Legal Definition of Sex: 4

This one covers three advocates for clarifying biological sex in law. Taken from the debate in Parliament in June 2023. You can find the rest of the series here:👇


Time to Kiss a Tory?

Peter Bottomley is a conservative MP. He has certainly done his homework and has raised this issue in the house before now. As a lifelong leftie I don’t know where we would be without the concerted pushback, from Conservatives. Not to disregard the women on the left speaking up but, for Rosie Duffield it has to have been a lonely experience. Peter begins by acknowledging his debt to the work of Helen Joyce, author of Trans: When Ideology meets reality and Kathleen Stock, author of Material Girls.

Liam Hackett

The MP took the opportunity to call out a vicious bully who labelled Kathleen Stock an extremist, Liam Hackett, who runs an anti-bullying charity called Ditch The Label. I remember this guy. He had a meltdown because he was not allowed in a female only area while having breast screening.

Here he is calling Stock out for being a dangerous extremist and juxtaposed with an illustration of his hypocrisy.

See also Hackett gleefully arranging for a delivery of a TShirt to Kathleen Stock. This man is a vicious bully and takes delight in it. There’s loads more of this stuff on twitter.

More Bullying

After dispatching Hackett Bottomley is unequivocal about the primacy of sex.

He ends with this example from Sport: 👇 and the right to the provision of care by the same sex if requested.

Rosie Duffield (Labour)

Duffield acknowledges the toxicity of the debate and the impact on women who speak on this issue. She recognises how important this is for ordinary women. These are just some of the reasons the law protects sex. 👇

Duffield raises the matter of safeguarding, single sex wards and female sports; all of which The Equality was intended to protect instead it is being interpreted as the right to compel belief.

She finishes with a pleas for clarity in law and a reiteration that she will continue to speak up p, death threats or not..

Nick Fletcher (Conservative)

Fletcher begins with a safeguarding concern and uses his experience in construction to make analogous comparisons with the growth of health and safety practices.

Legislation was enacted to avoid incidents like this and now the queer theorists obsession with disrupting social norms is creating a whole new area of “near misses”. Fletcher outlines the real risk that female sports will be destroyed by the increasing presence of men identifying into the female category. We are also putting women at risk of actual bodily harm.

On pronouns Fletcher illustrates the starting point, and end point, of this ideology. Our kids are being sold a lie and the rising rates of detransitioners tells its own sorry tale.

He finishes with the reality that those promoting this ideology won’t be there to pick up the pieces and will simply move on to the next grift. The government need to act.

You can read the full debate here: 👇


Or if you prefer you can watch it on parliament TV:

Parliament TV

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. I have just had to pay £109 for virus protection so anything to help.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Legal Definition of Sex. Part 3

In which I cover the contributions of Angela Eagle, Angela Richardson and Jess Phillips. You can read the series here:


Angela Eagle

Angela Eagle is a Labour MP and a Lesbian. She has been a Labour MP since 1992. Before I cover her contribution to the debate I just want to share some history about her funding. She has taken £95,000 from Antony Watson who is an LGBT activist on the board of GLADD, another gay rights organisation gone rogue. (Source: Electoral Commission)

Bear this in mind when you listen to Eagle. I will add a full profile about Eagle to my Respect My Sex series.

She opens with this statement which attacks the contribution of Miriam Cates as “provocative”. The fact that homosexuality is under attack with having being redefined as “same gender attraction, most prominently by Stonewall, was amply covered by the MP, Joanna Cherry. (See Part 2). Lesbians, in particular, are castigated for not including obvious men in their dating pools. To deny this, at this point, is extremely disingenuous. Eagle, herself, is in a same sex relationship and not forced to fish in these new dating pools.

Joanna Cherry attempted to intervene at this point but Angela Eagle was not going to allow facts to get in the way of her hyperbole. She continues, claiming that the current legislative situation is fine as it is and to clarify what is meant by sex would lead to incoherence! Gender Grievance warriors need the current lack of clarity it is “strategic ambiguity” and it has worked well for the activists; better than an all out assault on women’s single sex spaces, until now.

There is no paradox here, only a clear intention to ring-fence single sex spaces to the sex they are intended for, also an appeal to international human rights obligations no longer cut any ice since those same bodies are captured by gender identity ideology. Eagle presses on to suggest women are getting bees in their bonnets about a tiny minority and it is these men who would be left humiliated and damaged. We are talking about men, the females are only rolled out when the men need cover, there is little incursion into male spaces by “trans men” and they are not likely to be intimidating; while still an intrusion the consequences are vastly different.

