In truth, it's hard to be non-partisan in this debate, so I'd mistrust pretty much anyone who claimed not to have a position. It's not difficult. You pick which matters more: women's safety and dignity, or men's hurt feelings.
What I take issue with is the DSKC's attempt to frame his analysis as non-partisan, combined with his unself-conscious use of partisan language; and what seem to me to be surprising distortions in his reasoning born of a hostility to the sex realist position and therefore FWS.
So I use language that reflects that. I analyse the law as fairly as I can, acknowledging the ever-present risk of motivated reasoning.
"Trans woman" is not a term in the EqA either: it is activist language intended to create the impression that a particular subcategory of men is a subcategory of women.
And yes: in the blog, I say in terms I take the sex realist position.
I listened to the usually excellent @11kbw.bsky.social employment law blog on the recent ET cases on single-sex spaces. www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2026/03/25/p...
You can't disagree with him, can you? He may presently join the rest of us at WNTAELF.
In the latest update to the Equal Treatment Bench Book, chapter 12, ¶48 is a breath of fresh air: '"Assigned at birth" is used by trans people (and others) instead of biological sex, but is not widely understood, and it is therefore to be avoided by judges.'
This.
Someone finally answered.
Fascinating eye-witness account of Lynsay Watson/Alex Horwood's latest antics and his arrest last Thursday. Since he's been both camera-shy and menacing online towards many of those he disagrees with, it's also good to have an up-to-date photo of him.
www.thehelenjoyce.com/p/lynsay-wat...
The answer was no. No-one wanted to try to explain to me why men getting infants to suck on their nipples might (even sometimes) be ok.
On balance I suppose I find that faintly reassuring, in a rather bleak way.
The answer was no. No-one wanted to try to explain to me why men getting infants to suck on their nipples might (even sometimes) be ok.
On balance I suppose I find that faintly reassuring, in a rather bleak way.
So depressing to see a Labour MP push misinformation like this.
The judgment @kateosbornemp.bsky.social refers to is here: goodlawproject.org/wp-content/u....
Will she say which paragraph/s say “the EHRC’s draft code of practice got the law wrong”? No. Because none do.
bsky.app/profile/kate...
Michael Foran's excellent clear explainer of yesterday's GLP v EHRC judgment. knowingius.org/p/good-law-p...
And I'm really sorry if being civil to me here earns you a load of abuse — that unfortunately was @swilkenkc.bsky.social's experience after an exchange with me about (of all things) costs as damages. Fingers crossed things have improved here since then.
Many thanks 😊
I'd really like to read it, please?
Ooh yes me too if you would be so kind? naomi.cunningham@outertemple.com
Ooh yes me too if you would be so kind? naomi.cunningham@outertemple.com
Anyone?
It's awfully rude and unkind to draw attention to these kinds of risks, I know. But isn't that rather the point of safeguarding? Kindness is complicated.
Bearing in mind what a very wicked world it is — and that autogynephilia is a thing, and some autogynephile men will fetishise pretty much any aspect of femaleness — are there any foreseeable risks in condoning male "breastfeeding"?
But I'm by an order of magnitude more cautious (putting it mildly) about the impact on an infant of being "breastfed" by a male artificially induced to lactate. For whose benefit is this really done? And what is the nature of the "benefit"?
I don't know the data on the respective merits of formula and wet-nursing, for an orphaned infant. If the actual mother is available, I'd be cautious about the impact of wet-nursing on the mother-infant bond, but that could be addressed by evidence.
So we are presumably proceeding on the assumption that the female mother is dead, or can't breastfeed (perhaps a "trans man" who has had her breasts removed?), or is otherwise unavailable (a surrogate, maybe; another whole can of worms).
Are you able to help my failing imagination here? The child must have had an actual female mother, who we presumably agree would be the best person to breastfeed her, if available?
I am struggling to imagine circumstances in which it would be in the best interests of an infant to be "breastfed" by a male person who has been induced to lactate. I failed my maths degree, but some things stuck, including "confession of failure of the imagination does not amount to proof".
We really need to start to face up to the implications of autogynephilia for the admission of men who say they are women to women-only spaces.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC6M...
I re-read "That Hideous Strength" not long ago. The portrayal of the moral corruption of Mark Studdock by bureaucratic evil, using a combination of menace, flattery and calculated desensitisation to horror, had strong contemporary resonances for me.