Nailed it.

What Rowling said in response to the three shits who posted her address on Twitter:

No address visible:

It’s fine for the drag queen to mock women, but Rowling is “wading into” a debate that’s none of her business even though it’s all about women’s rights.

The shamelessness of Pink News part 2:

The controversy comes after a turbulent few years for JK Rowling, who has repeatedly positioned herself at the centre of the UK’s toxic debate surrounding trans lives.

Just look at that – from Pink News! She hasn’t “positioned herself” anywhere, she has said what she thinks, as has Pink News. She’s allowed to say what she thinks. Pink News never shuts up about it, so why should she? Why should we? We have rights too, we even have lives. The toxic debate isn’t surrounding or encircling or about “trans lives” anyway, it’s about the claims of the new and ever-expanding trans ideology, especially where the claims conflict with the rights of women (and the futures of adolescents and children).

The writer waded into the so-called “culture war” in 2019 when she stated her support for Maya Forstater, who has fought to have “gender critical” views protected under the Equality Act.

She didn’t “wade into” anything; she said what she thinks. Who the hell is Pink News to accuse other people of positioning themselves at the center of or wading into a controversy that affects everyone? We are allowed to say things.

The unabashed mendacity of Pink News is a sight to behold.

It starts with the headline:

JK Rowling condemns actors who held trans rights protest outside her house

They didn’t just “hold a protest.” They tweeted a photo with her address in it.

Also I wonder how pleased the people of Pink News would be if people “held a protest” where they live.

Comedian Holly Stars, actor Georgia Frost and drag king Richard Energy staged a demonstration outside the Harry Potter author’s house on Friday (19 November) in protest against her long-condemned views on trans lives.

Long-condemned by whom? Besides Pink News and people incited by Pink News? And her views aren’t on “trans lives,” which is a manipulative and dishonest way to frame the issue. No one wants trans people to have crappy lives, much less to lose them, but that of course is what we’re supposed to gather from reading the Pink News sludge. Rowling’s views are on women, and how new and constantly expanding trans “rights” can violate women’s rights.

A photo was subsequently shared online which showed the trio standing outside JK Rowling’s home

“Was shared” by whom? Evasive manipulative dishonest fucks that they are. The people who went to Rowling’s house to harass her also posted a photo of her house and address on Twitter.

None of this is defensible, and Pink News knows it. It wouldn’t be using such fraudulent evasive language if it didn’t.

Essex Police are angry that members of the public replied to their Facebook post about Trans Day of Remembrance and the threats it contained.

I take it the asterisks are meant to indicate “Update” (so why not just say “update”?). It all looks a bit like entrapment, to be honest. First they post some stupid catastrophizing bullshit about nonexistent violence against trans people, and then they tell us they’ve recorded all our responses and will go all police on our asses if they don’t like them. They’re going to “investigate” if they deem any of the comments “offensive.”

Yes, it looks very much like entrapment. And for what? Not agreeing that men are women if they say they are.

Originally a comment by Pliny the in Between on So it was reckful?

I admit I have a definite bias against the American gun fetish. I learned to handle firearms from WWII vets, none of whom carried firearms routinely. To this day if someone were to hand me a weapon I would inspect and clear it the way they learned to do it during inspection in the 1940’s.

I was a trauma surgeon for more than 25 years. In that time, I treated wounds made by 22 cal pistols and rifles, 38s, 9mm, 10mm, 45 cal colts, black powder muzzle loaders, 12 gauge shotguns, 30 cal long guns and the 5.56mm favored by many of the assault rifles in civilian hands. Victims from 80 years of age to 7. Not saying my experience was typical, but I never once treated someone shot by someone defending their home. A fair number of police officers shot in the line, but no home defenders. Three mass casualty ‘events’.

Worried far more than once about getting cut on frangible fragments in our victims from ammo banned by the military but allowed for civilians.

Many suicides or attempts, many domestic assaults, many unintentional injuries. Lots of people cleaning guns or handling weapons that were ‘not loaded’. Only a handful of stranger on stranger crimes. Usually the shooter knew the vic. Lots of gang shootings – sometimes repeaters with a history of a prior GSW.

FYI: if home defense is your goal you can’t beat a 12 gauge shotgun. It imparts tremendous energy to the target at the ranges a home defender would face, is a hell of a lot easier to aim than a handgun and won’t travel 8 blocks through 2 houses and kill your neighbor.

