29 Comments
User's avatar
Ron Eve's avatar

Old bloke here. On behalf (I hope) of all of us on this side of the fence who remain utterly appalled at the antics of lipsticked, wig-wearing men in (frumpy)frocks - wait! Edit: put 'aggressive, violent, privileged' in front of that - we stand by you. But I wish more of my brothers would stand up too.

There is no grey area, no diffuse, loose, flim flam over definitions.

Woman = Adult Human Female.

There is no such thing as 'trans' - a made-up derivation - within the physical reality of sexual definition.

Expand full comment
Fiona Thompson's avatar

We’ve done it before and we will do it again - fight for our rights as lesbians, as adult human females. But it gets so bloody tiring! Hope that the Supreme Court comes down on the side of biology. This shows how fragile our hard won rights are.

Expand full comment
Rosie Millard's avatar

You ARE a powerhouse Julie. You'll triumph on Wednesday.

Expand full comment
Jeremy Wickins's avatar

And it's a war that I'll absolutely support in any way I can.

Expand full comment
Fay's avatar

I can't believe this even needs considering, but here we are. Stonewall certainly have a lot to answer for.

Expand full comment
Kate Bromwich Alexandra's avatar

Julie, we are waiting with bated breath and cudgels at the ready. So much love and respect for you across social media. PS. Loving the book. I have a copy on my bookshelf, and I'm listening on Audible. It's a powerful book, but then, we wouldn't expect anything else. XX

Expand full comment
Joanne Mackel's avatar

All women need this judgement . It’s about Risk and safety . We are all safer because of Julie Bindel and others standing up for all of us . Putting themselves in the way of trans hatred to stand up for us women . Us Women simply do not behave this way . Gaslighting, misogyny, violence and sexual violence . Those are male traits .

Or used by women who have been damaged by men . Stand strong 💪 .

Expand full comment
Sally J's avatar

If the UK Supreme Court erases lesbian identities by handing our word to men, I'd say that's grounds for an asylum claim in other countries. There are plenty of us who would be willing to host you here in the US.

Or if you prefer TransCanada, that's an option. Of course you'd have to tolerate Canada's cold weather and lack of free speech, similar to the UK. At least we in the US we have the First Amendment backed by the Second, the kick ass couple of rights that every modern country should have and enjoy.

Expand full comment
Dr Teresa Goodell's avatar

I think the notion that there is no objective truth, and feelings are all that matter, empowers male liars and criminals like Donald Trump. He can say anything, no matter how obviously false, and people "feel" it's right. Same holds true for gender.

May the UK rule in favor of reality.

Expand full comment
Joe Fattorini's avatar

I will fly to the UK to support you Julie, and all lesbians and women. This is a straight up fight for reality, hard won rights, and against misogyny. Let lesbians be lesbians. Let women be women.

Expand full comment
Roger Hayter's avatar

Is it fair to blame the Supreme Court for trying to infer what Parliament meant, when Parliament seems to have deliberately fudged the issue?

Expand full comment
Emma's avatar

Mainly Julie I am delighted your body stays in one piece.

Congratulations all.

Expand full comment
Neil Gascoigne's avatar

On a merely intellectual level it’ll be interesting to see how the SC can possibly resolve this issue. The Gender Recognition Act was introduced because of a ruling in an appeal brought before the European Court of Human Rights. That ruling made clear that it held the UK’s restriction of sex-based rights (like the right to marry at the time) to natal “status” to be in violation of the European Convention. If the Court were to uphold the implied Equalities Act definition then presumably it would be in violation of the ECHU’s ruling. As far as I know the ECHU continues to hold that sexual “status” (unlike, say, same-sex marriage!) is not up to individual nations to decide. The reason the tension between the EA and the GRA has become acute is that whereas the ECHU envisaged a few cases of medically sanctioned transsexuality the Scottish legislation that kicked all this off aimed to demedicalise “dysphoria” by making legal status a matter of gender self-identification.

Expand full comment
Vivien Wild's avatar

Brilliant article. No matter what we will stand together and stand fast

Expand full comment
Annienonymous's avatar

Well here in NewZealand we are delighted with the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

I hope that this has flow through and impact on the Australian Courts who are due to hear Sall Grover’s case Tickle V Giggle, in which a man Roxy Tickle who ‘identifies’ as a woman insists on his right to access the woman only social app that Ms Grover created.

In NZ on the Tuesday before the Supreme Court ruling was made public, MP Casey Costello advised HealthNZ that health services would be provided and information would be collected based upon biological sex, a huge win in light of our Midwifery Council trying to remove the words ‘woman’ and ‘mother’ from their policy documentation, the organisation favoured instead the use of the Maori word whanau, a collective noun referring to an extended family grouping, I dunno about that, my whanau didn’t have post birth have haemorrhoids or mastitis.

Expand full comment
Terry M.'s avatar

This is moving and fascinating. The supposed wall of LGBT+ movements is really a war within itself. I live in the USA and have never come across this schism. Everybody unites around trans causes and pretends it is all seamless. The harm being done to women (not just lesbians) is cruel. Maybe feminists should focus on this more and stop demonizing normal men.

Expand full comment