The next statement is hysterical so she employs DARVO to label her opponents of exhibiting the behaviour of which she is in fact guilty. She burnishes her credential to demonstrate that she has always been a feminist blah blah blah.

Joanna Cherry is also a Lesbian, and Eagle here is smearing her using a stream of judgemental words; bigotry;prejudice;misogyny and homophobia. She also deploys another common tactic which is to shift the debate to the U.S context and imply that abortion rights will also be under attack if we allow this state of affairs to continue.” Let men in your bathrooms or abortion rights get it”. The legislation that Eagle is referring to are efforts to protect women from unfair competition in sport and stop children being sterilised and having mastectomies whilst they are in their teens, or younger.

Eagle finishes with this to which I would counter if we are honest that the legislation already meant biological sex we would uphold the law as it was passed. Women and girls would have the right to spaces for their own sex. We are not just talking about post operative males, with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), because there is no requirement for surgery, but surgically unaltered males who will also appear to be the men they are , on sight. Women and girls should not have our boundaries violated in this way, it’s inhumane and unacceptable.

Angela Richardson

Angela is a conservative MP. She points out that while we’ll intentioned the attempt to bring all the different characteristics together, in one single act, has led to a lack of clarity which is harming people. (I have seen people argue for legislation on one axis because whenever you put women into a group with another minority it’s the women who get forgotten). She also makes an excellent point which undermines Eagles pretence that we are making a fuss about a tiny number of people. We are not. We gave an inch and they took a mile.

As Richardson points out we are now in a position where, even where services are advertised for one sex, women don’t know if they are truly single sex. A GRC does not confer an automatic right to breach women’s boundaries.

I am still trying to understand how, even with sex clarified, in law, service providers can be confident about enforcing this while the Gender Recognition Act exists and people are allowed to get sex falsification certificates (GRCs), from the government.

Richardson has a “radical” solution. Provide separate services for males and females were sex matters. Accommodate people, as far practicable, who are not comfortable in spaces for their own sex. What is not acceptable, and has happened, is that the mens remain mens, because urinals, and the women’s is converted to unisex.

Richardson finishes with the revolutionary idea that men, inflight from their sex, are not the same as women, we have different needs and by attacking single sex spaces it is clear that our interests are often diametrically opposed to the men colonising women.

Jess Phillips

This was interesting from the woman who was a sponsor of a bill to promote the idea of men being allowed to make “gender identity” a protected characteristic in lie of “gender reassignment” into the opposite sex category. She also opposed the spousal exit clause, which allowed women to seek divorce before their truth was rewritten in favour of their husband retconning his narrative:

I have written a longer piece on Jess Philips here.

Jess Phillips. Feminist? Meninist?

You will see why I was skeptical about her intervention but she did in fact embrace the need for clarity. My interpretation is that she is seeing a change in the direction of travel and has decided to join the winning side. Send is still allowing herself wiggle room seemingly uncomfortable about saying she is on one side or another. She also says that every “trans” person she knows doesn’t deny their sex. This is not the same thing as saying no “trans” person denies their sex is real. We all know that sex denialism is a key feature of trans activists rhetoric.

Yes, we know you did, which is why it has been a puzzle to see you so reluctant to speak up.

So Jess finally speaks up and acknowledges that sex discrimination is because of biology, the Equality Act is not working, and women need services for women only. Women who offer single sex spaces are also being decommissioned because they don’t also run services for men (and she doesn’t mean “trans-identified” men. She covers herself by saying she has, while working for Birmingham council, commissioned services for LGBT people. I will leave you to read the rest of Phillips contribution on Hansard. For me, it’s too little, too late, but at least it suggests she has seen the writing on the wall.


Or, if you prefer it, on Parliament TV.

Parliament TV

Next up Peter Bottomley, Rosey Duffield and Nick Fletcher.

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. (I will add other methods as soon as I have figured it out. 😉)

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Legal Sex: Parliamentary Debate 2

This is part two covering this historic debate in parliament. You can read part one here:


After the debate is opened a Conservative MP, Ranil Jayawardena, the first to speak. I had not heard of him before but, it turns out he voted against making LGBT teaching in schools compulsory, in 2019.

As a mum of a gay son I entirely share his position. Parents should have the right to opt out of sex education, it is the means by which our kids are indoctrinated into “gender identity ideology” and, as I never tire of saying, this is very harmful to proto-gay kids.

His statements are clear and unequivocal.

He has also done his homework. I suspect most parents aren’t aware that schools have abandoned single sex facilities on this scale. I have written extensively on the corruption in the NHS but even I am shocked at the starkness of hospital policies which think it’s O.K to abandon single sex services.

