So very telling of how pervasive cultural misogyny is that a Prof of human rights law in the 21st century didn't think to consider women's rights when he signed a document that would throw women's rights under the bus and force women to celebrate it as a human rights victory or be shamed and cancelled as bigots. Great that he's woken up to this shameful bias that led him to only consider men's rights. But if he is really contrite about this, he needs to reflect on how he (like the majority of his kind) could get to mature adulthood as a specialist in human rights law without realising that women are humans with rights that need to be considered too. This is the essence of the patriarchy in action, the system of male domination and prioritisation that is so embedded in our world that even a specialist in human rights law has no idea when, without thinking, he signs away women's rights to an elite bunch of men (primarily) demanding the world bend the concept of 'human rights' to facilitate their sexist fetish.
Well said. But I don’t find it entirely surprising that a gay man would ignore or, perhaps, just have less interest in female sex based human rights and concerns when embarking on that trans summit. His personal interests run toward male partners and his G in LGBTQIA+ (is it a + now? One never can tell what the Divergent have tried to add it when no one was looking…). Massive mistake made when the LBG community so implausibly allowed the TQIA+ers to horn in on their parade. I think a political divorce is in the making.
Yes, not surprising, indeed all too common for men, straight and gay, for the rights-bearing subject in their heads when teaching and writing about human rights is male, even when, presumably, he has as many female students as male. It's very telling of the essence of the problem that feminism has always been up against, namely that half of humanity, the half with disproportionate power and money, has always struggled to see, listen to, and care about female humans as they see and care about male humans. That even one such man has now admitted his total failure to consider women's rights at all, while busy giving men more rights, is potentially a major step forward in the ongoing battle to undo ALL the mistakes made in shaping laws and rights with only men in mind.
“…the half with disproportionate power and money….” I read that and have on many occasions read similar assertions, yet have always been curious about the support or justification for the assertion. What is “disproportionate “? How does one measure or stratify the “power” part of the assertion? At some point I had read about the number of billionaires who are female but who inherited their fortunes via the death of the male spouse whose efforts produced the fortune or by divorce, vis., Bill Gates’ former spouse whose own efforts produced mostly nothing but now employs very substantial political and cultural power through the manner in which she had the ‘good’ fortune to have been married to a near autistic rot of a man. The numbers of women who now have and employ both power and money from such circumstances (death of the male spouse or divorce) was significant.
Melinda Gates was a critical Microsoft engineer from the early days of the company's formation, and was the making of Bill both privately and professionally. If you see her efforts as 'producing mostly nothing', you are blinded by your prejudice against women and wives, a very common prejudice amongst men especially. Trump's wealth was significantly due to his first wife's efforts. The list of men whose success, financial or otherwise, had more to do with their wife's efforts than their own is very very long. As for the sex distribution of billionaires in 2025, this is from Wiki:
'World’s Billionaires List The Richest In 2025
Wealthiest Elon Musk
Net worth (1st) Increase US$342 billion
Number of billionaires Increase 3,028 (from 2,781)
Total list net worth value Increase US$16.1 trillion (from US$14.2 trillion)
Also fyi, “Nine of the 10 richest women (in the world) inherited their fortunes, either from fathers, husbands or in one case, mother.” No more feminist BS talking points on this particular subject. And the 10th who inherited from her mother? Who did the mother inherit from?
That’s pretty laughable. Everyone knows her publicists have been quick to portray her as a brilliant key to MS success. But no history of MS demonstrates or explains it. It’s fanciful you’ve fallen into it. But since your a journalist, how much did Melinda wheedle from Billy boy in their divorce? What was her personal net worth when she started dating him around 1987, when she married him in ‘94 and when she filed for divorce?
Don’t let your feminist advocacy make her out to be something she wasn’t. She got enormously rich by divorcing the guy who produced that wealth.
Wow, you really do hate women. Men inherit their fortunes too. In fact inherited money has primarily gone to sons. Melinda got Bill into philanthropy (maybe look up the word) and their foundation has given away a record amount of money to worthy causes. As for the usual stereotype of women taking off with their rich husband's money after divorce, she could have got billions more than she did: 'Although the couple did not have a prenuptial agreement,[47] Melinda (who filed) did not request spousal support.[46]' (Wiki). She's NOT the money-grabbing bitch you paint her as. Your old-school misogyny is showing.
