I think at an individual level you can have some argument about "this person was radicalised" vs "No, they were always like that and were just lying before", as @elizabethtaylor47.bsky.social does here about Sonia Sodha. But at a mass, general level, the nature of anti-trans attitudes is the same.

There are few things as unpleasant as reading the Guardian’s cynical fundraising blurb “this is what we’re up against” immediately following some vile transphobic screed written by Sonia Sodha. Talk about mask off.

I was once very palpably clocked by Naomi Cunningham on a train - nice to know that she was (a) thinking sex thoughts about me, (b) projecting those sex thoughts onto me, and (c) experiencing disgust at me in consequence, while I was just on my laptop preparing my slides or whatever

Wut? She really blames social media for "transing" Brianna

Remember this... Eire has had gender recognition based on self-ID for over 10 years with no reports of abuse or hatred. The gender critical movement in Eire is minuscule. This is a British problem. A very sick, twisted, British cult problem. It is a disturbing European outlier . This is not normal.

Sonia Sodha's anti trans activity was actively protected at the guardian for years

They're always on the verge of "defeating" trans ideology and us trans people are always still here the next day regardless of anyone's ideology.

At this point, calling for debates on trans rights in the House of Commons is an act of self harm and we need to stop it.

I write about this in the next Trans Agenda but I think we need to stop organising petitions to get debates in the House of Commons. All we do is give the worst people a large platform to attack trans people and the papers more fodder. If we had decent allies there, maybe. But we don't.

I see there is another petition. My view hasn't changed on this since last year.

The big tell is, those concerns about inclusion in sport were never “reasonable” or “science-based”. How do I know? Because whenever people presented clear evidence that rules about inclusion were, actually, working just *fine* (if anything disadvantaging trans women), they didn’t give a damn.

It’s been depressing seeing seemingly reasonable people accelerate from “let’s think about inclusion in sports” to spending all day on the internet insisting that all trans women are predators Even more depressing to see polite society just nod along as if the two were the same thing.

This speaks to a lot of my experience.

When I first heard that Welles quote about how "anyone who speaks quietly and shrivels up in company is unbelievably arrogant," I felt terrible for weeks. (And because I knew it was about Woody Allen, I wondered if I was a monster.)

I feel like this every day. I don't think it will ever stop.

Really concerning to see this kind of rhetoric from practising members of the Bar. If this said "we don't know what proportion of gay men are pedophiles but we know it's some of them" I would hope that people would recognise this for what it is. Sadly they don't when it's about trans people.

And this is what she said about a specific individual, the trans constituent who was recently mentioned by Stella Creasy.

We'll consider - as is our practice - with specialist regulatory Counsel whether to make a complaint to Ms Cunningham's regulator. We apply a very high bar: I have (and GLP has) only ever made one complaint. But, as I say, this is contemptible and revolting.

This feels comparable to - indeed worse than - when GB News broadcast a "comedian" saying "the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons... includes paedos." Ofcom concluded that GB News breached the broadcast code: "the potentially highly offensive content was not justified by the context."

When you read this stuff from people, whether it's about trans people or any other minority, how can you see anything other than someone just admitting they're a supremacist? Of course you think every member of the group you hate is disgusting, that's why you are what you are

Simply contemptible, revolting, for a member of the Bar, Naomi Cunningham, to endorse the idea that trans women are trans "for reasons of sexual gratification" or because they "are fetishists".

Not even just amongst the cis. The lack of understanding about how trans resistance has worked, what we have repeatedly won and why we have forced the GCs into lawfare to win because *everything* else they tried failed and money is the only advantage they have is... Bothering me.

I'm glad Translucent has had the bright idea to *checks notes* ask the government via a petition to not harm us despite the supreme court ruling that we should be harmed because of how our laws are written.

It has been won this month but also Phillipson needs to change the guidance because it hasn't been won enough

Could there be a better example of "the trans debate" than 98% of women supporting trans people and then one single lone person voting against them and getting their way regardless. It's all such a fucking sham

They are the dog that caught the car. This nonsense is what happens when you get everything you’ve asked for, but what you’ve asked for makes no sense.

Sex Matters formally calling trans people “deviants” The Supreme Court decision on a law intended to grant trans people equality was explicitly based on Sex Matters’ arguments. When will Serious Legal People stop insisting it was in any way a sensible decision? It’s caused a nasty unworkable mess.

