist or a commercial pilot?
You were found out on X and got banned. Now you're lying on here. 🤡
Probably few know about it now because it is not the law now 😁
Apparently, you were not aware of that.
Apparently, you were not aware of that.
April 26, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Probably few know about it now because it is not the law now 😁
Apparently, you were not aware of that.
Apparently, you were not aware of that.
My advice to anyone reading this nonsense from "Dr Isobel" is to ignore every word. She clearly knows nothing about UK law or the SC ruling.
1. The Sex Discrimination Act was *repealed*. All discrimination now comes under the Equality Act 2010.
1. The Sex Discrimination Act was *repealed*. All discrimination now comes under the Equality Act 2010.
April 26, 2025 at 10:29 AM
My advice to anyone reading this nonsense from "Dr Isobel" is to ignore every word. She clearly knows nothing about UK law or the SC ruling.
1. The Sex Discrimination Act was *repealed*. All discrimination now comes under the Equality Act 2010.
1. The Sex Discrimination Act was *repealed*. All discrimination now comes under the Equality Act 2010.
The 'evidence' provided for LGBA OBVIOUSLY being funded by the far right is that they had an office in Tufton Street. This small sentence is ignored, of course 🙄
bylinetimes.com/2023/08/21/t...
bylinetimes.com/2023/08/21/t...
April 19, 2025 at 3:25 PM
The 'evidence' provided for LGBA OBVIOUSLY being funded by the far right is that they had an office in Tufton Street. This small sentence is ignored, of course 🙄
bylinetimes.com/2023/08/21/t...
bylinetimes.com/2023/08/21/t...
But then I *am* a "far right sock puppet". So I obviously deserve a permablock.🤣
These men just cannot stand the thought of ordinary women being able to stand up for ourselves without some "US Megachurch" funding us, can they?
And they think they are the 'progressive' one?🤦
These men just cannot stand the thought of ordinary women being able to stand up for ourselves without some "US Megachurch" funding us, can they?
And they think they are the 'progressive' one?🤦
April 19, 2025 at 3:16 PM
But then I *am* a "far right sock puppet". So I obviously deserve a permablock.🤣
These men just cannot stand the thought of ordinary women being able to stand up for ourselves without some "US Megachurch" funding us, can they?
And they think they are the 'progressive' one?🤦
These men just cannot stand the thought of ordinary women being able to stand up for ourselves without some "US Megachurch" funding us, can they?
And they think they are the 'progressive' one?🤦
Ah, will you look at that. Ask him if he can provide any *actual evidence* for his claims and he blocks me. I wonder why?
April 19, 2025 at 2:16 PM
Ah, will you look at that. Ask him if he can provide any *actual evidence* for his claims and he blocks me. I wonder why?
And who exactly are these "US interests" who have provided funding, David? Can you name them? Can you provide the evidence? Because we keep asking, and for some reason, nobody can ever answer? 🤷
Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary women like me donated to this..
Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary women like me donated to this..
April 19, 2025 at 1:34 PM
And who exactly are these "US interests" who have provided funding, David? Can you name them? Can you provide the evidence? Because we keep asking, and for some reason, nobody can ever answer? 🤷
Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary women like me donated to this..
Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary women like me donated to this..
Females will be searched by females. PACE Code C has always required searches by officers of the same "sex". BTP adopted a search policy based on GRCs, which is why Sex Matters were taking them to court. Other forces, such as the Met, did NOT implement any new policy. BTP will now revert to PACE.
April 19, 2025 at 11:32 AM
Females will be searched by females. PACE Code C has always required searches by officers of the same "sex". BTP adopted a search policy based on GRCs, which is why Sex Matters were taking them to court. Other forces, such as the Met, did NOT implement any new policy. BTP will now revert to PACE.
Until the SC ruling on Wednesday, MALE officers with a GRC *were* allowed to search 'cis' women detainees - whatever they looked like. And female officers were expected to search male detainees who identified as women.
Were you concerned about that?
Were you concerned about that?
April 18, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Until the SC ruling on Wednesday, MALE officers with a GRC *were* allowed to search 'cis' women detainees - whatever they looked like. And female officers were expected to search male detainees who identified as women.
Were you concerned about that?
Were you concerned about that?
I won't carry on responding to you since you are clearly legally illiterate and unable to comment without ridiculous hyperbole and personal attacks. Try to move a bit further up the pyramid.
April 17, 2025 at 10:07 AM
I won't carry on responding to you since you are clearly legally illiterate and unable to comment without ridiculous hyperbole and personal attacks. Try to move a bit further up the pyramid.
Are you aware that "Saying "this is the law" is what it is the Supreme Court's job to do" whether it is the Government or anyone else seeking clarification on the law?
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
April 17, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Are you aware that "Saying "this is the law" is what it is the Supreme Court's job to do" whether it is the Government or anyone else seeking clarification on the law?
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
I personally find it "extraordinary - and alarming" that the Good Law Project "should question the authority of a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court"
After all, "..if the Supreme Court says it is the law, it is the law"? Right?
Or doesn't that apply if you want to raise money?
After all, "..if the Supreme Court says it is the law, it is the law"? Right?
Or doesn't that apply if you want to raise money?
April 17, 2025 at 9:36 AM
I personally find it "extraordinary - and alarming" that the Good Law Project "should question the authority of a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court"
After all, "..if the Supreme Court says it is the law, it is the law"? Right?
Or doesn't that apply if you want to raise money?
After all, "..if the Supreme Court says it is the law, it is the law"? Right?
Or doesn't that apply if you want to raise money?
It is no more nonsense than a non-disabled person being protected under disability discrimination alongside disabled people - if that was the (perceived) basis of the discrimination. You do not need to have that PC.
April 16, 2025 at 10:47 PM
It is no more nonsense than a non-disabled person being protected under disability discrimination alongside disabled people - if that was the (perceived) basis of the discrimination. You do not need to have that PC.
Hospital wards have been included in EHRC guidance re. services where it would be proportionate to provide a single-sex service long before today's ruling. Trans women can be accommodated in a separate room; no reason to be on a female ward.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equ...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equ...
April 16, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Hospital wards have been included in EHRC guidance re. services where it would be proportionate to provide a single-sex service long before today's ruling. Trans women can be accommodated in a separate room; no reason to be on a female ward.
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equ...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equ...