LimePart

Finding clarity and wit.

[LimePart @LimePart]

@Bernard_Lane Boys exploring beyond a narrow male role who are told to adopt a narrow female role merely continue to live according to stereotypes.

[Martina Navratilova @Martina]

@nytimes @TheAthletic Buckner seems to forget the W in @WNBA stand for women. There was nothing wrong with what Sophie said originally. It’s the response from WNBA that made it blow up.
The policy is the problem, not Sophie Cunningham

[Sonia Sodha @soniasodha]

Labour's conversion practices bill is one of the most dramatic, disproportionate and illiberal incursions into our fundamental democratic rights that will create an almighty legal mess. Whether Andy Burnham is smart enough to junk will be a major test of his premiership. 🧵

[Susanna Rustin @SusannaRustin]

UK women are simply not going to see our rights, including single-sex spaces, trampled for the benefit of a tiny sub-set of men (and their allies) who think their wish for inclusion should trump everything else. Sisterhood is powerful and this is a cross-party issue👇

[Emma Bateman @EmmaBatemanGPW]

In 2021 I was suspended from @TheGreenParty for asking if I had to agree that the man who was co chair of @GreenPartyWomen was female.
I'm taking the Greens to court, but they still don't get that 'the law', like 'woman' is not whatever they want it to be.
https://t.co/37OgBkuw0K

[Susan Dalgety @DalgetySusan]

The power of @ForWomenScot strikes again. Even Unison, whose general secretary Andrea Egan must have signed this off through gritted teeth, has had to concede that men who ‘identify’ as women are not women. This from the bulletin for the 2027 National Women’s Conference

[Jesse Singal @jessesingal]

1/ New from me: CNN put a lifted, unattributed quote about the safety and efficacy of youth gender medicine into the mouths of 29 reporters

This is part of a very strange, yearslong CNN policy I first reported on in 2024, but now I've traced it to one reporter and article

[SFTC @SFterfcentral]

French female basketball players saying it out loud. Playing against a male is overpowering and unlike anything they've ever done in their careers.

https://t.co/1gU7fVwzgw

[WheeshtCraft @Dis_Critic]

Green Party suggests keeping men out of female categories of sport 'is rooted in “historical colonial and Eurocentric attitudes”, as well as “transmisogyny”.'
Because some men will say anything to ensure women get nothing.
https://t.co/phsP9Ogb0V

[LimePart @LimePart]

@bentleyforus Men who want you to call them women are no different to any other man. Women who want you to call them men are no different to any other woman.

[AMIE Ichikawa KPSS @ichinita310]

THIS THURSDAY, August 27, I’ll be at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena for the oral arguments in a case out of Oregon that could have serious consequences for incarcerated women throughout the West Coast.

Here’s why an Oregon prison case is being argued in California — and why I’m going: S.D. & J.F. v. Rees began when two trans-identifying male inmates sued the Oregon DOC, arguing that housing transgender women in men’s prisons exposes them to an unconstitutional risk of violence. A federal judge in Oregon went much further than ordering the prison system to protect vulnerable prisoners.

The judge ordered Oregon to conduct individualized housing assessments that begin with a presumption that transgender prisoners should be housed according to their gender identity, unless the prison can state a security reason for placing them elsewhere. MEANING: the starting assumption for a male prisoner who identifies as a woman would be placement in a women’s prison.

Here is the insane part of this case you need to know: J.F. entered Oregon prison custody 05/08 and did not identify to the Oregon Department of Corrections as transgender until 02/2015 — seven+ years post incarceration. Even more concerning is Oregon has presented evidence that J.F.’s underlying conviction involved a SERIOUS SEX OFFENSE AGAINST A DISABLED FEMALE VICTIM, and the State has cited a history of violence and sexual aggression toward women when evaluating whether J.F. should be transferred to Oregon’s women’s prison. J.F. was also convicted on 4 counts of assaulting a correctional officer.