The 5.56mm injuries were the stuff of nightmares. Designed for combat use, the wounds were devastating. At least as bad as a 30 cal rifle. Rifles injuries were a whole different level from the handguns. Handguns fire subsonic rounds. So the tissue injury is directly related to the path of the projectile. Rifles fire supersonic missiles. Very little of the actual energy of the projectile is imparted to the victim – that’s why it passes through usually. But while it’s passing through the tissues, it’s accompanied by a supersonic shock wave several times larger than the size of the slug (several inches in some cases). Everything in the path of that shock wave might be damaged or destroyed.

I can’t say that I came away from the experience with a great appreciation for the Second Amendment.

Remember that BBC article by Caroline Lowbridge about the pressure on lesbians to pretend trans women are lesbians too? Jo Bartosch reports (in the Daily Mail because the Quality papers won’t) that Nancy Kelley tried to get the piece spiked.

The BBC won much praise for its investigation, which prompted some lesbians to express their anger at how they felt ostracised for wishing to form relationships only with women.

Campaigner Kat Howard wrote that she was ‘incredibly grateful to Caroline Lowbridge, and the BBC for this article’, adding: ‘We need help protecting young lesbians everywhere from an LGBT community that would rather see them silenced than stand up to the male perpetrators of assault.’

Yet now it has emerged that months before the article appeared Stonewall’s chief executive Nancy Kelley wrote to the editorial director of BBC News to denounce Lowbridge’s work in an apparent attempt to get her piece stopped.

In her email, Kelley suggested that the BBC article would end up being ‘transphobic’ because it represented trans women as ‘sexual predators’, which was a ‘central anti-trans argument’.

Trans women are men. Some men are sexually predatory. We know this. It’s the stuff of drama and history and song and social life. Some men are sexually predatory, so it’s highly likely that some trans women will be sexually predatory. Nancy Kelley herself is being sexually predatory by proxy in arguing, however indirectly, that lesbians can’t refuse to have sex with men who say they are women.

And although she acknowledged that in sexual relationships ‘consent is paramount and we all want who we want’, she added that ‘structural oppression can influence who we want’.

Even if we accept that, you still have to convince us that men who say they are women are subject to “structural oppression” at all. I don’t believe it, myself. I think they’re subject to non-structural disapproval and/or distaste, but that’s a different thing. Their labor is not exploited, their child-bearing capacity is not exploited, their talents are not exploited. Unease with trans people is situational rather than structural, and bullying lesbians into having sex with trans women is not going to fix the situational unease, to put it mildly.

It is understood that it took many months of editorial discussions before the article was published on October 26.

Stonewall has appeared to confirm that changes were made to the original piece, although it remains unclear whether this was as a direct result of the leaked email, sent in September 2020.

I don’t much want Stonewall screening what we’re allowed to learn via the BBC.

Angela Wild, a member of lesbian campaign group Get The L Out who was quoted in the article, told The Mail on Sunday: ‘For years lesbian activists have been trying to get the message out that it is not bigoted to say “no” to sexual pressure from males who identify as women.

‘The fact that Nancy Kelley has framed the reporting of this issue as transphobia is disgusting. Stonewall are a disgrace and no longer represent the interests of lesbians.’

No longer represents them and sometimes sets fire to them and throws them overboard.

Anti-vaxxing has consequences.

Of course, there are people who have their vaccinations but still get sick. These people may be elderly or frail, or have underlying health problems. Those with illnesses affecting the immune system, particularly patients who have had chemotherapy for blood cancers, are especially vulnerable. Some unlucky healthy people will also end up on our general wards with Covid after being vaccinated, usually needing a modest amount of oxygen for a few days.

But the story is different on our intensive care unit. Here, the patient population consists of a few vulnerable people with severe underlying health problems and a majority of fit, healthy, younger people unvaccinated by choice. Watching the mix of patients coming in with Covid, it feels to me like hardly anybody has been vaccinated nowadays; of course, this is because the people that have been vaccinated are getting on with their lives at home. If everyone got vaccinated, hospitals would be under much less pressure; this is beyond debate. Your wait for your clinic appointment/operation/diagnostic test/A&E department would be shorter. Your ambulance would arrive sooner. Reports of the pressure on the NHS are not exaggerated, I promise you.