It is particularly enraging that these are the same hospitals that have such a lamentable record on sexual assaults on their watch.

He is very clear what is at stake and how the march of this ideology, through our institutions, is harming the most vulnerable in our society. He is also right that women’s rights are being stolen out from under us, with some foolish women aiding and abetting them.

He calls for clear, common sense language and clarity in law, he also comments that it should not take bravery to say these things. I imagine the reaction to this next statement would have induced conniptions in TRA twitter.

Useful idiot, Layla Moran, interjects to throw in one of the TRA misdirections about “intersex” ; which he bats away, effortlessly.

Joanna Cherry

Next up is SNP, MP, Joanna Cherry. Cherry argues that the law is muddled and we urgently require clarity that sex means biological sex but not sex as modified by a Gender Recognition Certificate. I disagree on this next point but she is a politician and a lawyer so she may just wish to get people to understand that GRCs are handed out to men with penises. She is on the Advisory board of Sex Matters and her position is not for repeal.

Cherry gives a bit of legal background to the way confusion has been built into the law but her focus moves onto the impact this has on the protected characteristic of sexual orientation.

Cherry goes on to take aim at Stonewall who have unilaterally amended the definition of sexual orientation to “same gender” attracted which has had the effect of men who cross-dress identifying as Lesbians. She calls out the homophobia implicit in this stance.

She also has a pop at one of Scotland’s “Trans” lobby groups with a name that suggests it’s for equal rights for all. Cherry makes it clear they don’t speak for her:

She finishes by referencing a few of the women’s groups that have supported her.

Miriam Cates.

Cates is a Conservative MP, and a former biology teacher.

Cates then brings up a legal case which lays out the issues in a stark bollocks naked kind of way. 👇

She rightly points out how destabilising this is for society.

This next statement is about to trigger one of our Scottish MPs. She’s not holding back.

Hannah Bardell, of the SNP, is not happy with this language calling it unparliamentary and anti-democratic!

Cates snaps back with this common sense.

You can read the hansard record here:


Or, if you prefer watch the debate here:

Parliament Tv

In part three we see Angela Eagle and Jess Phillips.

You can support my work by takingr out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.


Legal Definition of Sex


This is the week we finally got a debate, in Parliament, about the clarification of “sex” in law. I will do a series on the points made in that debate and some of the key speakers. In doing so I hope to develop my thinking around this topic. Lobby groups, for the “T” have benefited from the strategic ambiguity over biological sex, indeed, this was their intention. Nobody was pretending to be confused about “sex” when women’s sex barred us from the vote , certain professions, or even the ability to take out a mortgage. It seems straightforward that we cannot protect women from sex discrimination if we can’t define sex. What makes me hesitant about the revision of the Equality Act is our legislators may take the opportunity to strengthen the concept of “legal” sex and embed gender identity ideology deeper into the law. Nevertheless this debate helped showcase the arguments and it is to be welcomed.

Ultimately I would like the “Gender Recognition Act” repealed which is an argument that makes people nervous. Quite simply, there is no other class who is forced to accept the appropriation of our very existence by the group that causes such harm to women. Our society has developed an infrastructure so we can escape men, when we at our most vulnerable. Trans lobby groups, such as Stonewall, openly campaigning to dismantle female only, single sex spaces. (From the publicity campaign for the launch of a document called Vision For Change 2017 -22.)

The debate

The debate was opened by the Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. She acknowledges how contested this issue is, dividing political parties and family and friends. She also comments that there is a real fear about speaking on this topic but, also, relief that it is finally being discussed, in Parliament.

The first intervention comes early from Liberal Democrat MP, Layla Moran, who offers a counter view that her constituents have contacted her to say they are “scared” that this is going to be discussed and claiming it will cause “a rise in hatred and violence”.

An elected MP saying that discussing women’s rights causes a spike in hate! Here is Layla answering a question about whether she would be happy to share changing rooms with a fully intact man.

Tonia responds like a grownup, something sadly lacking on this topic. At least we have some adults back in the room.

What is at stake is outlined in her next statement. Female sports, single sex spaces for women, at our most vulnerable moments. The right to have our boundaries respected whether that is in changing rooms or health care. The right for same sex attracted people to have free association with others of the same sex.

Unbelievably Lesbians in Tasmania have already lost the right to exclude men from Lesbian groups.