J.F. is the remaining incarcerated named plaintiff in a case that could help establish a presumption favoring gender-identity-based prison placement. Oregon appealed. That’s why this case is coming to Pasadena.

Oregon is part of the federal 9th Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts throughout much of the western United States. The 9th Circuit has courthouses in several cities, including Pasadena. A three-judge appellate panel-not another Oregon trial judge-is now reviewing the lower court’s action.

The 9th Circuit has already, temporarily stopped the Oregon judge’s injunction from taking effect while it considers the appeal.

Thursday’s argument matters far beyond two prisoners in Oregon.

I will be there because decisions made in this courthouse can become binding federal precedent throughout the 9th Circuit — including California.

California already has one of the country’s most anti-woman laws that allows any man to self identify as a woman and request to transfer to a women’s facility. No requirements for hormones, sexual reassignment surgery, no requirement to even wear cheap red lipstick and greasy pig tails. Transfer requests CANNOT be denied for any reasons related to: sexual orientation, criminal history, or genitalia.

I’m specifically listening for this info:

Does the Constitution require prisons to protect transgender prisoners from genuine threats of violence?

Of course prisons have a duty to protect people in their custody. ALL PEOPLE.

But that is a very different legal question from: Does the Constitution require a prison system to begin with a presumption that a male prisoner who identifies as a woman belongs in a women’s prison — even when that prisoner’s criminal and institutional history may include sexual violence against women?

Where, in that constitutional analysis, are the safety, privacy and dignity of the incarcerated women who already live inside those facilities?
Those women cannot choose to transfer. They cannot choose their cellmates. They cannot choose who showers with them. Their rights matter too. That’s why I’ll be in Pasadena.m Thursday.

📍 U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
125 S Grand Ave, Pasadena, CA 91105
📅 Thursday, August 27, 2026 @ 1:00pm

I’ll be paying attention to what these judges ask, bc what impacts incarcerated women will eventually impact all women.#WeAreHer

[Sall Grover @salltweets]

“…the state through the issuing of SD with a birth certificate confirming her gender as female had given her the right to say to the world at large I am female.”

The crux of the trans issue: no man should have the right to be legally recognized as female. None. Zero. Zilch.

[LabourWomen’sDeclaration @LabWomenDec]

Another great letter in @M_Star_Online in response to discussions about the foolish and performative withdrawal of some trade unions from @UKLabour's 2026 women's conference.
(The 4 trade unions are boycotting because our party has rightly decided, in line with the 2010 Equality Act, that delegates to women's conference must be female, and that males who identify as women are not eligible).
#LWDLiverpool26

[For Women Scotland @ForWomenScot]

“We felt it was important the guidance was quashed so that fresh policies start from first principles and take into account the full implication of this ruling as well as that of the Supreme Court. We are pleased that there is no chance that the old guidance can sneak back in any guise.”
https://t.co/6qEwU8hk3H

[The Heartlands Tribune @HeartlandsTrib]

EHRC Code: Why the Toilet Debate Is a Distraction

The campaign to reduce the Supreme Court ruling and the EHRC Code to a debate about lavatories is not confusion. It is strategy. Behind the toilet door lies the systematic dismantling of women’s rights, funded, organised and prosecuted against women who should have been defended years ago.

A conjuring trick requires misdirection. The audience must watch one hand while the other does the work. Keep that principle in mind as you scroll through the endless, repetitive, deliberately narrowed argument about public lavatories, and the entire campaign snaps suddenly into focus.

The toilet is not the argument. The toilet is the frame.

It has been chosen with great care, because it achieves three things at once.

It makes women’s objections appear mean, petty, almost obsessive. It reduces a broad legal settlement about women’s fundamental rights to a single, intimate, emotionally charged doorway. And it places women permanently on the defensive, forever justifying the existence of the boundary rather than those demanding its removal. The question is always “why are you so obsessed with where people go to the toilet?”, never “why is your campaign not about building new facilities for transgender use, but specifically about access to women’s existing ones?”