OK, so I’ve been really puzzled about how this ideological juggernaut gained so much traction, all over the world, at the same time so that we all woke up one day and had people confidently telling us that we don’t know what we’ve known all our lives, namely that men are men and women are women. I thought ‘could it be because Stonewall is ace (no pun intended) at campaigning?’. Maybe, but that doesn’t explain it all. Then I thought ‘is it because the most vocal are bloody men and we all know how accomplished they are at shaping and dominating agendas?’ Partly, I thought, but that still doesn’t explain how we all got splatted by the gender juggernaut. I listened to ‘Julie in Genderland’ and the psychiatrist who talked about the correlation between gender dysphoria and autism and I thought ‘aha, there’s no one so determined as an autistic person on a mission’. And that perhaps does go some distance to explaining how those of us acquiescing to a vague ‘live and let live’ notion got rudely woken one day by the meltdown of empassioned ideologues insisting that trans women are actual, biological, females and woe be tied you if you disagree. But, here, in this article, right here, I’ve found the final piece in the puzzle - the ultimate explanation.
They only went and had a supranational meeting. They were a heady mix of trans ideologues, lawyers, and ‘experts’ and they had their meeting and then they went forth and multiplied. All over the bloody world. And they got into every nook and cranny of society: politics, universities, legislatures, local government and on and on. It reminds me of that horror film with the monster, zombie truck, relentlessly tracking its prey. Guess who’s the prey this time folks? All of us.
Oh, yes, thank you, I forgot that. That was something else I learned listening to ‘Julie in Genderland’. And, of course, profit never knowingly misses an opportunity. Another piece of the jigsaw puzzle. This list of causes is growing! But see how each of them has a different sphere of influence. The live and let live people (as I was) don’t - individually - influence very much. We’re at the bottom of the heap. But add into the mix the individual influence of men, autism and profit; the national and systemic influence of Stonewall and the international and systemic influence of the Yogyakarta diaspora (and whatever else I haven’t thought about), and you start to get exponential growth. And it all feeds back to each other and makes each sphere of influence expand.
I’m conscious that I’m writing this like it’s a big discovery. I’M only now discovering it but others have probably already made it to here and carried out a much more comprehensive analysis. This is an important part of the ‘getting back to sanity’ task - hot on the heels of the U.K. Supreme Court decision. When people understand how the madness took hold, it’ll be easier for them to give it up and publicly disavow it. Maybe we need a roadshow. If I were a millionaire, I’d sponsor a roadshow. And a piece of public art. In Trafalgar Square. And a one-woman show. By Julie, obviously.
Trans has long history that has largely been ignored or misrepresented, as Rowling says it's a bigger scandal than last century's lobotomies & false recovered memories combined.
Dear Julie, such an important read and we’re all grateful for this Australian lawyers awakening, back in 2021. I remember what an important moment it was for Terf Island as it was at the beginning of my now four year nightmare as a sacked former breastfeeding counsellor in Australia.
I do feel rather strongly that we could take a significant step forward if we could ask Professor Phil Alston for his reflection on the impact of the Yogyakarta principles on the lives of his Melbourne based daughters as they raise his grandchildren in a country and State which has instituted the most extreme version of sex self ID since the Gillard Bastardisation of our once grand sex discrimination act.
If Alston’s name doesn’t immediately jump out to you, he is the other Australian law luminary who attended at Yogyakarta back then and as yet it appears remains blissfully unaware how royally all those founding Human Rights lawyers fucked women, children and same sex attracted people with the creation of the synthetic sex manifesto of spoilt men masquerading as a civil rights movement. XX
I'd love to read interviews of "gender surgeons" who were the original writers of "sex change" letters. With no studies into whether women accept post op men into our sisterhood, our reactions to men in our private spaces and with no research into the ramifications of male bodied persons (that is, men) taking women's prizes, sports competition slots and female-designated social/political chairs, they simply cranked out men with their genitals lopped off, who "are now women." I saw the name change letter my ex husband used to change his name and status in New York state in 1995. Surgeons have no business doing social engineering. They simply proved, as a profession, that they see a woman as a human not having a penis. I hope some of the retrain to operate on children born with a cleft palate and other ethical medical surgeries.
Great post - thank you. Most of my "progressive" friends and family of course have no knowledge whatsoever of these realities and the complex issues involved that are reduced to brain dead "talking points" like - "trans-women ARE women" - because they get their evidence-free pre-masticated "opinions" and "talking points" from their favorite MSM propaganda outlet which of course don't offer the slightest nod to the rights of women and girls.
