It won't come as any surprise to people that #TERFs are habitual liars

It also won't come as any surprise to people that TERFs are so arrogant they think they won't be challenged on this—

—thereby proving that TERFs are idjits as well as liars

1/n

Let's have a look at today's brand of TERF deceit:

Enter one Dr. Jane Clare Jones (a disgrace to the title of doctor, TBH)

2/n

Claims to be a philosopher. Possibly she was, once. But given the utter bullpuckey she writes these days she's probably the kind that truly believes a chicken is a human

3/n

So what has she been caught lying about this time? Oh, just the evidence submitted to the W&E committee on GRA Reform

Let's have a look. We'll do it in a, "What JCJ claims" compared to, "What was actually said"

4/n

i) What JCJ claims What was actually said

https://twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1349096853921525761?s=20

5/n

Note how JCJ's claim bears no relation to reality

According to JCJ's flat-out lie she claims that Sally Hines has said that, 'I do not accept that male violence is a thing'

And yet in Sally Hines' evidence submission nowhere is this claim made

6/n

Instead, quite correctly, Sally Hines points out that violence between women /also/ exists, and that trans women are no more the cause of violence than cis women are

7/n

It is impossible to see what JCJ's claims Sally Hines has written in what Sally Hines has written

It's not even a twisting of the words – It's a flat-out lie

8/n

ii) What JCJ claims What was actually said

9/n

Again notice how the appallingly-not-good doctor's claims that Stephen Whittle has argued that, 'I consider female people having any spaces or services to themselves, or being able to stupulate intimate care from people of their...

10/n

...own sex, to be a legal abhorrence' not only doesn't appear /anywhere/ in Stephen Whittle's evidence, but is in fact the complete opposite of what Stephen Whittle said

11/n

Even trying to exclude the surrounding text that provides context, the section JCJ has highlighted still says the complete opposite of what JCJ claims it says

12/n

Stephen Whittle has clearly argued that is a legal abhorrence to bar female people from spaces, services, or being able to stipulate intimatecare from people of their own sex which runs counter to, etc, because trans women with a GRC /are/ female for all legal purposes

13/n

This is the absolute opposite of what JCJ claims to have been said

Yet again JCJ is caught in a flat-out lie. Presumably JCJ thinks her followers are even more of an idjit that she is. In that she's likely right

14/n

She also seems to think that everybody else is even more of an idjit that she is. In that she is completely wrong. At least she's managing to keep up her track record of being wrong, I suppose

15/n

iii) What JCJ claims What was actually said

16/n

Yet again another claim by the awful, not-good doctor that not only isn't backed up by the "evidence" she provides, but is also a claim she hasn't backed up with any other evidence

17/n

Self-determination already exists for almost all aspects of public life (basically, everything but marriage). There has been no widescale abuse of self-determination

None

18/n

Despite whatever hysteria TERFs attempt to whip up around this, nearly 70 million people live in the UK using a system of self-determination and this has not resulted in "obvious ways this can be abused" and the very fact that this has not been...

19/n

...the result is in itself the proof that JCJ's next assertion (that, "evidence that it already has been") is complete bullpuckey

Yet again JCJ is caught in a flat-out lie

20/n

iv) What JCJ claims What was actually said

21/n

It may be thought that a tiny amount of slack can be cut here. JCJ clearly struggles with the basics of what she claims to be able to do, that of being a writer, philosopher, and feminist. Hardly a surprise that she fails at what is—for her—the more demanding discipline of Law

However, as has been repeatedly shown and proven, Stonewall is correct as this is, in fact, what the law states about trans peoples access to services

That isn't an interpretation of the law

23/n

It's literally written into the Equality Act 2010 and further explanation is provided is provided in the attached Explanatory Notes to the Act itself

24/n

If that was not enough , this fact has also been upheld by Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal service on multiple occassions (e.g. Brook v Tasker & EVT Enterprises Ltd (2014), Miss A de Souza E Souza v Primark Stores Ltd (2017), and Ms R Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (2020))

25/n

v) What JCJ claims What was actually said

26/n

As with the above lie from JCJ this is again another lie that runs entirely contradictory to what is specifically written within the Equality Act 2010 itself, as well as the subsequent judgement of the courts and tribunals

Yet again JCJ is caught in a very obvious lie

27/n

vi) What JCJ claims What was actually said

28/n

What Stonewall said in the screenshots provided by JCJ: "The Equality Act [...] also makes provision for single-sex services [...] to refuse their services, to someone who is undergoing, has undergone, or is proposing to undergo 'gender...

