If you have a sexual fetish and you cannot keep it within your private, personal realm but have to broadcast it or perform it in public and consequently compel others to participate in it unwillingly, then you are not ‘the good guy’. You are a narcissistic and misogynistic parasite intent on colonising womanhood in public and deserve every single word of criticism you receive. For what it’s worth, I have very similar views about anyone parading up and down the street wearing bondage gear and a strap-on dildo, even if this is in a so-called pride parade. No one, especially a child, needs to know that you like being chained up and having your cock whipped. Really, we don’t. If it gets you off, that’s fine but do it behind closed doors. Not only is this a reasonable and enlightened view, it is one that is shared by about 99% of the population. If you are AGP and you know you are, then if you fail to keep your fetish to yourself you’re not ‘the good guy’ either. If you are AGP and do not know it and carry out your fetish in public, you need to be told to fuck off back to your bedroom, or your cellar, or dungeon - or wherever else in private you get your kicks. The premise in your opening sentence is arrant nonsense (as well as grammatically incorrect - the word is ‘fewer’ not ‘less’). What is more, the issue isn’t one about ‘transition’ or ‘acceptance of trans ideology’ but the performance of a fetish in public with the non-consenting population. I for one (and I will not be alone) don’t give a rat’s arse whether a particular AGP either does or does not endorse gender identity ideology. If they don’t, that’s great - they can do so whilst not wanking in the women’s toilet dressed as their imagined idea of a sexy woman. If they do endorse it. then that’s just another piece of poor judgment.

@genspect @WomenAreReals She’s talking bollocks, literally.

@kollinsbebby @SophieMolly_OFF Thanks

@msvinter Thanks

@Katy23BrisAus @SophieMolly_OFF Thanks

@clyffepypardel @SophieMolly_OFF You’re very kind, if a little bit over the top lol

You must be trolling because no one who claims to be a journalist can be this stupid, can they? Irrespective of how politely or impolitely the question is put, “No,” is still a perfectly legitimate and ‘polite’ answer. The way you have put this question implies that the only polite answer is, “Yes.” This issue is that despite being told, “No” persistently they do not take no for an answer. You either do not know or understand this, which calls into question why anyone should let you loose on this subject, or you know this is the case, which means you’re trolling. I think you’re really a JKR groupie craving her attention …

Why are you breaching client confidentiality by disclosing a) the existence of an agreement in the first place and b) that there was, potentially, a discussion about wrongdoing that was not in the terms of the agreement (which is one interpretation of what you have written? Have you obtained the consent of the parties concerned to disclose this information publicly?

There aren’t two competing rights here. There is no ‘right of access’ by males to female single sex spaces. This misconception abounds. Even if a male has a GRC he can be lawfully excluded from designated single-sex facilities because a policy to do so would be lawful under the Equality Act 2010. In the absence of a ‘transgender policy’ then there cannot even be a question that the female changing room is for females only, even in Fife.

@SVPhillimore That link does not seem to work

So, according to this judge it is unreasonable to expect a qualified and experienced nurse to know that a DNA test will identify a person’s sex and that that sex cannot be changed by the length of a person’s hair or the clothes and make up worn? Who the fuck are we employing as nurses? More importantly, who the fuck are we appointing as judges?

It’s as if with each passing legal case the ideologues and their captured allies feel the need to delve deeper into the realm of absurdity in the misplaced belief that the more they expose the central core of the ideology the more coherent it will appear, which is the exact opposite of what is happening. This is the inevitable consequence of distorted, anti-reason thinking.

@Glinner @DPJHodges He’s a vacuous, virtue-signalling vanker

@DPJHodges @TheAttagirls These are the sort of people you are demanding that we be polite to, the sort you can find also on

@PaulMacca20 @ripx4nutmeg Where his ‘Thomas’ gets ‘Hardy’ from all the attention …

@Tippy_Tramba @LBC @NickFerrariLBC With such a poor level of critical thinking you must be a Birmingham City fan …

@JazzJobsworth @SpeechUnion In legal terms, that’s exactly what it is. A legal ‘belief’ can be a truth or a falsehood. They are not protected because of their veracity but because of their status as beliefs that are ’worthy of respect’.

@JazzJobsworth @SpeechUnion On the contrary, the Forstater case was decided on the basis that her views amounted to a protected ‘belief’. In the legal context that applies here ‘belief’ does not mean ‘religious belief’ only.

@tribunaltweets