So the discussion of the UK spousal exit clause nudged this man toward the reality faced by women with regard to trans self ID yet the two times Ireland is mentioned, it is not noted that trans widows have no such right to exit such a marriage in Ireland nor are we informed as to whether our spouse has obtained a GRC. To ensure we our voices and rights are further restricted Amnesty International Ireland, NWCI, the chair of women's Aid, TENI (mostly husband and fathers) signed a letter calling on politicians and media to no longer provide legitimate representation. But no woman has been harmed. Right.
Old line that gay men have huge egos on no foundation, well trans foundation is delusion, because as geneticist Baron Robert Winston told the BBC years ago, we can't actually change our sex, so entire trans "debate" can never end because it is toxic fraud, like saying Rowling is entitled to her opinion when her "opinion" is that binary human reproductive biology brought us ALL here, incl. trans. And since trans rights are human rights, trans didn't "lose" anything with the Supreme Court clarification of years old law. 🌈 UDHR #terfisaslur & cis ideology, & frequently misogynist @ that. What was once human rights has deteriorated to social media branding, narcissism & self-promotion. We don't even know how many women die annually because they are BORN that way, instead our time is devoted to debating 🚹 🚺 🚽💩.
I love that Wintemute now questions the entirety of the GRA. He is correct to question it. We should not have a requirement that a man cut off his testicles and split open his penis to be entitled to have ID that says he is a woman (or to be granted access to women's spaces and sports). This would only push some men to do bodily harm to themselves unnecessarily, and it still potentially harms women because, even after medical alterations, a man is still a man.
Rather, as Wintemute stated, if one's official ID, which lists "male" doesn't appear to match one's feminine appearance (or vice versa), we must change the law and people's attitudes so that a mismatch in appearance does not automatically trigger alarms. Some men don't look typically male and some women don't look typically female - and that's okay! Nobody should be penalized for looking unusual for their sex. And nobody becomes the opposite sex by chemically and/or surgically altering their appearance to appear the opposite sex, so there need not be any "recognition" of a non-fact.
How shocking that Wintemute, who is gay, says “women’s rights were not considered during the meeting and that he should have challenged some aspects of the Principles”? “Admitting he “failed to consider” that trans women still in possession of their male genitals would seek to access female-only spaces,”
Apparently the fact that women are half the world and have rights which ought to be considered was lost on him. As was the foreseeable result that some men “still in possession” of their dicks “would seek to access female-only spaces,”. What a daft, narcissistic man.
Newsflash! Gay man neglects to remember that women exist and could be harmed by men he's personally responsible for giving access to women's spaces. Erm...
Hi Julie, You made no mention of how the recent Supreme Court ruling will affect this material? Isn't some of it, eg Amnesty's stance, now illegal?
I don't know the answer to this, but something to think about perhaps? That judgement may also have been some awakening from the censorship which some trans organizations seem to specialize.
Thanks JB you fckn lezzer legend terfagette. Australia is the absolute pits with transgenderism. It’s quite hard to remain optimistic I’m finding. I think ordinary people are insanely captured by trans nonsense, and the national broadcaster has a lot to answer for in that regard. I don’t know if there could be a way for citizens to bring a class action against the ABC, for utterly failing the public. If you ever want to come and fck shit up down under you can stay on my couch as long as you like, if you don’t mind cats.
Thanks, Julie, excellent piece and I agree that Mr Wintemute deserves credit for admitting his mistake though a bit amazing he missed the elephant in the room at the time. We so need to get rid of the GRA and gender reassignment as a protected characteristic . As soon as you stick the word 'gender' in your legislation, you are in trouble!
Amnesty ought to have stuck to their original mission of advocacy for anyone held prisoner or punished for purely alleged political ‘crimes’ - ie having the wrong type of views. Now it sides with those who punish people ‘guilty’ of crimethink.
So very telling of how pervasive cultural misogyny is that a Prof of human rights law in the 21st century didn't think to consider women's rights when he signed a document that would throw women's rights under the bus and force women to celebrate it as a human rights victory or be shamed and cancelled as bigots. Great that he's woken up to this shameful bias that led him to only consider men's rights. But if he is really contrite about this, he needs to reflect on how he (like the majority of his kind) could get to mature adulthood as a specialist in human rights law without realising that women are humans with rights that need to be considered too. This is the essence of the patriarchy in action, the system of male domination and prioritisation that is so embedded in our world that even a specialist in human rights law has no idea when, without thinking, he signs away women's rights to an elite bunch of men (primarily) demanding the world bend the concept of 'human rights' to facilitate their sexist fetish.