29/n

reassignment' [...], in exceptional circumstances where they can demonstrate that doing so constitutes a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"

30/n

tl;dr: 'The Equality Act allows single-sex services to refuse their services to trans people in exceptional circumstances where doing so constitutes a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

31/n

What Alex Sharpe said: "It is clear under the Equality Act that trans women can be excluded from women-only spaces [...] whereever exclusion is a 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim,' but not otherwise"

32/n

Stonewall: 'The Equality Act allows a single-sex service provider to not provide that service to a trans person when doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but only then'

33/n

Alex Sharpe: 'The Equality Act allows a single-sex service provider to not provide that service to a trans person when doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but only then'

34/n

One wonders what JCJ is huffing if she thinks any clear-minded reader would consider her lie that those two positions to be opposites of each other to be correct

35/n

vii) What JCJ claims What was actually said

36/n

Again we see JCJ blatently lie about the evidence submitted by a service for survivors. One that runs rape crisis services

37/n

The evidence from BSN is clear; they feel that the use of women only spaces by /all/ women should be actively encouraged, that the law around single-sex exemptions should be reviewed

Compare that with what JCJ is claiming their saying, "Please abolish female only spaces"

38/n

There is nowhere in the Brighton Survivor's Network evidence submission that says that. The evidence from the BSN is very clear; they welcome all women to their service

39/n

The evidence from JCJ is clear. She wants services to be able to bar women from rape crisis services based solely on an innate characteristic that person has. Race, sexuality, gender identity, disability, are all innate characteristics

40/n

Stop and consider that for a second. JCJ argues that services for women who are at their most vulnerable should be allowed to bar those very same women from accessing those services based solely on that woman having an innate characteristic

41/n

Where does that end? Well, we all know where that ends. We only have to look at the the statute of this country prior to the Race Relations Act, and the Jim Crow laws of the US to see where it ends

42/n

viii) What JCJ claims What was actually said

43/n

Again JCJ is caught engaging in not only a lie, but steaming hypocrisy. She attempts to support her claim by highlighting a sentence /fragment/ out of context of not just the sentence but the entire paragraph, and thinks people are too much of an idjit not too notice

44/n

Well, if you're a kool-aid guzzling TERF that is certainly true. You really are too much of an idjit too notice

But let's look at what BSN actually said. They've made it very clear that attempting to blanket-ban trans women from women's services results in cis women...

45/n

...also being turned away from those services based on nothing more than how they look. They would be (and indeed are - see below) turned away because they do not meet a state-sponsored definiton of what a woman should look like

46/n

And we know this is true. Kathleen Stock OBIUKV (Order of British Imperialism and the UK Virus (Transphobia)) has already admitted that attempting to bring in legislation that would blanket ban trans women from accessing women's...

47/n

...services, aka as the bathroom laws, would affect GNC cis women as described by Brighton Survivors Network, and that as far as #TERF ideology is concerned that is fine. After all, under that ideology, if a cis woman doesn't want to be...

48/n

turned away she should just present as being more feminine based on state-sponsored archaic ideas of what a woman should look like

49/n

And we've already seen this in action. In places where bathroom laws were brought in cisgender women were evicted from women's services, often for being black or being GNC

50/n

Even where those laws still exist this is still something that happens. Black and GNC women are challenged, even evicted from, in their use of women's services because they don't meet a patriarchal, racist standard of what women should look like

51/n

JCJ not only has blatently lied about what BSN said, she's also pushing a position that would see black and GNC cis women being punished for not meeting the TERF ideological position of what a woman should look like...

52/n

...And if you wonder what that is, this is the #TERF idea of what butch lesbians should look like to be considered True Women™ (thank you to GC Misogyny for picking up that TERFs had been posting this image)

53/n https://twitter.com/GcMisogyny/status/1348585848867090432?s=20

ix) What JCJ claims What was actually said

54/n

At this point it becomes apparently clear that JCJ has become untethered from reality

BSN is clear in their statement; they are there to help all women who are survivors

55/n

JCJ somehow thinks a service for wmen that helps survivors is an "ideology redefining female ppl on the basis to gender sterotypes...". That's Trumpian levels of misogyny. It's Alex Jones level of misogyny and hatred

56/n

It was only the tweet before that JCJ was arguing in favour of 'bathroom laws' that are known to disproportionality discriminate against black and GNC women

57/n

It was only the tweet before where JCJ was cheerleading on the concept that women /must/ only be considered women if they meet the state-sponsered archaic view of what a woman should look like

The rank hypocrisy on display would make even jackals feel nauseus

58/n

x) What JCJ claims What was actually said

59/n

A Survivors Network. An organisation that provides rape crisis services. An organisation that knows the reality of rape and sexual assault because it is something they deal with day-in, day out

60/n

They've literally said that they /know/—not guess, not hypothesise, not estimate, but KNOW—that predatory men do not disguise themselves as trans women to rape others

JCJ tries to twist this into claiming that a service for RAPE SURVIVORS amongst others is promoting rape

61/n

The things that make jackals nauseous? This would make them sick

62/n

The sheer gall of that statement. The sheer viciousness and hate you must hold in your heart to take the word, experience, and knowledge of an actual service that knows rape in every possible way—

63/n

—and then try to twist it to accuse that service of promoting rape. Once again; Alex Jones levels of misogyny and hate

64/n

JCJ has once again shown her true colours with her disgusting display of attempting to twist other's words to claim things that they never said

65/n

JCJ has once agains shown just how contemptible she is by trying to claim that a service for rape and sexual assault survivors are apologists and promoters of rape

And this isn't new. It isn't exceptional

66/n

This is how TERFs operate

Because it isn't about 'protecting women'

It isn't about 'women's rights'

It's about trying to justify their hate, and trying to get another penny in their pocket for it

Because don't think for a second that TERF ideology is anything but this

67/n

It's about the hate and it's about the grift. It's about the monetisation of getting to be abusive, about trying to justify being an abuser

This is what the ideology of being a #TERF is about

68/n