On 21 May 2026, the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated draft Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations was laid before Parliament. The Code does not create new law. It provides clarity about existing law, and clarity is precisely what a decade of institutional cowardice had denied women.

It applies to women-only domestic violence refuges. It applies to single-sex hospital wards. It applies to communal changing rooms. It applies to intimate personal care. It applies to competitive sport. It applies to women’s right to meet, organise and associate as women.

But to hear the ultra-liberals tell it, this is only about toilets. It isn’t. It is about whether women retain the right to define, organise and protect themselves as a sex class, or whether every boundary they fought for can be dissolved by male declaration and institutional cowardice.

The toilet door is merely where they want you looking while the rest of women’s rights are carried out the back.

The toilet is the distraction. Women are the target.

https://t.co/EcEilrGv5B

#womensrights

[Róisín Murphy @roisinmurphy]

After a week-long struggle session with my label, they finally accepted I would not let them put words into my mouth. They then publicly distanced themselves and promised not to promote me. That was their legal mistake, and I didn’t let them get away with it.. I got the rights to my record back.

[Rona @ronalyze]

Jugendliche mit Suizidgedanken benötigen professionelle psychotherapeutische Unterstützung. Keinen Queerverband mit Peerberatern, der DIY HRT, Windelfetisch und Ageplay normalisiert. Und ich bin es wirklich leid, wie hier eine angebliche Suizidprävention vorgeschoben wird, um weiter steuerlich subventioniert zu werden.

[LimePart @LimePart]

@AlexXanthaki @akuareindorf Women who want you to call them men are female. Men who want you to call them women are male.

[Suzy Eeckelaerts @SEeckelaerts]

I'm a biology/biotechnology lecturer from Belgium. This is what Belgium is like today.

In Belgium, we have laws that allow self-identification of sex. In practice, this means that a man can go to the town hall, fill out an administrative form (with no other requirements), and have his legal sex changed to “female” on his ID card, birth certificate, and other official documents, thereby gaining access to all rights reserved for women.

In Belgium, a man can challenge in court a decision by an international sports federation that excludes males from women's competitions and subsequently be allowed to participate.

In Belgium, there is an Institute for the Equality of Women and Men. Guess which side it supported in that legal case? Not the sports federations and the women advocating for fair competition, but the man seeking to compete in women's sports (he won).

In Belgium, a man can be placed in a women's prison.

In Belgium, a man can fill a position reserved under a women's quota.

In Belgium, men can gain access to women's changing rooms.

In Belgium, feminists who oppose these developments are portrayed by the media as far-right.

In Belgium, kindergarten children are taught about the “Genderbread Person,” planting a seed of doubt in their minds about the physical reality of sex.

In Belgium, many young people subsequently act on that doubt and begin transitioning.

In Belgium, we also have a law prohibiting conversion therapy. As a result, therapists are not permitted to question a young person's gender identity and, under threat of legal sanctions, may be reluctant to offer treatment aimed at helping them reconcile with their biological sex.

In Belgium, advocacy groups do everything they can, using people with DSDs (Differences of Sex Development), to create confusion about the binary and immutable nature of sex.

In Belgium, the dean of medicine at a major university claims that sex is a spectrum, and that people can change sex through surgery. The media seem to appreciate his views.

In Belgium, my introductory biology course is considered highly sensitive material...
https://t.co/9up9CzTRCL

[Women's Rights Network - WRN @WomensRightsNet]

NO FAIRNESS FOR COMMONWEALTH GAMES FEMALES
❌No cheek swabs.
❌No ban on males in female categories.
The Commonwealth Games has bottled it.

While the Olympic Games has moved to restore fairness for females in ALL of its sports, the Commonwealth Games, starting today in Glasgow, prefers to let sports International Governing Bodies set their own rules. And we all know where that can lead…

The Commonwealth Games values are: humanity, equality and destiny 🤷🏻‍♀️

‘We promote fairness, non-discrimination and inclusion in all that we do’, it says.

