Scottish Greens candidate and transactivist Matt “Ellie” Gomersall, with whom Wings readers will be familiar, appeared on the Jeremy Vine show today and blundered straight into an elephant trap a myopic mole could have seen coming on a foggy night.
Having just embarked on a diatribe in which he dismissed as “ridiculous” the idea that predatory men would ever pretend to be transwomen to gain access to vulnerable women, Vine asked him about Adam “Isla Bryson” Graham, the convicted double rapist that even hapless Humza Yousaf felt able to confidently assert was “at it”.
Having just painted himself into a corner, Gomersall was then embarrassingly unable to disown Bryson as a “real” transwoman, thereby implicitly admitting that transwomen do indeed present a danger to women in exactly the same way that predatory men do, and torpedoing his entire core point that it was unfair to “discriminate” against them in exactly the same way single-sex spaces discriminate against non-trans men.
(Outrageously, earlier in the speech he’d tried to claim that it was only natural that some transwomen would be sex offenders because some biological women were.)
It’s tempting to believe that Gomersall was demonstrating an intellectual vacuum by making such vacuously cretinous arguments and failing to spot even the most obvious pitfalls in them, but the truth is far worse. Gomersall, and people like him, know that they’re lying (which is why they always try to silence opponents), but they lack the moral courage to face up to the fact that the inevitable price of their lies is vulnerable women being raped by what he revoltingly waves away as “fringe cases”.
All rapists are fringe cases. 95% of men would never dream of raping anyone. But we discriminate against ALL men in women’s spaces because you can’t tell which ones are rapists by looking. Men like “Ellie” Gomersall, though, think that the price of a few women being raped is worth paying to validate their delusions and fetishes (in his case, the creepy fetish of skinwalking as his pretty sister), and they don’t even have the shred of decency to bother coming up with a coherent line of bullshit to cover it.
We’ll be honest, readers, we gasped out loud when we saw this.
That such a basic, fundamental truth of human existence should ever be front page news with the capacity to shock 100,000 years after we invented language is a sign of just how insane our world has become since 2015.
But magnificent as it is, it’s not even today’s BEST front cover.
We wouldn’t be Wings if we didn’t round off this evening with a representative selection of some of the more measured and thoughtful responses from transactivists across the UK to today’s Supreme Court judgment.
So fetch some sort of celebratory beverage, settle down in your comfiest armchair in front of the fire (‘cos it’s been Baltic today) and enjoy the Sounds Of Kindness.
For those among you who don’t have the time or patience to wade through 88 pages of judicial lingo, we’ve distilled today’s Supreme Court judgment down to its key points.
Much of it, of course, can be summarised as “the bleeding obvious”.
We’ve all got a lot of extremely heavy reading and pondering to do now. But the short version of the outcome of For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers is this:
On the face of the judgment just handed down live in the courtroom, a more absolute, comprehensive and legally momentous defeat for the Scottish Government – and the forces of gender ideology in general – seems difficult to imagine.
But we’ll get back to you on that after all the reading. Today, we’re just going to stand and salute FWS and their richly-deserved triumph. See you later.
Because you certainly are a bit light-headed if you’re buying this horse-plop.
We don’t normally spend much time analysing opinion polls more than a year out from an election because it’s a complete chump’s game – too much can happen. But this one’s so absolutely batshit mad that we couldn’t resist a bit of a probe.
We are far from the only people raising concerns about the charity – we know of at least 17 separate formal complaints against LGBTYS in the past year alone, yet the OSCR has declined to open any sort of formal inquiry into them. (It carried out three such inquiries in 2024.)
But despite the OSCR’s assertion that “we strive to be transparent and accountable”, when we went to find those complaints (including, of course, the one from ourselves) to link you to them, we hit a brick wall that rapidly turned into a whole new concern.
In relation to yesterday’s article, we’ve now filed the following with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator.
I request a review of this decision.
Firstly, I wish to note that since the response I received was a wholly generic one containing no reference or relevance to any of the specifics of my case, it should not have taken until the 28th day of the 28-day deadline to deliver. This appears to be a deliberate stalling tactic.
The information I sought did not involve the disclosure of any sensitive identities or data. It is in fact an attempt to establish the answer to an extremely basic question of first principles: why is LGBT Youth Scotland operating so far outwith its stated remit?
Since the fact that it IS doing so is not in any question – its own public statements declare that it is operating widely and openly in primary schools – it is a matter of plain and overwhelming public interest that this glaring anomaly be explained. The charity itself refuses to do so, or even to enter into any discussion of the matter, so it becomes a matter for its ostensible regulator.
Since the public is unable to ask the OSCR to speak on behalf of LGBTYS, the only remaining option to achieve transparency, accountability and public confidence is to seek the information requested and thereby discern the answer via the OSCR.
Why is an organisation whose remit concerns intrinsically sexual matters and exclusively encompasses 13-25-year-olds being allowed to operate in primary (and indeed nursery) schools and discuss such sexual matters with children 10 years below its minimum stipulated age range?
Given LGBTYS’s refusal, that duty then lies with the OSCR, and it should not evade it. The public deserves to know both that OSCR has in fact complied with its own responsibilities and carried out a satisfactory investigation, and what the outcome of that investigation was, given that nothing has changed in respect of the charity’s actions since concerns were raised with the OSCR a year ago and LGBTYS continues to far exceed its stated brief.
There are in this case no redactions which would reveal any sort of information that would place anyone at risk. The identities of LGBTYS and/or OSCR employees could be safely redacted if appropriate, while the substance of the discussion remained visible. What matters is that the question was asked, and that the public be told the answer.
