[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.] #  @JennyAscendant Jenny Ascendant Jenny Ascendant posts on X about if you, s11, status, baked the most. They currently have XX followers and XXX posts still getting attention that total XXX engagements in the last XX hours. ### Engagements: XXX [#](/creator/twitter::1779224182661746688/interactions)  - X Week XXXXX +102% - X Month XXXXX +1.10% - X Months XXXXXX -XXXX% - X Year XXXXXX +322% ### Mentions: XX [#](/creator/twitter::1779224182661746688/posts_active)  - X Months XXX +188% - X Year XXX +314% ### Followers: XX [#](/creator/twitter::1779224182661746688/followers)  - X Week XX -XXXX% - X Month XX +4.60% - X Months XX +44% - X Year XX +306% ### CreatorRank: XXXXXXXXX [#](/creator/twitter::1779224182661746688/influencer_rank)  ### Social Influence **Social topic influence** [if you](/topic/if-you), [s11](/topic/s11), [status](/topic/status), [baked](/topic/baked) ### Top Social Posts Top posts by engagements in the last XX hours "@RoseWorthesee @FondOfBeetles @SportingNest @TVAddictStill @GoodLawProject Please give the paragraph number for that quote in the Supreme Court judgment. It doesnt match the Courts language anywhere in the ruling" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998217359652515902) 2025-12-09T02:25Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @FondOfBeetles @SportingNest @TVAddictStill @GoodLawProject Page numbers arent a valid citation pagination varies between versions (large-type accessible formats printer settings etc.). Supreme Court judgments are cited by paragraph number. If you cant give the para then the wording you posted isnt in the ruling" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998221860824367593) 2025-12-09T02:43Z XX followers, XX engagements "@banbadmen Para XX isnt a test for whos feminine enough. Its a factual finding to rebut Peggies claim that she didnt know Upton was transitioning. The tribunal never used appearance to decide access or rights thats your projection not the judgment" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998454452651458781) 2025-12-09T18:07Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @joss_prior @BevJacksonAuth 5/ So what did the SC actually do It ensured that paras 2627 operate cleanly within the EAs logic by confirming that sex in s.11 means biological sex for EA purposes only. It did not overturn para XX or rewrite how providers apply it" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998547369688719671) 2025-12-10T00:16Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @joss_prior @BevJacksonAuth 6/ In short: Para XXX = a narrow definitional point about how the Sex-PC exceptions work. It is not a statement about mandatory exclusion of trans people. And the balancing test in para XX continues exactly as before. Misrepresenting it doesnt change the law. /end" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998547719540134261) 2025-12-10T00:18Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth Para XX says that a single-sex service may treat someone with the GR PC differently if (and only if) doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Its a justification test not a blanket exclusion. Inclusion remains lawful unless an exclusion is justified" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998550224504238477) 2025-12-10T00:27Z XX followers, XX engagements "@CConcern @CamillaTominey Her first duty is to her patients not her beliefs. She was called upon as a senior experienced nurse by a junior colleague to defuse an already volatile situation. The patient was in pain and agitated and was causing distress to other patients on the ward. The patient" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998773290555379976) 2025-12-10T15:14Z XX followers, XX engagements "@BevJacksonAuth That text does not appear in the SC Ruling - why are you trying to pretend it does" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998319206345895941) 2025-12-09T09:10Z XX followers, XXX engagements "@DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth But not with that emphasis and in a context that the quote given ignores. I was going to post the whole paragraph but you saved me the trouble. The para as a whole is explaining why the court considered that considering sex to include certified sex was problematic thats all" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1998329096825102440) 2025-12-09T09:49Z XX followers, XXX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 1/ Permits different treatment yes but thats the whole point. The aim is to provide a service not to police a space. Schedule X paras 2628 regulate the proportionality of different treatment for legitimate users of that service exactly as the Explanatory Notes say" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1999185314133192798) 2025-12-11T18:31Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 2/ How a provider provisions the service including the physical spaces used is entirely their discretion so long as it doesnt result in unlawful discrimination. A single-sex or separate-sex service is a legal status not a purity test" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1999185635567951991) 2025-12-11T18:32Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 4/ Para XX permits different treatment only if the provider can objectively justify it as necessary for delivering the service a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. And crucially: the nature of the space doesnt define the service" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1999186971218833894) 2025-12-11T18:38Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 5/ Discrimination law analyses treatment not architecture. Both GR and para XX are grounded in Croft. Parliament baked the case-law balancing test straight into the statute" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1999187726759801079) 2025-12-11T18:41Z XX followers, XX engagements "@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth You have para XX completely backwards. Para XX doesnt say it is not GR discrimination. It says GR discrimination can be lawful if and only if it is objectively justified. And that proportionality test is inherently case-by-case the statute literally uses the" [X Link](https://x.com/JennyAscendant/status/1999225515861999811) 2025-12-11T21:11Z XX followers, X engagements
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
@JennyAscendant Jenny Ascendant
Jenny Ascendant posts on X about if you, s11, status, baked the most. They currently have XX followers and XXX posts still getting attention that total XXX engagements in the last XX hours.