Non-discrimination 🤔 But not when it comes to women it seems.

Could the Games stance on women’s sport be in any way related to the heaps of sponsorship they’ve received from the Scottish Government and publicly-funded bodies such as Leap Scotland to fund a Pride Village at the Games? Or the publicly-funded art exhibition that has seen black ribbons tied next to the flags of countries that have less permissive laws on gay rights than in the UK?

We say the Games organising committee should have taken a strong lead and categorically stated that women’s sport must be protected.

[Kara Dansky @KDansky]

Popular narrative emerging: "No one was speaking out about sex and gender 10 years ago, but people are doing it now that it's safe and okay to do so, YAY!"

That's not accurate. There were plenty of people speaking out about this ten years ago and more.

We were ignored because we are feminists.

A lot of people like to ask "WHERE ARE THE FEMINISTS???" The answer is that we have been here the entire time. The media largely ignores us. When they pay attention to us at all, they pretend we're right-wing bigots (knowing full well that we're not).

It's a bit disingenuous to ignore everything we have said for over a decade and then sort-of casually wonder where we are.

A radical feminist named Janice Raymond published a book titled "The Transsexual Empire" in 1979, warning everyone about what was coming. She republished it in 1994 with a new Introduction about the emergence of the word "transgender."

Julie Bindel was writing about this stuff at least as early as 2004 (Google "Guardian Gender Benders Beware" if you don't believe me).

Radical feminist groups met in London in 2012 and 2013 to discuss the problem and spoke out then.

In the US, Lierre Keith founded the Women's Liberation Front (@WomensLibFront) in 2013. I joined it in 2015, and joined the board of directors in 2016. That year, WoLF sued the Obama Administration over its interpretation of Title IX. It filed countless legal briefs between 2016 and 2020, when I left the board of the organization. It's still going strong.

In 2014, a radical feminist named Sheila Jeffreys published "Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism."

@WDI_USA launched in 2020. I was president and a member of the board of directors from 2021 to 2024. It has filed briefs in over half the US Court of Appeals and before the Supreme Court several times.

I have written two books on the topic: The Abolition of Sex: How the 'Transgender' Agenda Harms Women and Girls (2021) and The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls (2023).

I'll be making a record of all of this activism in an upcoming book titled TERFLandia: How the Global Terven Will Win the Gender Wars.

All of the radical feminists who have been speaking out about this would be happy to talk to the media. Very few invitations have been forthcoming.

The problem is not that no one was speaking out. It is not that we were insufficiently "bold," as has been alleged. The problem is that we were ignored.

The nonsense would have ended YEARS ago if people had listened to those of us know have been on the case for a very long time. But they didn't.

I will end this with a special shout-out and a thank you to May Mailman, who gave an interview to Mother Jones magazine earlier this year regarding her work in getting the recent executive orders out and crafting a model bill to protect women and girls as a sex class. The published article includes this:

'Sometimes known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists, or TERFs, activists like Dansky believe that women’s rights will be lost if the category of “women” includes people assigned male at birth. They’ve pushed for decades to exclude trans women from women’s spaces. (Some who adhere to these views—including, famously, Harry Potter author JK Rowling—consider the TERF acronym a slur and describe themselves as “gender critical”; others embrace it.) Mailman tells me that TERF activists, particularly Dansky, were the intellectual force behind the effort to enshrine sex definitions. “The ones that were really driving the charge and had just a lot more knowledge and background, and had been thinking about these issues, writing about these issues, for such a long time, tended to be people on the left,” she says. (Dansky, in an email, says she did not contribute directly to the model bill’s language or strategy, though she does call Mailman an “extremely intelligent lawyer.” Like Mailman, she doesn’t believe that enshrining sex definitions could turn back the clock on women’s equality under the Constitution. “Radical feminists are gender abolitionists who fully support women who do not conform to sex stereotypes,” she writes.)'
https://t.co/MrwKZljdxI