Mick Hartley

And here's Hadley Freeman's comment piece in today's Sunday Times:

We don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.” The first time I heard that sentence was in August 2015: I was meeting one of my editors at The Guardian, where I then worked, before going on maternity leave. Along with the usual banal pregnancy chat — did I feel ready? Of course not, you never do! Etc etc — I suggested that maybe the paper should be careful about running too many columns by male writers insisting “trans women are women”. Should men define what a woman is, I asked, especially in a newspaper that prides itself on its feminist bona fides? That’s when I got hit with the wrong-side-of-history smackdown for what would be far from the last time.

“The wrong side of history”: it’s how Mridul Wadhwa, then chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC), justified describing female rape victims as “bigoted” in 2021 if they asked for a female counsellor rather than a male one who identified as a woman (like Wadhwa). And it’s why advertisers including Barclays pulled their money out of Mumsnet when the women’s website dared to allow its users to discuss their concerns about how trans rights were conflicting with women’s rights.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the wrong side of history is not where a lot of people believed it to be, when it came to the unanimous verdict that a woman is a biological fact, not a fantastical feeling. Whither the wrong-side-of-history folk now? Well, Wadhwa resigned last year from ERCC after an investigation found he failed to prioritise the needs of rape victims, despite that being his literal job. Only weeks after Mumsnet’s founder, Justine Roberts, learnt her site had been blacklisted “by Barclays’ top brass” for committing crimes of feminism, the bank’s then boss, Jes Staley, resigned following an investigation into his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

It is entirely unsurprising to me that so many of those who signed up to this flat-Earth ideology and insisted women should shut up and let men do whatever they wanted should turn out to be so morally bankrupt. Because who else would take such a stance? What kind of man would insist on competing in a sports match against women, despite their obvious discomfort, or tell women they knew what a woman was better than them? To give in to the activists’ demands was no big deal, women were told, but to refuse was fascism. I’ve been writing about the effects of gender ideology for more than a decade, and in that time I’ve had to leave a job I thought I’d have for ever, I’ve been publicly denounced by people I thought were friends and I’ve been blacklisted from more events than I can count.

It's always been so obvious: that's the astonishing part. Everyone, really, deep down, knows that you can't change sex, and that allowing men to compete in women's sport is an utter disgrace – as, of course, with rapists claiming to be women (with their female penises) being housed in women's jails. Yet all these people felt they had to contort themselves into professing this nonsense as a kind of performative obeisance to the gods of progressivism. It was always pathetic.

From David Lammy to David Tennant, the roll-call of right-side-of-history men who enthusiastically denigrated women for saying primary school-level scientific truths could fill a phone book. The LBC radio presenter James O’Brien couldn’t even grasp why women would be happy about Wednesday’s ruling: “Do you pause and ask yourself, how did I end up on the same team as [Trump]?” he smirked, his brain audibly leaking out of his ears. Well, James, how’d you end up on the side that accuses rape victims of bigotry when they ask for a female counsellor?

Trans people are still protected from discrimination by the Gender Recognition Act 2004, but the ludicrous era of self-ID and male “lesbians” and “trans women are women” is over. Activists insist — with no evidence — the verdict makes trans women “unsafe” and their “existence is threatened”. Women who have been in abusive relationships will recognise the tactics: say what I want or I will hurt myself, or you. They claim the result is “an overreach”, but if those same activists hadn’t overreached themselves and insisted biological sex is irrelevant, and any woman who disagreed should be screamed at, cancelled and pushed out on an ice floe, none of this would have happened. Their tactics have hurt women, children and trans people. No wonder the formerly ubiquitous Stonewall and Mermaids are now noticeable only by their absence.

So now it’s April 2025, and what we knew 10, 20, 1,000 years ago has been confirmed: a woman is a woman. What a terrible waste of time, money and energy this has all been. On the other hand, how clarifying: now we know who believes in reality and who doesn’t. Who is brave and who isn’t. Who thinks men can magically become women and children can be born in the wrong body, and who doesn’t.

Maybe every generation has its witch-hunt, its Joe McCarthy era, when innocent people are denounced for unimaginably bizarre reasons, and we’ve now lived through ours. I’ve lost friends but I’ve gained so many funnier, smarter ones, women — gay and straight — I never would have met were it not for all the men screaming that trans women are women. That’s how I explain the past decade to myself: this was a test. Some passed. A lot more failed.