Tonia then explains that she has met with people from LGB Alliance and the Lesbian Project to understand their concerns. As she points out, without recognising biological sex we may as well dispense with the protected characteristic of “sexual orientation”. It is noticeable that there are a plethora of “trans” only groups and nobody is going around threatening their rights of assembly, the same cannot be said for Lesbian events.

Research needs to be able to legally distinguish actual Lesbians for data gathering purposes.

This argument extends to all women. Already we have had debates , in the House of Lords, and House of Commons, which looks at the health needs of Lesbians, Bisexual and “Transwomen”. It makes no sense to look at these groups together, “transwomen” are biologically male so the correct comparator should be females that claim a “trans” identity.

Putting validation above facts doesn’t just damage women’s health, it helps obscure the health impacts of “transgender medicine”. My son now has an increased risk of multiple sclerosis nearly at x 7, added to a genetic predisposition from me. We need to research this based on biological sex. 68% of people who get MS are female, but males have a worse prognosis. I need to know if my son is l more at risk of male pattern MS and we won’t find out if our research is based on fantasy, not reality.

Tonia has also spoken to “trans” lobbyists who want the confusion in the Equality Act to remain. They claim that there is no opposition to men using women’s spaces. This is a blatant lie. 👇

So, “transwomen” are at risk if they use spaces for men so women have to budge up, no matter how uncomfortable, or fearful, this makes us? Does anyone think women deserve human rights?

This is who Tonia spoke to before the debate. Dr Paul Martin, from LGBT Foundation, who I covered in my series on the guidance he drew up for the NHS Confederation. He drips with contempt for the female sex. You can find out more about him here:

NHS Confederation: Series

Also Nancy Kelley of Stonewall infamy. Nancy is a Lesbian who thinks you are are “sexual racist” if you don’t consider “transbians” a.k.a men, as part of your dating pool. can read more about Nancy Kelly here:👇

Nancy Kelley

Male barrister, Robin Moira White, often crops up to claim that all women have accepted him in the female facilities and are not made uncomfortable with his presence. If they were, would they dare say? Here is Robin with noted trans-activists Chris Burns, Jane Fae, and James Morton.

Robin has a tenuous grasp on reality and believes that we can believe Robin is a man but should not be allowed to express these beliefs.

Dr Finn Mackay, describes herself as a “queer male” and is wheeled out to argue that women like her are at risk of being challenged in female facilities. Nobody who has seen footage of Mackay would be left in any doubt about her sex.

Dr Finn Mackay deserves a deep dive herself. She describes herself as a radical feminist. 8 years ago she spoke out against legalising prostitution, which must make her an outlier in “queer” circles. Here she is promoting her work on a channel hosted by a man who claims to be a woman. Both Mackay and the man explain that they could not be Lesbian/Gay because they need their partner to be attracted to them as a kind of “queer male” or a “trans woman”.

This quote 👇 , from Antoniazzi’s opening statement, expresses that authoritarian nature of the trans-stasi who even have the gall to try to mandate what we allowed to think.

Antoniazzi also spoke to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) who agreed that clarification of “sex” to mean “biological sex” would bring clarity in some areas but “potential ambiguity in other areas”. I would like to see legal opinion about where this ambiguity might occur.

Next intervention is from a MP , Lloyd Russell-Moyles the honourable member for Brighton. He is keen to claim that there had always been an intention to introduce “Self-ID” policy. ( This would allow a self-declared statement of what sex you are.)

I have written about Russell-Moyles before. He made the following statement, about a young relative of his, in a parliamentary debate about what should be taught, in schools, on the topic of sex education. Somebody needs a refresher training on child safeguarding.

This MP has been campaigning against single sex spaces since his University days. He was also involved in an outfit that strategised to provide sex education, to children, behind parents backs. I wrote about that here.


This was the response to Russell-Moyle’s intervention. 👇 Tonia rightly points out that the discussion has moved on from 2004. Worryingly she seems amenable to codifying “non-binary” in law. We will need to be vigilant as we will see the horse trading and appeasement of the “trans” lobby, particularly as the Civil Service seem particularly captured.

Despite the note of caution there are some important voices weighing in and this is critical. We need to start from the basis of “shared facts” and get away from the emotive language so beloved of our political class.

I will turn this into a series covering the highlights from the rest of the debate. A link to the written record of the debate is below.


Or, if you prefer to watch it:

Parliament TV

You can support my work by taking out a paid subscription to my substack or donating below. All donations gratefully received and they do help me cover my costs and also to keep content open for those not able to contribute. We need to redress the balance cos the other side have billionaires on their side. Most marginalised my a**.

My Substack

Researching the history and the present of the “transgender” movement and the harm it is wreaking on our society.