Well said. But I don’t find it entirely surprising that a gay man would ignore or, perhaps, just have less interest in female sex based human rights and concerns when embarking on that trans summit. His personal interests run toward male partners and his G in LGBTQIA+ (is it a + now? One never can tell what the Divergent have tried to add it when no one was looking…). Massive mistake made when the LBG community so implausibly allowed the TQIA+ers to horn in on their parade. I think a political divorce is in the making.
Yes, not surprising, indeed all too common for men, straight and gay, for the rights-bearing subject in their heads when teaching and writing about human rights is male, even when, presumably, he has as many female students as male. It's very telling of the essence of the problem that feminism has always been up against, namely that half of humanity, the half with disproportionate power and money, has always struggled to see, listen to, and care about female humans as they see and care about male humans. That even one such man has now admitted his total failure to consider women's rights at all, while busy giving men more rights, is potentially a major step forward in the ongoing battle to undo ALL the mistakes made in shaping laws and rights with only men in mind.
“…the half with disproportionate power and money….” I read that and have on many occasions read similar assertions, yet have always been curious about the support or justification for the assertion. What is “disproportionate “? How does one measure or stratify the “power” part of the assertion? At some point I had read about the number of billionaires who are female but who inherited their fortunes via the death of the male spouse whose efforts produced the fortune or by divorce, vis., Bill Gates’ former spouse whose own efforts produced mostly nothing but now employs very substantial political and cultural power through the manner in which she had the ‘good’ fortune to have been married to a near autistic rot of a man. The numbers of women who now have and employ both power and money from such circumstances (death of the male spouse or divorce) was significant.
How do we gauge such assertions?
Melinda Gates was a critical Microsoft engineer from the early days of the company's formation, and was the making of Bill both privately and professionally. If you see her efforts as 'producing mostly nothing', you are blinded by your prejudice against women and wives, a very common prejudice amongst men especially. Trump's wealth was significantly due to his first wife's efforts. The list of men whose success, financial or otherwise, had more to do with their wife's efforts than their own is very very long. As for the sex distribution of billionaires in 2025, this is from Wiki:
'World’s Billionaires List The Richest In 2025
Wealthiest Elon Musk
Net worth (1st) Increase US$342 billion
Number of billionaires Increase 3,028 (from 2,781)
Total list net worth value Increase US$16.1 trillion (from US$14.2 trillion)
Number of women Increase 406
Number of men Increase 2,622
New members to the list Increase 247
Also fyi, “Nine of the 10 richest women (in the world) inherited their fortunes, either from fathers, husbands or in one case, mother.” No more feminist BS talking points on this particular subject. And the 10th who inherited from her mother? Who did the mother inherit from?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthakroontje/2024/04/02/the-richest-women-in-the-world-francoise_bettencourt-meyers-taylor-swift-alice-walton-2024/
That’s pretty laughable. Everyone knows her publicists have been quick to portray her as a brilliant key to MS success. But no history of MS demonstrates or explains it. It’s fanciful you’ve fallen into it. But since your a journalist, how much did Melinda wheedle from Billy boy in their divorce? What was her personal net worth when she started dating him around 1987, when she married him in ‘94 and when she filed for divorce?
Don’t let your feminist advocacy make her out to be something she wasn’t. She got enormously rich by divorcing the guy who produced that wealth.
Wow, you really do hate women. Men inherit their fortunes too. In fact inherited money has primarily gone to sons. Melinda got Bill into philanthropy (maybe look up the word) and their foundation has given away a record amount of money to worthy causes. As for the usual stereotype of women taking off with their rich husband's money after divorce, she could have got billions more than she did: 'Although the couple did not have a prenuptial agreement,[47] Melinda (who filed) did not request spousal support.[46]' (Wiki). She's NOT the money-grabbing bitch you paint her as. Your old-school misogyny is showing.