But urging people to get vaccinated is apparently a grotesque and unforgivable intrusion on The Inviolable Self.

On the left it’s the Trans Soul, on the right it’s the Sacred Self. Both are all about the self and to hell with the 7 billion people who are Not Self.

Enshrined in the way we protect patients’ autonomy is the recognition that others may reasonably make decisions we may see as irrational or wrong. We are all products of our upbringing, education and opportunities, and I have been hugely fortunate that in my case these have led me to make decisions I value. Who is to say I wouldn’t have made different choices in someone else’s shoes.

Translating this to the choice not to take the vaccine, however, I find my patience wearing thin. I think this is for a number of reasons. Even if you are not worried about your own risk from Covid, you cannot know the risk of the people into whose faces you may cough; there is a dangerous and selfish element to this that I find hard to stomach.

Some of my frustration is directed upwards, at the flagrant misinformation flourishing in certain places and the utterly woeful example that our leaders continue to set.

The link is to the story on Boris Johnson touring a hospital without a mask, complete with photos of him in a sea of masked people on all sides.

The writer is an NHS respiratory consultant who works across a number of hospitals

March 31 this year, Essex Police were busy marking and commemorating and making aware:

And yesterday was trans day of remembrance, with another round of social media announcing and posing for photos and Raising Awareness.

But women? Bah. Karens, all of them; Essex Police can’t be bothered with them.

Remember: Be Kind.

This is just childish.

No it’s not like that! Of course it’s not!

“This thing that’s not like this other thing is like this other thing.”

Blackface is not comparable to using ordinary pronouns, so debating the two is also not comparable. The two things are just not similar enough to make a useful comparison. “Inclusion” of trans people doesn’t rely on forcing everyone to use mix n match pronouns.

The follow-up is, if possible, even stupider.

That’s not the BBC’s stance. More to the point, what rights? Has Parliament passed a law saying everyone has to use bespoke pronouns on command? Has Parliament passed a law that includes pronouns in a list of must-dos?

I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s any kind of “right” for trans people to be referred to by specialty pronouns. I don’t think any human right has anything to do with pronouns.

Has Parliament passed a law protecting trans people’s “dignities”? I don’t know, but I doubt it, because it doesn’t sound law-ish, it sounds more Twitter activist-ish.

Furthermore – contemporary trans people can’t claim anything resembling the history of systematic exploitation and oppression going back generations that contemporary black people can. It’s belittling and insulting to claim that this new trendy narcissistic form of pseudo-oppression is in any way like the oppression of black and colonized people over the past 5 centuries or so. It’s belittling and insulting to claim that skepticism of the claims of trans dogma are remotely like racism.

It’s “Trans Day of Remembrance.”

But there haven’t been any. Not this year and not last year.

Do the police ever celebrate Women’s Remembrance Day? Do they ever get photos taken of themselves standing up and looking serious about the many murders of women that are committed every year?

Notice they don’t include sex in their “We will continue to act against those who target someone because of their religion, race, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity.” I guess it’s ok to target women.

There is no Women’s Remembrance Day. It doesn’t exist.

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?

Is Stonewall’s face red?! Of course it wouldn’t dream of erasing mothers from the language. It was a typo.

Stonewall has dropped guidance advising groups on its workplace schemes to remove the word “mother” from their policies.

The lobby group said that it would no longer reward higher ranking scores to employers who replaced “mother” with gender-neutral alternatives.

Nancy Kelley, the Stonewall chief executive, denied in an interview that such a policy existed. “We’re not interested in removing or erasing the word ‘mother’,” she said. Kelley, who has two adopted children with her wife, added: “I’m a mum. I’m married to another mum. It’s a deeply emotive term. I would be really upset if my children didn’t call me Mum.”

When presented with its recent advice to Dundee University, which contradicted Kelley’s claims, Stonewall said it would change its guidance.

In other words Nancy Kelley was either mistaken or not telling the truth when she told Emma Barnett on Woman’s Hour that “We’re not interested in removing or erasing the word ‘mother’.” It’s not a great look for a CEO either way, especially in light of the fact that gender critical feminists have been objecting to the erasure for months. It makes her look either incompetent or dishonest.

Critics say that organisations are in effect paying a lobby group to promote their [that is, the lobby group’s] policies. Dundee University confirmed yesterday that it had replaced “mother” and “father” with gender-neutral alternatives after feedback from its application for the index.