Engagements: XXX #
- X Week XXXXX +102%
- X Month XXXXX +1.10%
- X Months XXXXXX -XXXX%
- X Year XXXXXX +322%
Mentions: XX #
- X Months XXX +188%
- X Year XXX +314%
Followers: XX #
- X Week XX -XXXX%
- X Month XX +4.60%
- X Months XX +44%
- X Year XX +306%
CreatorRank: XXXXXXXXX #
Social Influence
Social topic influence if you, s11, status, baked
Top Social Posts
Top posts by engagements in the last XX hours
"@RoseWorthesee @FondOfBeetles @SportingNest @TVAddictStill @GoodLawProject Please give the paragraph number for that quote in the Supreme Court judgment. It doesnt match the Courts language anywhere in the ruling"
X Link 2025-12-09T02:25Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @FondOfBeetles @SportingNest @TVAddictStill @GoodLawProject Page numbers arent a valid citation pagination varies between versions (large-type accessible formats printer settings etc.). Supreme Court judgments are cited by paragraph number. If you cant give the para then the wording you posted isnt in the ruling"
X Link 2025-12-09T02:43Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@banbadmen Para XX isnt a test for whos feminine enough. Its a factual finding to rebut Peggies claim that she didnt know Upton was transitioning. The tribunal never used appearance to decide access or rights thats your projection not the judgment"
X Link 2025-12-09T18:07Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @joss_prior @BevJacksonAuth 5/ So what did the SC actually do It ensured that paras 2627 operate cleanly within the EAs logic by confirming that sex in s.11 means biological sex for EA purposes only. It did not overturn para XX or rewrite how providers apply it"
X Link 2025-12-10T00:16Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @joss_prior @BevJacksonAuth 6/ In short: Para XXX = a narrow definitional point about how the Sex-PC exceptions work. It is not a statement about mandatory exclusion of trans people. And the balancing test in para XX continues exactly as before. Misrepresenting it doesnt change the law. /end"
X Link 2025-12-10T00:18Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth Para XX says that a single-sex service may treat someone with the GR PC differently if (and only if) doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Its a justification test not a blanket exclusion. Inclusion remains lawful unless an exclusion is justified"
X Link 2025-12-10T00:27Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@CConcern @CamillaTominey Her first duty is to her patients not her beliefs. She was called upon as a senior experienced nurse by a junior colleague to defuse an already volatile situation. The patient was in pain and agitated and was causing distress to other patients on the ward. The patient"
X Link 2025-12-10T15:14Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@BevJacksonAuth That text does not appear in the SC Ruling - why are you trying to pretend it does"
X Link 2025-12-09T09:10Z XX followers, XXX engagements
"@DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth But not with that emphasis and in a context that the quote given ignores. I was going to post the whole paragraph but you saved me the trouble. The para as a whole is explaining why the court considered that considering sex to include certified sex was problematic thats all"
X Link 2025-12-09T09:49Z XX followers, XXX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 1/ Permits different treatment yes but thats the whole point. The aim is to provide a service not to police a space. Schedule X paras 2628 regulate the proportionality of different treatment for legitimate users of that service exactly as the Explanatory Notes say"
X Link 2025-12-11T18:31Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 2/ How a provider provisions the service including the physical spaces used is entirely their discretion so long as it doesnt result in unlawful discrimination. A single-sex or separate-sex service is a legal status not a purity test"
X Link 2025-12-11T18:32Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 4/ Para XX permits different treatment only if the provider can objectively justify it as necessary for delivering the service a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. And crucially: the nature of the space doesnt define the service"
X Link 2025-12-11T18:38Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth 5/ Discrimination law analyses treatment not architecture. Both GR and para XX are grounded in Croft. Parliament baked the case-law balancing test straight into the statute"
X Link 2025-12-11T18:41Z XX followers, XX engagements
"@RoseWorthesee @DinosaurWitch @BevJacksonAuth You have para XX completely backwards. Para XX doesnt say it is not GR discrimination. It says GR discrimination can be lawful if and only if it is objectively justified. And that proportionality test is inherently case-by-case the statute literally uses the"
X Link 2025-12-11T21:11Z XX followers, X engagements