#terfisaslur
OK, so I’ve been really puzzled about how this ideological juggernaut gained so much traction, all over the world, at the same time so that we all woke up one day and had people confidently telling us that we don’t know what we’ve known all our lives, namely that men are men and women are women. I thought ‘could it be because Stonewall is ace (no pun intended) at campaigning?’. Maybe, but that doesn’t explain it all. Then I thought ‘is it because the most vocal are bloody men and we all know how accomplished they are at shaping and dominating agendas?’ Partly, I thought, but that still doesn’t explain how we all got splatted by the gender juggernaut. I listened to ‘Julie in Genderland’ and the psychiatrist who talked about the correlation between gender dysphoria and autism and I thought ‘aha, there’s no one so determined as an autistic person on a mission’. And that perhaps does go some distance to explaining how those of us acquiescing to a vague ‘live and let live’ notion got rudely woken one day by the meltdown of empassioned ideologues insisting that trans women are actual, biological, females and woe be tied you if you disagree. But, here, in this article, right here, I’ve found the final piece in the puzzle - the ultimate explanation.
They only went and had a supranational meeting. They were a heady mix of trans ideologues, lawyers, and ‘experts’ and they had their meeting and then they went forth and multiplied. All over the bloody world. And they got into every nook and cranny of society: politics, universities, legislatures, local government and on and on. It reminds me of that horror film with the monster, zombie truck, relentlessly tracking its prey. Guess who’s the prey this time folks? All of us.
Trans became for profit industry, 1 that kills people, like asbestos, tobacco, oxycontin, fast food.
Oh, yes, thank you, I forgot that. That was something else I learned listening to ‘Julie in Genderland’. And, of course, profit never knowingly misses an opportunity. Another piece of the jigsaw puzzle. This list of causes is growing! But see how each of them has a different sphere of influence. The live and let live people (as I was) don’t - individually - influence very much. We’re at the bottom of the heap. But add into the mix the individual influence of men, autism and profit; the national and systemic influence of Stonewall and the international and systemic influence of the Yogyakarta diaspora (and whatever else I haven’t thought about), and you start to get exponential growth. And it all feeds back to each other and makes each sphere of influence expand.
I’m conscious that I’m writing this like it’s a big discovery. I’M only now discovering it but others have probably already made it to here and carried out a much more comprehensive analysis. This is an important part of the ‘getting back to sanity’ task - hot on the heels of the U.K. Supreme Court decision. When people understand how the madness took hold, it’ll be easier for them to give it up and publicly disavow it. Maybe we need a roadshow. If I were a millionaire, I’d sponsor a roadshow. And a piece of public art. In Trafalgar Square. And a one-woman show. By Julie, obviously.
OK, now I’m just getting carried away.
Trans has long history that has largely been ignored or misrepresented, as Rowling says it's a bigger scandal than last century's lobotomies & false recovered memories combined.
Dear Julie, such an important read and we’re all grateful for this Australian lawyers awakening, back in 2021. I remember what an important moment it was for Terf Island as it was at the beginning of my now four year nightmare as a sacked former breastfeeding counsellor in Australia.
I do feel rather strongly that we could take a significant step forward if we could ask Professor Phil Alston for his reflection on the impact of the Yogyakarta principles on the lives of his Melbourne based daughters as they raise his grandchildren in a country and State which has instituted the most extreme version of sex self ID since the Gillard Bastardisation of our once grand sex discrimination act.
If Alston’s name doesn’t immediately jump out to you, he is the other Australian law luminary who attended at Yogyakarta back then and as yet it appears remains blissfully unaware how royally all those founding Human Rights lawyers fucked women, children and same sex attracted people with the creation of the synthetic sex manifesto of spoilt men masquerading as a civil rights movement. XX
I'd love to read interviews of "gender surgeons" who were the original writers of "sex change" letters. With no studies into whether women accept post op men into our sisterhood, our reactions to men in our private spaces and with no research into the ramifications of male bodied persons (that is, men) taking women's prizes, sports competition slots and female-designated social/political chairs, they simply cranked out men with their genitals lopped off, who "are now women." I saw the name change letter my ex husband used to change his name and status in New York state in 1995. Surgeons have no business doing social engineering. They simply proved, as a profession, that they see a woman as a human not having a penis. I hope some of the retrain to operate on children born with a cleft palate and other ethical medical surgeries.
Great post - thank you. Most of my "progressive" friends and family of course have no knowledge whatsoever of these realities and the complex issues involved that are reduced to brain dead "talking points" like - "trans-women ARE women" - because they get their evidence-free pre-masticated "opinions" and "talking points" from their favorite MSM propaganda outlet which of course don't offer the slightest nod to the rights of women and girls.
