Sigh, the EHRC rules are not the law. The law is clear and already applies. As the UKSC said and as I had predicted years ago. I know they need to make themselves relevant, but misrepresenting what is happening is not helpful in the long run.

Except the rights of women of course. The Council of Europe does not give a shit about women, unless they are the ones with a penis. We are basically ruled by a bunch of trans porn soaked perverts.

From a book titled "A Girl at Last!" (1975). Because AGPs do not exist. No no no.

The left is so afraid of not being progressive and inclusive that the only rapes they will care about are the white on white ones, or white on black ones. Caring about anything else would be racist.

Never forget that it was women who gave TRAs this argument. (RH is the man in the Darlington case, CR changing room).

I eventually gave up in desperation but Maya here argues that transsexual means someone with the PC of GR and GR is the PC of transsexuals! And then they complain about the circular definition of trans.

It is not a ruling, it is an advisory opinion. How is this guy in charge of anything?

Try to ask for complete clarity on the meaning of gender and you will find yourself cancelled by this fine group of feminist lawyers, who have a very peculiar definition of feminism.

I think my brain is going to explode.

According to Grainger criterion 3, a belief has to be cogent and serious. I would not describe GI belief in such a way. So why were some legal feminists so keen to concede that gender identity theory is a protected belief?

Is "counsels and witnesses should lie if they so choose" really the hill legal feminists want to die on?

This man, displaying the thinking abilities of a fruit fly, is an actual journalist.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.