Ahhh "safeguarding". That's a very polite way of accusing every trans person of something very nasty, isn't it?

Although I have seen that Akua Reindorf has said that Philipson and Labour are filthy liars and changed nothing:

It’s just a reheated version of the “but being gay means you’ll live a life of AIDS and drugs and none of your relationships will be fulfilling. I only want what’s best for you!” homophobia of decades past.

Seeing some discussion regarding the below (this is from a piece by Sonia Sodha) in terms of whether GCs who are go from 'reasonable concerns' to extreme bigotry, regarding whether they 'always' hated trans people or whether they've been radicalised, and I sort of think it's a big mix of both

Correctly identifying this as unworkable shouldn't be the focus. These anti-LGBT ideologues know how to "make the guidance workable", by removing trans people's rights to change their name and gender on ID and removing access to HRT to make us easier to identify.

That Guardian interview with @andyburnham.bsky.social but with the actual *actions in reality* added to make it clear his intentions.

"Forty-nine votes were cast against the new rules, whilst only one vote was cast in their favour", yet still they went ahead with the ban. Clearly, women's opinions do not count!

Article from a prominent GC campaigner in The Critic today, decrying the guidance for not going far enough: "The only thing that will reverse the state we are in is to overturn the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and remove “Gender Reassignment” as a protected category in the Equality Act."

But remember, the EHRC guidance says it's stereotyping to think GCs all have a negative opinion of trans people. They just want all our protections and rights overturned because they don't think being trans is a real thing and to imagine it is grosses them out! Hate the sin love the sinner!

Also, they're a Tax Advisor. What qualifications do they have as a Human Rights lawyer? They are unqualified to advise in any of this. And addressing Philipson by her first name suggests they are far too pally for a start.😡

Sex Matters have written to Bridget Phillipson to ask her to withdraw the “asking about sex” part of the EHRC guidance, because they’ve decided that they don’t like it, page 4 of their letter is particularly spiteful. Forstater is a fucking ghoul, daring to say that they’re a human rights charity.

Caroline Litman’s daughter Alice took her own life four years ago. Caroline’s book is an important read - I recommend it - lives like these must not be forgotten www.vogue.co.uk/article/tran...

There's no way that Parliament intended for trans women with a GRC to be treated as men under the EA when it was initially drafted. The SC judgement and the EHRC code of practice is a complete stitch-up, and the Labour government are cowards for allowing it to happen.

Expecting comedians to punch up instead of down is now apparently "anti-comedy."

I mean, yeah, it's been pretty clear for a while that one of the reasons Chappelle (and so many other comedians) leaned so hard into jokes about trans people is *because* of the backlash. Like /oh, you're going to tweet criticism of me? I'm just going to keep picking on you until you accept it/

This year 26th May is landing hard. By going public with Alice’s inquest in 2023 my family hoped to alert the public to the woeful state of trans healthcare and thereby stem and eventually reverse the transphobic wave we’d seen engulfing the UK around the time of her death in 2022. Yet here we are…

The anti trans movement is such a cruel movement and, while calling all trans allies and trans women “woman haters” , will actually help usher in more misogyny , homophobia , and destruction of reproductive rights - utterly topsy turvy skepchick.org/2026/01/the-...

As we await GANHRI’s accreditation report, we reveal the EHRC’s preposterous response to previous international criticism. tacc.org.uk/2026/05/25/e...

Unlike Labour politicians I keep my word because I have morals, principles & integrity... which is something they lack in entirety.

“I also think it’s notable that after a chat between me, a cis woman and Steph, a trans woman, a correspondent text in to ask ‘why wasn’t there a woman in the conversation, for balance?’” Fascinating.

This is kind of the twisted aptness of Peter Thiel appropriating the name Palantir. You *can* use a palantir for your own purposes but you can't use one without advancing the purposes of Sauron, even if you think you're trying to do good.

Kind of funny to see Becerra superfans responding to stuff like this by going, "Sure, Steyer is saying things you want to hear, but what if he gets into office and doesn't do them?" like they'd be better off with... someone who 100% won't do the things they want?

When we say it's all the same people, it's all the same people