So the discussion of the UK spousal exit clause nudged this man toward the reality faced by women with regard to trans self ID yet the two times Ireland is mentioned, it is not noted that trans widows have no such right to exit such a marriage in Ireland nor are we informed as to whether our spouse has obtained a GRC. To ensure we our voices and rights are further restricted Amnesty International Ireland, NWCI, the chair of women's Aid, TENI (mostly husband and fathers) signed a letter calling on politicians and media to no longer provide legitimate representation. But no woman has been harmed. Right.
Correa believes sex is a nineteenth century Western social construct?? God help humanity. Literally.
Many countries don't have toilets?
Even for a professional transplaining twonk that's a weak excuse!
“Many countries don’t have toilets” - is that your best point, sir?
Old line that gay men have huge egos on no foundation, well trans foundation is delusion, because as geneticist Baron Robert Winston told the BBC years ago, we can't actually change our sex, so entire trans "debate" can never end because it is toxic fraud, like saying Rowling is entitled to her opinion when her "opinion" is that binary human reproductive biology brought us ALL here, incl. trans. And since trans rights are human rights, trans didn't "lose" anything with the Supreme Court clarification of years old law. 🌈 UDHR #terfisaslur & cis ideology, & frequently misogynist @ that. What was once human rights has deteriorated to social media branding, narcissism & self-promotion. We don't even know how many women die annually because they are BORN that way, instead our time is devoted to debating 🚹 🚺 🚽💩.
I love that Wintemute now questions the entirety of the GRA. He is correct to question it. We should not have a requirement that a man cut off his testicles and split open his penis to be entitled to have ID that says he is a woman (or to be granted access to women's spaces and sports). This would only push some men to do bodily harm to themselves unnecessarily, and it still potentially harms women because, even after medical alterations, a man is still a man.
Rather, as Wintemute stated, if one's official ID, which lists "male" doesn't appear to match one's feminine appearance (or vice versa), we must change the law and people's attitudes so that a mismatch in appearance does not automatically trigger alarms. Some men don't look typically male and some women don't look typically female - and that's okay! Nobody should be penalized for looking unusual for their sex. And nobody becomes the opposite sex by chemically and/or surgically altering their appearance to appear the opposite sex, so there need not be any "recognition" of a non-fact.
How shocking that Wintemute, who is gay, says “women’s rights were not considered during the meeting and that he should have challenged some aspects of the Principles”? “Admitting he “failed to consider” that trans women still in possession of their male genitals would seek to access female-only spaces,”
Apparently the fact that women are half the world and have rights which ought to be considered was lost on him. As was the foreseeable result that some men “still in possession” of their dicks “would seek to access female-only spaces,”. What a daft, narcissistic man.
Newsflash! Gay man neglects to remember that women exist and could be harmed by men he's personally responsible for giving access to women's spaces. Erm...
Hi Julie, You made no mention of how the recent Supreme Court ruling will affect this material? Isn't some of it, eg Amnesty's stance, now illegal?
I don't know the answer to this, but something to think about perhaps? That judgement may also have been some awakening from the censorship which some trans organizations seem to specialize.
Ian
Thanks JB you fckn lezzer legend terfagette. Australia is the absolute pits with transgenderism. It’s quite hard to remain optimistic I’m finding. I think ordinary people are insanely captured by trans nonsense, and the national broadcaster has a lot to answer for in that regard. I don’t know if there could be a way for citizens to bring a class action against the ABC, for utterly failing the public. If you ever want to come and fck shit up down under you can stay on my couch as long as you like, if you don’t mind cats.
Thanks, Julie, excellent piece and I agree that Mr Wintemute deserves credit for admitting his mistake though a bit amazing he missed the elephant in the room at the time. We so need to get rid of the GRA and gender reassignment as a protected characteristic . As soon as you stick the word 'gender' in your legislation, you are in trouble!
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/am-i-allowed-any-dignity
Dusty
The ellephant was wearing lipstick, wig, frock, heels, fishnets & calling the police for misgendering if anyone refused to address him as Raquel.
😂
Amnesty ought to have stuck to their original mission of advocacy for anyone held prisoner or punished for purely alleged political ‘crimes’ - ie having the wrong type of views. Now it sides with those who punish people ‘guilty’ of crimethink.
Are all you terfagettes coming to Sydney to stand by Sall Grover in Giggle V Tickle August?