Trump has only 5 days…

Donald Trump’s lawyers are asking a New York court to put a $464m (£365m) fine in a civil fraud case on hold, as the former president finds himself in a precarious financial situation that could ultimately see his most prized properties taken. If Mr Trump wants to continue his appeal in the case without the state seizing the fine from him, he must submit the full amount in cash or secure a bond from a private company by 25 March.

But he’s tried to secure a bond and everyone has told him no.

He’s trying to get a stay, and opinions are divided on whether he’ll succeed or not.

Ultimately, if Mr Trump does not get a pause and the court offers no compromise option, he could appeal directly to New York’s Court of Appeals. But with a deadline of 25 March to pay the judgement or post a bond, he is working on a tight timeline and is seeing thousands of dollars in interest added to the penalty sum each day.

Small comfort, but something is better than nothing.

If Mr Trump cannot find a way to pay the fraud judgement or secure a bond by 25 March, Ms James can begin to collect the fee and take his assets. She has said she will do so if he fails to pay.

Experts say this is another worst case scenario for Mr Trump, as he could lose some of his most famous properties. They can take any of his buildings – not just those in New York – including the 58-floor Trump Tower and his sprawling Florida club, Mar-a-Lago.

Oh please please please take Mar-a-Lago. And evict him.

The Telegraph reports that the BBC director general has told MPs that it’s no big deal that the BBC forces its reporters to lie about the sex of Our Trans Siblings.

Tim Davie, BBC director general, accused people of “whipping up” outrage as he defended the corporation’s stance on the topic.

The BBC last month upheld a complaint against Today programme presenter Justin Webb after he described trans women as “males”. The broadcaster’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) found Webb had broken impartiality rules after a listener complained the comments amounted to a personal opinion.

But of course it’s not a personal opinion, in the sense of not being an impersonal fact. It is precisely an impersonal fact that men are not women. You could change the words “men” and “women” to whatever arbitrary collection of letters you liked, but the fact behind the words would remain the same.

It’s disturbing that the head honcho of a major news organization doesn’t realize it’s not an “opinion” that men are not women.

Gender-critical activists who believe that sex is biological have accused the public service broadcaster of falling short in its impartiality obligations.

No no no no no, stop. Stop doing that. We don’t “believe” sex is biological. This isn’t some silly personal whim of ours. Go ask some bears, or some swans, or some crows. We know “sex is biological” and we know the BBC knows “sex is biological” and is lying about it and trying to force us to lie about it with them. That’s not going to happen, Beeb.

The Telegraph reported that senior female members of staff have written to Mr Davie to express their concerns about the decision. One wrote: “If the BBC is to censure journalists for being factual we are slipping into very dangerous waters.”

See? Factual. It’s not a god damn “belief” so stop saying it is. The “belief” is that men can be women; the reality is they can’t.

This is how much this horrific ideology has eroded the ability to distinguish between opinion and fact even of outlets like the Telegraph that aren’t generally considered trendy-lefty.

Mr Davie said he did not believe the BBC suffered from institutional bias on trans issues, but added that it was “an area of controversy”. He said: “It’s also an area where I think we need to have confidence in our journalists to ask, talk, discuss these issues. We don’t have no-go areas in the BBC.”

Oh puhleeeeze.

The director general added: “We have to be kind and caring in this and listen to people and be nice.”

Meaning they have to be nice to trans people and their “allies.” They do not have to be nice to women. God no; what an idea.

Civil servant being sued for saying up is not down.

A lawyer and the government department she works with are being sued after she made gender-critical statements at work, including expressing the belief that only women menstruate.

That’s not a belief though. It’s just a fact, a simple humdrum quotidian fact like a billion other facts. It’s not a clever idea to sue people for stating impersonal facts of the type “only women menstruate.”

Her name is Elspeth Duemmer Wrigley and she is a chairwoman of a civil service network that represents staff with gender-critical views.

She is one of three key signatories of an explosive letter sent in October to the cabinet secretary warning the impartiality of the civil service was under threat because anyone with gender-critical views was “openly and unlawfully bullied and harassed”.

She herself is of course being bullied and harassed.

Duemmer Wrigley will appear at an employment tribunal next week accused of harassment for several comments and posts shared in the workplace. An employee of another body affiliated to Defra is suing the government department for allowing the network to exist and Duemmer Wrigley personally for her views.