None of OSCR’s stated objections to answering the FOI request are pertinent to this particular enquiry. It has no valid excuse to refuse. We fully expect it to do so anyway, because nobody in Scotland is answerable for anything any more. But we’re required to give them another 28 days to waste everyone’s time before we approach the only person in Scotland who appears to still believe in their civic and professional duty: the Information Commissioner.
Barring a miracle, we’ll see you on the 15th of May, readers.
Having received no response from multiple emails to the charity, we raised the matter with the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator last year, and heard nothing from them about the results of their investigation – or indeed, come to that, about whether they’d actually conducted an investigation at all.
So a month ago we sent them a Freedom Of Information request to find out. At the last possible second before the deadline to reply expired, the OSCR have this morning deigned to grace us with their response, which you can read below.
The cash-strapped SNP might have slimmed down its staff roster lately, but it’s the same toxic blend of intolerance and incompetence it’s been for the last decade.
Dan on Faces In Sand: ““The same people with a flourishing space program and credible plans to exploit the Moon.” Oh aye, have they fired…” Oct 24, 22:52
robertkknight on Faces In Sand: “Posted without comment… Religion: CofE: 80.6% No, 19.4% Yes” Oct 24, 22:12
Geri on Faces In Sand: “See Shit face, there exists this little thing called international treaties. Those treaties carry international clout. They’re, supposedly, upheld by…” Oct 24, 22:11
Lorncal on Faces In Sand: “Hmmmmm… You may be right, H McH. I did read somewhere that some of the masks for medical staff were…” Oct 24, 21:36
robertkknight on Faces In Sand: “2014 Referendum Study Demographics Birth place: oUK: 57.1% No, 42.9% Yes rUK: 72.1% No, 27.9% Yes SCO: 47.3% No, 52.7%…” Oct 24, 21:35
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““the real nations are the tribes and the country boundaries reflect nothing of this” Check out the big brain on…” Oct 24, 20:14
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: “Having made the bulk of the transition to renewables (which I believe Norway has), it’s foolhardy to pull up the…” Oct 24, 19:49
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““But guess what???” Hmmm, let’s see. I guess that EU Citizens, in addition to those of the Republic of Ireland,…” Oct 24, 19:32
robertkknight on Faces In Sand: “Our learned misnomer talks about democracy. LOL. If all were fair, equal, democratic and meaningful, then EU Citizens, in addition…” Oct 24, 18:35
Luigi on Faces In Sand: “Sigh. Is it too much to ask for our aspiring politicians to take an IQ test? No need to raise…” Oct 24, 18:34
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““you can’t go swimming until you can swim” Let’s see now. That thing you’re doing when you’re out of your…” Oct 24, 18:23
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““the same ppl who love a Jenny” I think I get what you’re on about there, Geri. You’re insisting that…” Oct 24, 18:13
Hatey McHateface on Faces In Sand: ““Thankfully – colonialism is over” Ah, c’moan noo, Geri, ye ken that’s a fib. The coloniser in the east, the…” Oct 24, 18:02
sam on Faces In Sand: “You might read this? https://justiceactionmaribyrnong.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Contemporary-Anti-Colonial-Self-Determination-Claims-and-the-Decolonisation-of-International-Law.pdf” Oct 24, 16:37
TURABDIN on Faces In Sand: “Referenda & elections are only as good as the data fed into them, rather like AI training. Corrupted or biased…” Oct 24, 15:45
Dan on Faces In Sand: “Interesting… #Ohm’sLaw content. Noticed that Norway is currently exporting 1.45GW to UK, but UK is currently exporting 1.35GW to Denmark.…” Oct 24, 15:44
robertkknight on Faces In Sand: “Hey, Mr Misnomer… Just for you: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/independence-referendum-figures-revealed-majority-5408163.amp” Oct 24, 14:53
Dan on Faces In Sand: “Yay, for post responding to Hatey’s brake hack released from moderation. To add a bit more info. Brake fluid has…” Oct 24, 14:26
DaveL on Faces In Sand: “‘They need to see that the institutions will function, the economy will stabilise, and the transition will be orderly.’ In…” Oct 24, 14:14
Geri on Faces In Sand: “Do they really? So a slogan on a bus & parroting ‘take back control ‘ didn’t work for Brexshit? Who…” Oct 24, 13:30
factcjecker on Faces In Sand: “Geri, I note the impeccable logic of your position. When it refers to England: “They’re hard wired racists. If “foreigners”…” Oct 24, 12:37
Geri on Faces In Sand: “That rewinding prick should be forced onto the first bus out of here. Why isn’t he? He’ll be receiving government…” Oct 24, 12:34
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “A forward-looking, inclusive case for independence can only persuade if it feels real. That means it must be grounded in…” Oct 24, 12:32
Dan on Faces In Sand: “fc says: “Thanks for the kind and polite words, Dan. That’s the way to formulate an argument.” Nae bother, treat…” Oct 24, 12:10
Northcode on Faces In Sand: “Across the world, when territories recognised by the UN as non-self-governing (NSGTs) have voted on independence, the results follow a…” Oct 24, 12:02
Geri on Faces In Sand: “15 year + is the acceptable measure by our colonising overlords. Personally I’d make it much more because they’ve already…” Oct 24, 12:00
Geri on Faces In Sand: “Dan, It’s pure projection on their part. It always is. They’re hard wired racists. If “foreigners” were allowed a vote…” Oct 24, 11:43
factchecker on Faces In Sand: ““Dan says: 24 October, 2026 at 11:02 am @ “factchecker” You can go fuck yourself with that assertion ya word…” Oct 24, 11:29
Confused on Faces In Sand: “RUPERT LOWE is out-faraging the farage – farage will deport them all, but lowe will now deport the “second generation”…” Oct 24, 11:19
Geri on Faces In Sand: “They weren’t qualified to vote. They were blow-ins, seasonal workers & second home owners & every other waif & stray…” Oct 24, 11:15