Hadley Freeman interviews the For Women Scotland trio behind the Supreme Court victory:

[Susan] Smith started following this issue in 2016: “It was actually your fault, Hadley, because it was something you wrote that made me go, ‘Hang on a second, I need to look into this.’” This was a column I wrote for The Guardian about Caitlyn Jenner, who had undergone a surgical transition the year before and had just been named one of Glamour magazine’s Women of the Year. I wrote that this seemed a bit rum, given that same year Jenner had driven an SUV at what investigators described as an unsafe speed and crashed into two cars, resulting in in the death of a 69-year-old woman named Kim Howe. It was a clear example of an attitude that was already taking shape, that validating trans women’s feelings matters more than women’s safety.

“I only read The Guardian and the BBC in those days, so I had no clue about what was going on, because they barely covered it at all. I was really cross. I’d invested so much of my time and intellectual energy into these so-called bastions of liberalism and free speech, and they let me down,” Smith says. She assumed others in her centre-left milieu would be equally horrified at the growing prioritisation of trans rights over women’s rights, and so she posted her thoughts in a Liberal Democrat Facebook group.

“The response I got was like nothing I’d ever seen — all these vicious, angry young men calling me all sorts of abusive names. So that’s when I first logged on to Mumsnet and there were all these smart, funny women who really knew what they were talking about, and I thought, ‘Oh thank God.’”

Sums it up. The left/liberal media were always on board with the gender woo: if you wanted the truth you had to look elsewhere. Freeman's time at the Guardian was soon to come to an end, with her gender-critical views making her an increasingly isolated figure at Kings Place.

Iranian power in the Middle East may be waning, but could the Shia ring round Israel be replaced by a Sunni ring, led by Turkey?

The fall of Iranian ally Bashar Assad in Syria was a huge gain for the Turks, who have long viewed parts of northern Syria, like Aleppo, as essentially Turkish – a jewel of the Ottoman Empire which Erdogan seems so keen to revive. The decimation of Hezbollah at the hands of the IDF helped Turkey too, with perhaps a boost to Sunni militancy in Lebanon. 

Kobi Michael in the JC:

In some ways, the possibility of conflict is surprising. Both Israel and Turkey oppose Iran’s regime, and it was the Israeli success against Hezbollah that contributed to Assad’s collapse – clearing the path for Al-Julani’s jihadists to rise. Sensing a historic opportunity, Ankara moved to cement its influence in Syria as part of Erdoğan’s broader ambition to resurrect something akin to the Ottoman Empire.

Turkey positions itself as leader of the Sunni axis, challenging both Iran’s Shiite axis and Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Sunni world. Qatar, a close Turkish ally governed by Muslim Brotherhood sympathisers, supports this bid as part of political Islam’s vision to revive the Caliphate. In response, Saudi and the UAE are trying to draw Al-Julani away from Turkey’s orbit. It’s a complex power struggle.

The Israeli concern is twofold. The first is from jihadist elements near its border that could carry out cross-border terror attacks. The second is the more strategic threat posed by the possibility of Turkey’s entrenchment in Syria, which could threaten Israel’s operational freedom – especially in countering Iranian threats. To counter the jihadis, Israel has seized control of a buffer zone in southern Syria and targeted Syrian military infrastructure to keep it from being used against it.

But Jerusalem increasingly views Turkish influence, not jihadi groups, as the greater threat. Turkish entrenchment would shrink Israel’s room to manoeuvre and jeopardise its air operations in the region. In response, Israel is aggressively targeting Syrian military infrastructure, such as airports, to keep them out of Turkey’s control and to set new red lines.

Turkey also, alarmingly, has Jordan in its sights.

If Turkey succeeds in entrenching itself, it will not stop at Syria. Its expansionist drive, under the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideological banner, could destabilise Jordan where the Brotherhood is gaining power. A Brotherhood takeover there would be catastrophic, opening another hostile front at Israel’s eastern flank.

Stability in Syria hinges on Israel and Turkey, whose relations have hit their lowest point since diplomatic ties began. Only the US, trusted by both sides, can broker an arrangement that secures their vital interests and outlines a shared future in Syria.

Hmm. A trust in the US, now, seems foolishly optimistic. 

Such a deal could recalibrate Turkish ambitions, reassure the Gulf states, and potentially revive the Abraham Accords, leading maybe to the ultimate prize: Israeli-Saudi normalisation. If Syria stabilises and Al-Julani distances himself from jihadist ideology, reconstruction and eventual normalisation with Israel might even be possible. This would reshape the Middle East, ease tensions, and lay the groundwork for a new regional architecture aligned with President Trump’s vision – including a reformed Palestinian Authority in a post-Hamas landscape. The alternative? Regional chaos and rising danger for everyone.

With Trump? Ah well….we'll see.

At the bottom, though, beyond the Sunni/Shia clash, is the same Islamic determination to destroy Israel, and its presence on what they see as inalienable Muslim land.

