David

My position hasn't changed in the slightest. What you, and many other men, fail to grasp, possibly because you're so used to women coddling men's feelings you see it as the natural order of things, is that while a trans-identified man is absolutely and rightly free to dress and refer to himself however he likes in our society, that doesn't give him rights over women's beliefs and speech. I don't believe a man literally becomes a woman when he identifies as one, and as I have freedom of speech, I have the right to call him a man. The verifiable truth of sex forms the legal basis for women's rights and for safeguarding. Nothing reveals your inability to grasp this issue, or your fundamental sexism, more than the fact that you, a man, are assuming the right to dictate to women how they should speak about men.

As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable? Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms? That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres? That men don’t belong in women’s sport? That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders? That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues? That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context? That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex? That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights? That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society? That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit? That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t? That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology? That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century? Let me have your thoughts.

I see Nicola Sturgeon is once again complaining that I posted a picture of myself wearing a T-shirt with her name on it and the legend 'Destroyer of Women's Rights.' Apparently this didn't 'elevate the debate.' Is there a clinical term for an individual who has extreme thinness of skin when it comes to their own perceived hurts, coupled with a rhino-hide when it comes to the fear and suffering of others? I'm thinking in particular of the two women Isla Bryson raped, who had to watch their First Minister squirm and smirk on TV as she tried to avoid admitting he was a man; of the five survivors of male violence who were ready to give evidence to Sturgeon's committee on gender self-ID, but were told to put their concerns in writing while seventeen trans-identified people appeared in person; of the mother of a young girl with a learning disability who campaigned against self-ID because she wanted her daughter to be guaranteed same sex intimate care, should she need it (the mother was presumably one of those female opponents Sturgeon calls 'shrill' and 'hysterical' in her memoir); of the ten-year-old girl sexually assaulted in a public bathroom by a 6'5" paedophile who served his jail sentence in a women's prison because he called himself 'Katie'; of Sandie Peggie, forced to discuss her own menstrual history in public to justify not wanting to undress in view of a 6ft straight cross-dresser in the nurses' changing room; of Marion Millar, dragged into court because she tweeted a picture of suffragette ribbons; of the Scottish rape crisis centres reliant on government funding who were pressured to admit trans-identified males into their services if they wanted funding to continue. When Sturgeon refers to an 'elevated debate', she means a discussion that takes place within a tiny, smug bubble from which regular women suffering real life consequences of her policies are firmly excluded. These faceless ants are loftily dismissed as bigots, or, to be more precise: 'transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, maybe racist as well.' Nicola, you hated the T-shirt picture because you couldn't ignore it, as you'd ignored so many other women trying to make you understand their concerns. Appeals to your empathy, your intelligence and your compassion all failed. Apparently the only way to get through to you is through your vanity.

It's time for women to vote with their wallets. If stores like M&S continue to flout the Supreme Court ruling on women-only spaces, prioritising the wishes of men who want to undress near, or help fit bras on teenage girls, a boycott seems appropriate. telegraph.co.uk/gift/bdacab2…

Imagine being such a coward you can only muster the courage to tell the truth once the Supreme Court has ruled on what the truth is.

The shamelessness is not confined to the aforementioned.

Women have fought (and are still fighting) the single biggest land grab on their rights in my lifetime. Some have sacrificed their livelihoods and safety to combat a pernicious ideology that has infiltrated elite institutions, including government. Women have been persecuted, harassed, smeared, roughed up and forced to take employers to court for discrimination. They've suffered severe detriments purely for believing what the Supreme Court has ruled to be reasonable and correct: that women are a definable biological class that has specific rights under the law to which males, however they identify, are not entitled. Do these politicians have any shame? They sided with the persecutors, the issuers of death and rape threats, the violent men demanding access to women's and girls' protected spaces, including domestic abuse shelters, rape crisis centres and prison cells. Will any of them issue an apology or admit that they made a serious error in siding with well-funded activist groups lying about what the law actually said, and which had measurable, severe impact on some of society's most vulnerable women? As another public wave of death threats is issued against women because of the Supreme Court ruling, their silence has become deafening. I'm just one of millions of women disgusted by the lack of accountability or remorse. We will not forget.