kuningan retweeted
This is @ABarrosCurtis. He investigated Rosie Duffield for months because she liked a tweet in which I criticised Eddie Izzard for his use of womanface. The fact that he is on a supposedly neutral panel set up to consider the Conversion Practices Bill suggests the fix is already in. Don't let them away with this.
A joint committee made up of members of the House of Lords and House of Commons has been set up to consider the government’s Draft Conversion Practices Bill.
The committee seeks views on how the draft bill could be improved. Get involved by 16 November ⬇️ committees.parliament.uk/com…
kuningan retweeted
.@HadleyFreeman:
“GBH, coercive control, child abuse, homophobic hate speech: these are already criminal acts. Which would make this bill seem rather redundant until you read on and you realise that the bill is, in fact, a bait and switch”
1/
thetimes.com/comment/columni…
kuningan retweeted
Oh great, Tom! According to you, the parents’ groups are wrong, the LGB groups are wrong, the lawyers are wrong, the women’s groups are wrong, the therapists’ groups are wrong, the whistleblowers are wrong, the detransitioners are wrong, and now the Church of England is wrong too! 🤣🤣
You are so persuasive!
kuningan retweeted
How on earth an organisation that misrepresented the law to so many institutions, for so many years, to such devastating effect, be allowed anywhere near another law that could potentially net them millions and cause more untold damage, is a government scandal in its own right.
kuningan retweeted
1/ This is an unserious article from Equalities Minister Simon Lightwood MP. It is avowedly party political, it misrepresents the draft bill and it offers assurances around family life and religion that are unambiguously false. It is unworthy of a minister. I'll explain why:
💬 ‘Labour promised to ban conversion practices. Now we are delivering’
🔴 Minister for Equalities Simon Lightwood MP ✍️ for LabourList...
labourlist.org/2026/11/labou…
kuningan retweeted
Douglas Murray's Spectator column this week is on the male Oxford professor who wears huge prosthetic breasts to teach. This paragraph cracked me up.
Archived column: archive.vn/pTwqw
kuningan retweeted
You've avoided nearly all of my questions, Norah, because you're literally incapable of answering them. Your mind is firmly closed to any evidence or facts that undermine your preferred narrative. You consider it immoral for anyone to even question you, even though you voluntarily and confidently entered this discussion. You're like a flat-earther. Nothing I or anyone else says to you will permeate your stubborn quasi-religious beliefs, because to change your mind would take away a core part of your self image, which is as somebody who is kinder and better and more righteous than the nasty people still advocating for the safety of women and girls.
You repeat your thought-terminating clichés and unevidenced assertions, which I assume sound clever inside your echo chamber, but which, outside it, make you appear not only dim, but a total moral vacuum. Increased risk to females? Who cares. Women threatened by violence? Of course those poor trans-identified men lash out when they meet resistance! What is a gender identity? You can't really say, but like the flat-earther, you're sure it exists, because your tribe is held together by belief in it, and pride themselves on their blind faith in it.
I keep waiting for a single gender ideologue or trans activist to truly engage with the facts, but all of you sheer away from them like horses from fireworks. It truly is like talking to cult members who're incapable of engaging in rational debate and just keep chanting the mantras, consigning all serious questions to the 'evil' bin.
I've been told I'm on the wrong side of history thousands of times. By debating people like you, I've come to realise that your ilk's idea of the 'right side of history' means stripping women and girls' of their rights, excusing male violence against women, siding with those issuing death and rape threats and attempting to suppress critical thought and freedom of speech.
Maybe, like the flat-earthers, you genuinely think history will vindicate you. I believe people will look back on this period and analyse your arguments, not because they admire them, but because they're trying to fathom how so many supposedly intelligent people fell, hook, line and sinker for a bunch of vacuous, post-modern, pseudo-intellectual cobblers, while being completely indifferent to the real world harm they were enabling.
kuningan retweeted
A piece on the scale of the Democratic victory last night, and how that means the losers really have lost. So many people have exposed themselves by turning into Trump enablers and sycophants. Here is a list of those who should be most nervous.
kuningan retweeted
So in summary: you want all women's single-sex spaces and services taken away to accommodate men who claim their 'gender identity feels different from what [their] body is.' You can't explain what a gender identity is, or explain what it means to 'feel' female, as opposed to being female, but you still think society should reconfigure itself around an unfalsifiable concept that cannot be objectively observed or proven, in spite of the well-evidenced risk to women and girls this poses.
kuningan retweeted
It’s increasingly obvious that Labour’s Conversion Practices Draft Bill was drawn up with all the attention to detail and rigorous analysis that made the Assisted Dying Bill such a triumph.
I'm baffled that the Government line on the #ConversionBill is "This draft bill targets a specific form of abuse, it does not touch regular parenting".
Where, please, is the "regular parenting" carve-out?
Where is the "specific form of abuse"?
🎁🔗
telegraph.co.uk/gift/04a15eb…
kuningan retweeted
💥💥💥 FRONT PAGE
Calls to scrap ‘chilling’ trans law
💥 Telegraph launches campaign to scrap draft Conversion Practices Bill amid warnings that it would have a chilling effect on the relationship between parents and their children.