With Hezbollah's grip on Lebanon severely weakened thanks to the IDF, will the Sunnis now assert their claim to dominance? From MEMRI TV:

Lebanese Sunni Islamic scholar Aboubaker Zahabi, speaking at a Beirut protest in support of the people of Palestine, aired on Palestine Today TV (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) on April 7, 2025, said, "Our religion is the religion of Jihad," and declared that they will come to slaughter the "sons of Zion." He quoted the hadith which states that Muslims will fight the Jews at the End of Days, and the Jews will hide behind trees and rocks. Zahabi added that on Judgment Day, Allah will send the "sons of Zion" to Hellfire for eternity, while the martyrs will be in Paradise and the fate of the Muslims will be victory.

And this, from Julie Burchill:

In the process of dignifying a male sexual fetish – autogynephilia – into the latest human rights crusade, careers have been ruined and reputations wrecked by trans activists and their creepy ‘allies’: all in the name of the ultimate patriarchal plan; to colonise everything won by women, from toilets to trophies, until we have nothing left of our own except the wombs in which the young among us may carry foetuses for rich homosexual men.

Janice Turner struggles not to be triumphalist over the Supreme Court decision. Still, she can't quite forget the pusillanimous many who embraced trans dogma when it seemed like the fashionable cause, despite its manifest absurdities. And she's kept the receipts.

So yes, we will move on. Gladly! But before the memory hole sucks away a time of collective madness, when lesbians had penises, rapists were banged up in women’s jails, disabled women were bigots for wanting same-sex intimate care, when we were expected to applaud men who stole our sports and welcome bearded dudes “expanding the bandwidth of womanhood” into our changing rooms, let’s set the record straight.

First, the cowards. After the Supreme Court ruled that “sex” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 were biological terms, up pops Harriet Harman, architect of that very law to say, of course, that’s what she always meant. Well, Harriet, why didn’t you say so before, when Stonewall, having failed to rewrite the law, tried to change the meaning of words? But I suppose you risked being branded a “Terf”. Best wait until the dust settles, and you’re safely Baroness Harman of Peckham, chair of the Fawcett Society, that meltiest chocolate teapot.

Yes, Yvette Cooper, I recall your frozen terror when I suggested, years ago, you make public your concerns about child medical transition. Angela Rayner, Lisa Nandy, we can’t forget — whatever you say now — that in 2020 you signed a 12-point pledge promising to boot out Labour members who believed sex is real. As for the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sanwar, who has “always” supported single-sex spaces, you whipped your party to support self-ID in the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which would have erased every one.

Then there are the pontificating men who, never listening much to women, naturally sympathised with the male-born and relished our witch trials. Men who had nothing — nothing! — to lose yet never once tried to understand our plight. Rory Stewart, Alastair Campbell, David Lammy, James O’Brien, Billy Bragg, David Tennant, John Oliver, or those who, watching the Paris Olympics, thought a male boxer punching women was less hurtful than calling him a man.

It was always about male feelings. Women had to keep quiet, be kind, and make way for the men. That it was billed as a progressive movement, the next step on the great liberation march, was always a matter of grim irony.

Women aren’t expecting apologies, though many are deserved, or gratitude for saving basic rights for our granddaughters. Yes, we’ll be kind — we always were — but, cheers! We won — deal with it.

Good stuff from Richard Dawkins in the Spectator. Will there be any apologies from those who grovelled before the gender gods?

So let us not name and shame. I shall call out no specific names in accusation. But I think apologies are called for, and there may be some out there who are big enough, gracious enough, to come forward.

Were you one of those students who mercilessly hounded Kathleen Stock out of the University of Sussex? Now would be a good time to say sorry. Were you one of those who threatened the life of JK Rowling? Or who threatened someone less able to look after herself than that redoubtable hero of our times? Were you one of those actors who owe your moment of fame entirely to her writing, who turned on her in your sheep-like devotion to a passing fad? Or were you one of those Hollywood airheads who bent to the prevailing political wind? Well, it isn’t prevailing any more, but mightn’t it have been a good idea to think the matter through in the first place, before joining the Gadarene stampede? In any case, a gracious apology wouldn’t come amiss.

Newspaper editors who printed reports of a “woman” committing rape “with her penis” should now apologise for their cowardly debauching of language. So should senior publishers who bowed to pressure to suppress books deemed “transphobic” by callow junior colleagues. By the way, if ever you are puzzled when an otherwise sensible friend starts spouting uncharacteristic nonsense on the subject of “gender”, your first recourse should be, “Cherchez les enfants”.

Well yes, either those who've deferred to their children's loud clamour on the trans debate in the mistaken belief that this was the new "progressive" position or, more seriously, those who've actually presided over the transing of their children. 