Explaining why the university scored only five out of 15 points on its policies, Stonewall wrote: “We recommend that you remove the terms mother and father from the body of your policies . . . we’d recommend using gender-neutral language in the body of the policy.”

Oh but that’s outdated now, says Stonewall. No it’s not; it was never indated. It was an idiotic and brutal thing to “recommend” for the sake of this demanding narcissistic never-satisfied “activism.” Funnily enough human beings care about their relationships, and the relationships having to do with mothers and fathers are pretty basic to that caring. Trying to eliminate the words altogether out-Orwells Orwell.

An investigation by The Times earlier this year disclosed how Stonewall told the Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust to “use terms such as ‘pregnant employee’ or ‘birthing parent’ instead of mother”.

“Pregnant employee” suggests the person is pregnant with a work-related item, a broom or a bus or an inventory. “They is having my invoice.”

One or two items from Janice Turner’s conversation with Kathleen Stock:

Although Sussex had a radical history, the philosophy department was an outlier: relatively conservative, less prone to fashionable thinking. Her argumentative father had inadvertently prepared her for “lots of rude, bolshie men who just would sneer at you if you said something stupid”, but who, she adds, “are still the cleverest people I’ve ever met”. The English and gender studies departments thought the philosophers very dull. “We were laughed at because we believed in things like truth and objectivity. Philosophy at Sussex has never been trendy. Thank God – that’s the way I like it.”

Especially that kind of trendy. “Hahaha you believe in truth” – from people who can’t argue their way out of a paper bag.

Meanwhile Stock’s marriage was falling apart. Aged 39, she found herself single for the first time in her adult life. She signed up to dating sites. “And I started half-heartedly seeing men,” says. “But my heart wasn’t in it. I kept dating, on paper, eligible guys and not wanting to do anything. I just thought, ‘Well, I could just change the box.’ So I ticked ‘F’ rather than ‘M’. I thought: why not, might as well see. And that was it! I went on some dates with women and thought, ‘Oh my God!’ I didn’t even particularly like these women! But suddenly everything made sense. It was an epiphany.”

It was, she says, like taking off a mask. “It changed my whole life. The way I walked even. I’d had long hair, wore make-up every day and was really awkward and self-conscious, touching my face and my hair all the time.” Overnight, Stock threw away all her skirts and dresses, sold her size 8 stilettos on eBay and cropped her hair. Kathleen Stock, the androgynous, lesbian academic, happy at last in her own skin, emerged.

“So, yes, I do understand gender identity,” she says. “From the inside. I know what it is to identify as masculine, or with males, more than women.” Referring to the spike in teenage girls identifying as trans she says, “If you could take me back in time, I think I would be very susceptible to a narrative that I was more male than female.”

It’s funny about clothes – how coded they are, and how odd it can feel to wear clothes that don’t feel like the right code. It’s feeling “misgendered” I suppose – but also I think like a fraud or a joke or both.

Over three years, campus life grew ever more toxic. Many times Stock resolved to step back and say nothing. “But I would go to bed and just fume until 4am then get up and write a blog defending myself. I’d press send and feel an enormous catharsis. I had to keep meeting every blow.” Moreover, her Catholic upbringing made her feel this “no debate” trans activism was a form of religion. “It involves special holy days, ceremonies, rituals, mantras and performing acts of ritual self-abnegation. I can see it completely.” Which frames Stock as a heretic.

It also involves firm and indeed coercive belief for no good reason. It’s all about faith in assertion. I don’t like faith in assertion.

As lockdown began, Stock started to write Material Girls, which seeks to analyse gender theory using philosophical tools. It is so unflinching you can see why some are incensed. Stock compares trans identity to an “immersive fiction”. She insists she is not saying a male living as a woman is “deluded or lying or there’s anything wrong with this. You’re participating in an activity that can be really life-enhancing. However, it also has limits. And there is a difference between fiction and truth.”

Enjoy your immersive fiction by all means, but keep the door always in sight.

All counts. Not even reckless endangerment. I’ve seen sober explanations that he had a good case for self-defense, but…not even “but you shouldn’t have been there with an assault rifle in the first place”?

I got nothin’.

Today, like every day, is trans day of something. This one is remembrance. Tomorrow is biceps and the next day is wood lice.

