On Wednesday 3 cis women gave evidence to the @Commonswomequ select committee on #GRA reform. These panellists spent the majority of their allocated time arguing that proposed reform has the potential to harm cis women due to the presence of trans women in ‘women’s’ spaces

Yet anyone who has knowledge about the issues at stake knows that changes proposed to the GRA would have absolutely no impact here. There is no connection as the Equality Act, by recognising trans women as women, ensures their right to women’s spaces such as toilets
The arguments presented at @Commonswomequ by these panellists were thus completely irrelevant- they might as well have been arguing that changes to the GRA would lead to a rise in the price of bread - and should have been told so by the committee Chair.
Moreover, they presented no evidence in support of their (irrelevant) claims. When pushed, one study from Sweden was cited. Anyone who knows this study, however, knows that it does not do what was claimed - indeed the author has explicitly asked for it not to be used in this way.
Their evidence therefore is based on the views of supporters of trans hostile organisations such as WPUK who all 3 panellists have some involvement with. In light of this, I also did some quick and dirty research.
Over a period of 24 hrs I asked cis women to speak out if they were *not* concerned by the continued presence of trans women in spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. Around 1,000 women responded and many added supplementary text such as...
‘Trans women have always been in these spaces’. ‘How does anyone know who is a trans woman or a cis woman in a public facility?’ ‘The question is irrelevant to GRA reform’. And many, many variations of ‘of course not’ and ‘trans women are women’
Obviously I am not claiming that these responses are neutral. They are likely to be from women invested in the debate - as are the claims of the panellists. My point is though to show that huge numbers of women are more than happy to continue to share all spaces with *all* women.
Further, the vast majority of women are not invested in these debates simply because they do not care. Indeed, what the last 24 hrs has shown is that it is the gender policing politics and genital obsession of GC women that are a cause of concern for many cis women.
The claims of the 3 cis women panel members at the @Commonswomequ are therefore simply ideological arguments with no evidence base at all. These women do not represent women in the UK. Their views are entirely contestable. This position should have no impact on law and policy.
It’s important to also add that there were numerous responses from women who have experienced sexual assault and violence (from men). Many of these women said that they were deeply upset and offended that their experiences were being weaponised by GC feminists.

More from Society

A long thread on how an obsessive & violent antisemite & Holocaust denier has been embraced by the international “community of the good.”

Sarah Wilkinson has a history of Holocaust denial & anti-Jewish hatred dating back (in documented examples) to around 2015.


She is a self-proclaimed British activist for “Palestinian rights” but is more accurately a far Left neo-Nazi. Her son shares the same characteristics of violence, racism & Holocaust denial.

I first documented Sarah Wilkinson’s Holocaust denial back in July 2016. I believe I was the 1st person to do so.

Since then she has produced a long trail of written hate and abuse. See here for a good summary.


Wilkinson has recently been publicly celebrated by @XRebellionUK over her latest violent action against a Jewish owned business. Despite many people calling XR’s attention to her history, XR have chosen to remain in alliance with this neo-Nazi.

Former Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP is among those who also chose to stand with Wilkinson via a tweet.

But McDonnell is not alone.

Neo-Nazi Sarah Wilkinson is supported and encouraged by thousands of those on the Left who consider themselves “anti-racists”.
I've seen many news articles cite that "the UK variant could be the dominant strain by March". This is emphasized by @CDCDirector.

While this will likely to be the case, this should not be an automatic cause for concern. Cases could still remain contained.

Here's how: 🧵

One of @CDCgov's own models has tracked the true decline in cases quite accurately thus far.

Their projection shows that the B.1.1.7 variant will become the dominant variant in March. But interestingly... there's no fourth wave. Cases simply level out:

https://t.co/tDce0MwO61


Just because a variant becomes the dominant strain does not automatically mean we will see a repeat of Fall 2020.

Let's look at UK and South Africa, where cases have been falling for the past month, in unison with the US (albeit with tougher restrictions):


Furthermore, the claim that the "variant is doubling every 10 days" is false. It's the *proportion of the variant* that is doubling every 10 days.

If overall prevalence drops during the studied time period, the true doubling time of the variant is actually much longer 10 days.

Simple example:

Day 0: 10 variant / 100 cases -> 10% variant
Day 10: 15 variant / 75 cases -> 20% variant
Day 20: 20 variant / 50 cases -> 40% variant

1) Proportion of variant doubles every 10 days
2) Doubling time of variant is actually 20 days
3) Total cases still drop by 50%

You May Also Like