@KemiBadenoch says: “We already have laws to protect people from abuse and discrimination. I looked at this in government, and concluded that the bill was unworkable.”
telegraph.co.uk/gift/2d169a2…
kuningan retweeted
There is a deep, dark irony that lies a the heart of the Conversion Practices Bill, that will play out.
If passed, the law will end up being the largest ever driver of conversion practices for gay and lesbian young people. It will have far more negative impact that Section 28.
kuningan retweeted
Meanwhile, trans activists tell women they have no right to speak about themselves and their own bodies in any way that might trigger narcissistic rage in trans-identified men, apply the ideological term 'cis' to people who neither describe themselves that way nor believe in gender identities, assert the right to redefine 'woman' not by the observable characteristics of biological sex but by sex stereotypes, and seek to dictate what rights women and girls should surrender to men.
kuningan retweeted
I’ve never told any trans person what they ‘should be.’ As far as I’m concerned, trans people can call themselves whatever they like and believe whatever they like about themselves. What trans people aren’t entitled to is universal agreement that they’ve changed sex, acclaim for their embodiment of sex stereotypes, the reconfiguration of laws around an objective untruth or women’s surrender of their sex-based rights.
kuningan retweeted
Stonewall would like everyone to forget the harm it has done to UK society since 2015 — by lying to everyone about the law, by trying to make people use ridiculous words, by attacking and insulting actual lesbians, and above all by saying “No Debate” about all this rubbish. In short it acted as if it possessed the power to impose its social engineering project on the country.
Now it would like us to forget all of that and sit down for a nice chat.
Very funny, Stonewall.
A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/arti…
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.
kuningan retweeted
A lot of us were very willing to have a debate without heat, @stonewalluk, and the reason that never happened wasn't because gender critical feminists didn't want one.
While we were trying to get you to listen to our concerns, your former CEO was telling a BBC boss that gay people not wanting to include the opposite sex in their dating pool was 'sexual racism'. While we were pointing out the homophobia inherent in gender ideology, Stonewall ambassador Alex Drummond (a bearded, heterosexual man who'd had no surgery and taken no cross-sex hormones but liked wearing skirts), was going into schools to talk to students about his 'lesbian' identity. @BluskyeAllison, who actually is a lesbian, was subject to unlawful discrimination at her place of work for tweeting: ‘Stonewall recently hired Morgan Page, a male bodied person who ran workshops with the sole aim of coaching heterosexual men who identify as lesbians on how they can coerce young lesbians into having sex with them. Page called [it] “overcoming the cotton ceiling”.’
When the UK Supreme Court upheld women's right to single sex spaces, you issued a statement expressing your unhappiness about the ruling. In her report on your unhappy influence at the University of Essex, you were found by barrister @akuareindorf to have misrepresented the law as it related to women's rights: '[Stonewall have] stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than the law as it is’.
In 2018, you publicly advised schools to shred a research pack saying there were risks to puberty blockers, in spite of the fact that you aren't a medical charity and that there was already credible evidence that puberty blockers are neither irreversible nor harm-free. Meanwhile you produced your own educational packs, recommending a children's book, for ages 5-9, in which the parent 'is neither a man, nor a woman – they’re non-binary.' In July 2022, Stonewall sent out a tweet that read ‘Research suggests that children as young as two recognise their trans identity'.
@thetimes has reported how you've sought to control the language used by NHS trusts and government on their social-media accounts. Organisations would get points from you for replacing commonly understood words with ideologically approved terms, eg, 'birthing parent' instead of 'mother'. thetimes.com/uk/society/arti…
In short, you took a maximalist position on gender identity ideology, which you attempted to enforce by diktat. You refused to acknowledge that you'd hitched your wagon to a cause that, unlike civil rights, gay rights or women's rights, sought to strip rights from others. You sought to curtail everyone's right to freedom of speech and belief by controlling what it was permissible to think and say, through the management and political class. You have argued against women's and girl's rights to their own spaces, their sports and to assemble without men. Your former CEO tried to shame gay women/men into dating the opposite sex if the latter claimed to be female/male.
Your mantra was 'no debate' because, like all totalitarians, you preferred slogans, bullying and infiltration of powerful institutions to talking to opponents. You appear to have had no concern for the lowly people your ideology was harming: gender confused kids, female rape victims, female prisoners, regular people hounded and investigated at their places of work for refusing to accept the new mandates on sex and gender issued from on high.
Your 'activism' has been a disaster for those trans-identified people who really do just want to get on with their lives in peace. You have besmirched the name of an organisation many of us were once proud to donate to, the charity that was partly responsible for securing the legal right of gay people to marry, which a lot of us thought would never happen in our lifetimes. The milquetoast words quoted below do not erase a decade of gender activism that has been disastrous not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
There was once a debate to be had, but until you acknowledge the direct harm you've caused, it is no more possible to debate you than to persuade a person in the throes of a drug-induced psychosis that they are not, in fact, the reincarnated Christ.