Cllr. Peter Kavanagh, Mayor of South Dublin County Council, paid tribute today to the county’s Transgender community and spoke about how they were disproportionately affected by the global Covid-19 pandemic. Mayor Kavanagh raised the Trans flag at County Hall in Tallaght to mark Transgender Day of Remembrance, when the victims of transphobic violence are commemorated.

Trans people are disproportionately affected by the pandemic? Really? More so than mothers of small children, people with no money, homeless people, mothers of slightly bigger children, people who lose jobs because of lockdowns, people with health conditions that make them more vulnerable, teachers, nurses, doctors, migrants, prisoners? What makes trans people disproportionately affected?

“Trans people, especially young trans people, rely on their community for support. Lockdowns and restrictions have meant that accessing these communities hasn’t been as easy, and has disproportionately affected trans people who don’t get to be themselves outside of their community,” Mayor Kavanagh said.

But people who aren’t trans also rely on their community for support.

Is he saying that it’s worse for trans people because they don’t have such a receptive audience for their gender performances? Because if so, that’s an incredibly boutique luxury opulent gold enamel form of being disproportionately affected. It doesn’t stand out compared to having to take children out of school and figure out how to keep them safe while you’re at work, or having a parent or child or spouse die alone in an ICU, or being locked up with hundreds of other prisoners all hoping they won’t infect each other, or being a nurse or doctor worn to a frazzle and seeing patient after patient die gasping for air.

Mayor Kavanagh also cautioned against the rise of transphobia in the media, saying, “I’m old enough to remember the debates around decriminalisation of homosexuality, and it’s upsetting to see the same tired talking points coming to the fore in Irish media today. Since 2015, trans people have had the legal right to be who they really are, and we don’t need to ape other countries and platform discrimination and hate under the guise of concern.”

One, they’re not the same “talking points.” Two, trans people claim to be what they really are not, so it’s stupid to frame the issue as being about “who they really are.” Three, talk to some women. If men can take over everything set aside for women on the grounds that the men “really are” women despite the obvious and salient differences.

The Times on Project Veritas a week ago:

Hours after F.B.I. agents searched the homes of two former Project Veritas operatives last week, James O’Keefe, the leader of the conservative group, took to YouTube to defend its work as “the stuff of responsible, ethical journalism.”

“We never break the law,” he said, railing against the F.B.I.’s investigation into members of his group for possible involvement in the reported theft of a diary kept by President Biden’s daughter, Ashley. “In fact, one of our ethical rules is to act as if there are 12 jurors on our shoulders all the time.”

No, I’m sure Biden’s daughter gave them her diary of her own free will.

Project Veritas has long occupied a gray area between investigative journalism and political spying, and internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal the extent to which the group has worked with its lawyers to gauge how far its deceptive reporting practices can go before running afoul of federal laws.

The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.

There are parallels here of course – the Times has documents which it has “obtained” and so does Project Veritas.

The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.

In other words it’s pretty shady (and the lawyer sounds pretty shady too). Is the Times equally shady and in the same way?

“Because intent is relevant — and broadly defined — ensuring PV journalists’ intent is narrow and lawful would be paramount in any operation,” the group’s media lawyer, Benjamin Barr, wrote in response to questions from the group about using the dating app Tinder to have its operatives meet government employees, potentially including some with national security clearances.

Shady, sleazy, scummy…but legal! Maybe.

The documents give new insight into the workings of the group at a time when it faces potential legal peril in the diary investigation — and has signaled that its defense will rely in part on casting itself as a journalistic organization protected by the First Amendment.

But it’s not. There the parallels are not very close. The Times may lean “liberal” or centrist-Democraticish, but it employs and publishes plenty of conservatives and it’s not a dirty tricks organization. The Times is a real newspaper, Project Veritas is conservatrickster.

Return of prior restraint:

A New York trial judge has temporarily blocked the New York Times from publishing some materials concerning the rightwing activist group Project Veritas, a rare step that the newspaper said violated decades of first amendment constitutional protections.

The order by Justice Charles Wood of the Westchester county supreme court covers memos written by a Project Veritas lawyer and obtained by the New York Times.

Remember the Pentagon Papers?

“This ruling is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent,” Dean Baquet, the Times’s executive editor, said in an emailed statement.

