April 16, 2025 was a joyous day in the fight for biological reality.
After years of campaigning and litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” means biological sex. On one hand, the fact that it fell to the highest Court in the land to tell us something we knew all along, at great cost to those involved, reveals just how deeply we in the United Kingdom have sunk over recent years.
On the other hand, such a clear-cut judgment should shut the door once and for all on the debate around sex, gender and preservation of same-sex spaces.
If only.
Last Thursday, feeling curious, I put a call out on X to enquire as to whether any organisations were already attempting to double down and defy the Supreme Court’s judgment. I hoped that I would receive nothing, demonstrating organisational desire to learn from the past and move forward in a legal, logical and ethical manner.
How wrong I was.
Within minutes, my phone started lighting up. Emails. Text messages. DMs. All whistleblowers wanting to share worrying internal communications put out by their respective place of work. In every case, they asked to remain anonymous, for fear of reprisals, if their identities were discovered by their employers.
We hear a lot about “diversity” these days. I can certainly attest to the wildly diverse range of associations and organisations who are seeking to undermine the Supreme Court and continue to push gender ideology. Here are some of the worst examples that I have come across, thus far:
The British Red Cross, whose supposed purpose is to provide international humanitarian relief following major atrocities, felt the need to send an email to all staff members, with its reflections on the Supreme Court’s judgment. The email was signed off by the “Strategic People Lead for EDI and Wellbeing”. The usual buzzwords were present: “inclusive, “safe”, etc. Shockingly, it stated that there is to be no change to their existing “inclusion policies”. Having read these policies, this includes allowing staff to use whichever changing rooms or toilets align with their “gender”.
The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (who I revealed had, back in January, sanctioned their CEO because they discovered that he was “accidentally following” Tommy Robinson on X) published a statement, in which they announced: “this does not change who we are”. They went on to assure their “trans, non-binary, and wider LGBTQIA+ members” that they will continue to “champion” their rights and acknowledged how “deeply distressing” a time this is for them. Remember, this is an organisation for therapists.
The famous Old Vic Theatre in Bristol released a statement to “trans and non-binary visitors, staff and artists”, telling them that “you are welcome here”. This type of messaging supports the false narrative that the Supreme Court judgment has in some way facilitated discrimination against anyone. It has not.
The theatre has even doubled down in defiance of the ruling, informing patrons that everyone can “use the facilities that are most appropriate for them”. “Most appropriate”? This is so pathetically vague that it seems to suggest that anyone could use any toilet for any reason.
NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), who I have previously written an in-depth exposé on, have also doubled down. NHSBT’s ironically named “women’s network” sent out an internal memo to all colleagues stating that “trans women are women … while laws may evolve, our values remain constant”.
* * *
Another whistleblower, who works at Tesco, told me that she had been instructed by a manager who identifies as “LGBTQ” that those who complain about men in the women’s toilets risk being sacked.
Another, a staff member at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, told me that the Trust has committed to retaining mixed sex changing areas for patients and staff alike, regardless of the judgment — a brave move considering the ongoing NHS Fife changing room tribunal.
At South Wales Police, Deputy Chief Constable, Jason Davies, sent out an all-staff email, re-affirming his commitment to “inclusivity”. Particularly jarring was the statement that he will continue “fostering psychological safety for all staff”, as if a male police officer being denied access to the women’s toilets is somehow unsafe.
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy released a “statement of support for the trans community”, claiming that “everyone’s experience of gender is valid”. This, even though gender dysphoria is a mental health condition.
Some of the organisational responses I have been sent do seem extremely random indeed. A whistleblower studying Archaeology at Leicester University shared with me an email sent to the entire cohort from the faculty’s “Director of DEI”. In it, students were invited to feel “concern or distress” off the back of the judgment pertaining to the “Equalities (sic) Act”. The email went on to “reassure” students of the “personal commitment to campaign for fully inclusive practices across our university”. No thought given whatsoever to the fact that, perhaps, just perhaps, the judgment was welcome by students.
Even more bizarre is a fitness and kids club called Project PT, who posted a statement on Instagram that “trans joy is real, needed and welcome” and that “trans women are women … a legal ruling does not change that fact”.
I could go on but I find myself sinking deeper and deeper into a pit of despair.
The above is to say nothing about the response by trans activists, which has been as unhinged as you might imagine. A group called Aberdeen Trans Action have created “bus” cards, which users can issue to organisations, threatening them with legal action, if they are excluded from a single sex space or service.
And, as expected, the Patron Saint of Lost Causes, Jolyon Maugham, has announced that the Good Law Project are raising money to try and fight the Supreme Court judgment and seek a declaration of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. The fact that the Supreme Court justices are referred to as a “disgrace” and the word “Nazis” is used, tells you everything you need to know. They have, however, managed to raise £52,000 from crowdfunding to support the cause.
The above demonstrates that, whilst a significant step forward, a legal ruling is insufficient to stem the tide of gender ideology that has swept through our society. The time has now come for it to be eradicated altogether. Once again, I call on the government to repeal the Gender Recognition Act 2004, amend the Equality Act 2010 and end this madness, once and for all.