Those men of mediocre athletic ability who have waltzed into women’s events and effortlessly carried off their medals and plaudits, can be absolved of cheating only if they plead inability to understand the unfairness of their advantage. Those sports-body officials who enabled them should apologise to the women deprived of rightful medals, medals which should now be stripped from the men who unfairly gained them. Rather than respecting the subjective “gender” of the usurper, we should instead sympathise with the women overpowered by “her” objective sex, “her” upper body strength, long boxing reach, or sheer domineering height.

Are you one of those doctors who abetted angst-beset children, prescribing hormones whose unnatural and irreversible effects warrant the label “poison”? Or worse, are you a surgeon who violated the first Hippocratic principle by cutting off the breasts of a girl (or the testes of a boy) too young to be entrusted with drastic, irrevocably life-changing decisions? Admittedly, a public apology from you could lay you open to a well-deserved malpractice suit, but may you in any case be long pursued by remorse.

An especially magnanimous feat of forgiveness is required for those on the political left who betrayed their enlightenment heritage.

Which, to be honest, appears to have been the vast majority.

The tragedy is that such obvious truths ever needed spelling out, or proclaiming in a high court of law. The biggest apology of all should come from those people of influence who fomented, or cravenly kowtowed to, the preposterous doctrine that something so fundamentally biological as the sexual binary is vulnerable to mere personal whim or legal documentation.

An important and extremely grim long read from Julie Bindel at UnHerd – The grooming gang scandal isn’t over, and Labour is looking the other way. An excerpt:

It is raining in Manchester when I arrive at the Crown Court, where eight Asian men from Rochdale stand accused of treating two girls as “sex slaves”. They are charged with 56 sexual offences, include grooming, sexually exploiting and raping two 13-year olds between 2001 and 2006. It is February 2025.

There are police outside, sent from Rochdale to make sure “there are no security issues, due to the sensitivity of the case”. But the case is 25 years old, I say. “It is old,” replies one of the officers, “but unfortunately it’s still happening today.”

There are eight men in the dock, all Pakistani Muslim, ranging in age from 39 to 66. They are accused of rape and other sexual offences against two girls between 2001 and 2006. Girl A and Girl B, both abused from the age of 13, were in court, surrounded by family and friends. The women are in their 30s now, but wear the look of deep trauma. Giving evidence, Girl A said that she had been abused by at least 100 men, but when she then mentioned the figure of 200, she was challenged by one of the defence barristers, implying she was lying. “There could’ve been more to be fair,” she replied. “There [were] that many it was hard to keep count.”

The abuse began when the girls, in local authority care, started hanging around the market, where Mohammed Zahid, one of the men on trial, had a lingerie stall. Both girls were casual workers on the stall, paid in clothes, cigarettes and alcohol. They were also expected to have degradingly sadistic sex with Zahid (known as “Boss” or the “Knickerman”) and his associates.

Though Girl A told local children’s services about “hanging around” with older men in 2004 — as well as drinking and using drugs, and having sex with men introduced to her by “Boss” — neither her school nor social services made any reports to the police. Instead, one of the girls was labelled a “prostitute” at the age of 10. Rowbotham was ignored when she reported it to police and social services. As she puts it: “I can only imagine how many other girls they went on to harm.”

Not only did the men – overwhelmingly Pakistani Muslim – think the young girls were sluts who were asking for it. The police, the social services, the care homes: they all agreed. Or pretended to agree. It was easier that way. The media weren't interested – could be seen as racist, playing into the hands of the far right – and the politicians preferred to look the other way. Still do.

But read it all.

Letters to the Times today:

From Sir Peter Rubin, retired professor of medicine:

Sir, One of the most puzzling aspects of the Supreme Court’s judgment is that a scientifically illiterate ideology became so entrenched it needed our highest court to state the obvious. If you are born with a Y (male) chromosome you will carry it with you all your days. No amount of surgery, drug treatment, self-identification, wishful thinking or shutting down of reasoned argument will change that settled biological fact. To claim otherwise is flat-Earth territory, but many organisations went along with the fantasy all the same. How someone chooses to live their life and present themselves to the outside world is a personal decision that should be met with understanding, tolerance and respect, but not at the expense of common sense.

From Kathleen Stock, former professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex@

Sir, We told you so.

Manhattan ca. 1901. "Madison Square, New York". "Highlights of this panorama made from three 8×10 glass negatives include 23rd Street at left, the Fifth Avenue Hotel, Fifth Avenue/​Broadway, Madison Square Park, Stanford White's Madison Square Garden campanile, Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church and the Metropolitan Life building at the corner of Madison and 23rd Street."

[Photos: Shorpy/William Henry Jackson, Detroit Photographic Co.]

Click on image to see full size at Shorpy.