“When a court silences journalism, it fails its citizens and undermines their right to know,” he added. “The supreme court made that clear in the Pentagon Papers case, a landmark ruling against prior restraint blocking the publication of newsworthy journalism. That principle clearly applies here. We are seeking an immediate review of this decision.“

Baquet’s statement referred to the US supreme court’s 1971 rejection of the Nixon administration’s attempt to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which revealed details unwelcome to the administration about US military involvement in Vietnam.

They want to keep their secrets.

It’s an outrage!

Richard Segovia’s house is as loud as the Latin rock music he teaches children to play in his basement studio. With colors ranging from jungle green and royal blue at the pavement to a red and yellow sunburst at the ridge, the otherwise modest Spanish-style home is essentially one enormous mural, a crowded portraitof long-gone musicians, Segovia’s family members, social activists, various psychedelia, and the odd jungle animal.

Segovia has lived in San Francisco’s Mission district since 1963, and he sees himself as a custodian of the neighborhood’s culture, specifically as the birthplace of Latin rock. (Carlos Santana, a family friend, grew up nearby.) But increasingly the 68-year old “Mayor of the Mission” finds himself face to face with a stark representation of all the color that has been bled out of the city over successive waves of tech-fueled gentrification.

“I walk the neighborhood every day and I see all these gray houses,” Segovia says. “It’s like being in a cemetery.”

Noooooooo. San Francisco is gorgeous and one of the ways it’s gorgeous is all the pistachio and peach and hyacinth houses. One of my few complaints about Seattle [leaving aside the explosion of new high-rises] is the passion for drab muddy dark dreary colors for the houses – gray, darker gray, brown, tan, mud, smoke. I stop to drink in every brightly colored house I see and wish there were more of them. What is wrong with people? Why would anyone want San Francisco to be more gray?

From the Golden Gate Bridge’s International Orange hue to the elaborately carved and painted façades of the Painted Ladies fronting Alamo Square, vivid color has long been the grammar of San Francisco’s vernacular architecture.

Yes but also of the much more ordinary Little Boxes, way out in the Sunset and Richmond, the flattest and least interesting part of the city (except that it’s next to the ocean), which are a sea of pink and lavender and pale green, or at least were when I lived in SF decades ago.

But apparently that doesn’t say Money loudly enough.

But more and more, amid the pastels and the gold-leaf embellishments, you see a striking juxtaposition: 125-year-old houses painted in the tones of a cold war-era nuclear warhead or a dormant cinder cone. In neighborhoods like the Mission and the Haight, this phenomenon reads to some residents as an erasure of the Latino community or of the lingering counterculture. Gentrification gray homes have become a totem of affluent interlopers.

It’s a crime.

The Daily Mail has a useful reminder of some of Adrian Harrop’s nastiest work. (Reading the piece also gives me an unpleasant awareness of the Mail’s conspicuous persecution of Meghan Markle via the sidebar – two headlines about her doing some unremarkable things but presented with hostile contempt. Ugly…and in fact quite similar to Harrop himself. Both Harrop and DM are relentless persecutors. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that they both target women.)

None of the GP’s alleged cyber victims were named. But in the case of A, he posted her full name and details of her job, and continued to do so even when she asked him to stop due to concerns for her safety.

He warned her that he would only stop if she deleted her tweets and then her Twitter profile.

The GP derided one Twitter rival, telling her that he felt sure ‘your morning medication will have kicked in’. He then added a pill emoji.

He referred to A as ‘the creepy, stalkerish one’ before revealing her full name. A responded by tweeting back: ‘This is crossing a line. You are directly exposing me to harm’.

He then said he would only do so if she apologised for all she had tweeted, adding that he didn’t want her or others with her views to ‘feel safe or welcome here’.

Harrop claims all this is to help “the trans community” but I don’t think it is, I think it’s sadism. He enjoys it. Doing it “to help” is just a fig leaf.

Twitter user E was another of those to have engaged in Twitter battles with Dr Harrop’s ally, C.

The GP again referred to the woman’s health, despite knowing nothing about it. Then he urged her: ‘Try to stay calm, dear. Don’t get your knickers in a twist’.

He referred to the ‘fabulous’ idea of going on a trans activists’ trip that would take in Westminster Cathedral and Waterloo station before ending up at the iconic Wentworth golf club in Virginia Water, Surrey – close to E’s home.

The tweet was decorated with emojis representing a golf course, a church and a train. Another tweet referred to the schools attended by E’s children.

You wouldn’t want to go to that guy to treat a hangnail.