These include a statement made during a seminar on female autism that “only women menstruate” and a link to My Body is Me!, a book that encourages young children to understand and accept their bodies. A post in which she celebrates “diversity of belief” and explains that being gender-critical is a protected belief has also been penalised.

In short this is yet another of those situations where people are energetically punished and hassled for refusing to lie about basic impersonal facts.

The Sex Equality and Equity Network (Seen) is an official civil service network with more than 700 members in 50 government departments who support the belief that biological sex is binary and immutable. 

But it’s not a belief. See above. Not belief; just basic fact. It shouldn’t need “support.”

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on When fraudulently inflating goes wrong.

It depends how you look at it, I suppose. Disgorgement is a funny remedy in some ways.

Usually civil damages are compensatory — the court is attempting to make the plaintiff whole for a loss it suffered. That’s not what this is, of course. As the Trump defense team insisted repeatedly, the plaintiff in this case (the state of New York) didn’t suffer any monetary loss here. The state can say it was “harmed” in the sense that it has a general interest in promoting fair and honest business practices in its jurisdiction, but that’s a rather amorphous type of harm. The banks who loaned the money all got paid back. Arguably they were “harmed” in the sense that they could have charged a higher interest rate had they known the true facts, but in any event they didn’t sue. We can hypothesize that, but for Trump’s fraud, some other buyer would have purchased these buildings and sold them for a profit, but there’s no way to say who that would have been or what profit they would have made.

A lot of media accounts are referring to the judgment as a “penalty,” and while I wouldn’t say that’s inaccurate, it’s also not the kind of “punitive damages” that people are used to, as in what E. Jean Carroll got.

Did the Trump defendants simply get put back to where they would have been without the fraud? Arguably. But arguably not. The injunctive relief — the restrictions on defendants’ ability to run their business, or any business in NY — certainly put them in a worse position. The monetary component maybe does, because it’s not necessarily true that Trump couldn’t have purchased the properties honestly and still made some or all of the same profits. Or at a minimum, they could have put their funds and collateral to use on other projects where they might have made at least some profit. That’s not unusual in disgorgement cases — essentially, the defendant often loses a lot of the “benefit of the doubt” about what would have happened in the alternative world where defendant behaved properly.

The prejudgment interest is not insignificant, either. And of course there’s the attorneys’ fees and reputational loss (though at this point, Trump’s business reputation may be as low as it can go, and/or a fraud judgment against Trump may help by rallying MAGA donors as much at it hurts). Finally, there’s the timing issue: getting whacked with a judgment of this size all at once, which the Trump defendants apparently lack the liquidity to pay or bond, is worse than simply getting less profits over a period of years.

So, I wouldn’t say that the Trump defendants can just brush this off as a “heads we win, tails we draw, oh well, it came out tails, no big deal, we’d do it all over again if we could” situation. But I wouldn’t blame anyone for feeling this isn’t a big punishment.

Party’s off.

A foundation which stirred controversy by planning to give awards named for the late US supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch said on Monday it had canceled the ceremony.

“While we believe each of the honorees is worthy of our respect for their leadership and their notable contributions, the foundation has decided that the planned ceremony in April 2024 will be canceled,” Julie Opperman, chair of the Dwight D Opperman Foundation, said in a statement.

You believe incorrectly. Of all the people whose notable contributions you could have chosen, you chose Rupert Murdoch and Elon Musk. They’re both bad people – proudly bad people. They’re bullies, they’re mean, they’re power-mad. You had no business linking them with Ginsburg.

Opperman added: “Justice Ginsburg was known for her civility.”

No she wasn’t! What a stupid thing to say. You might as well say she was known for having arms. I’m confident she was civil but that’s absolutely not what she was “known for.” She was known for doing much more difficult things than being civil.

The move came a day after James Ginsburg, the late justice’s son, called the decision to give Musk and Murdoch RBG awards – originally known as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Woman of Leadership awards – a “desecration” of the memory of his mother.

If you want to give Musk and Murdoch awards do that on your own time. It’s grotesque to drag Ginsburg into it.

Ginsburg helped establish the award in her name, saying it would honour “women who have strived to make the world a better place for generations that follow their own, women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility, and who care about the dignity and well being of all who dwell on planet Earth”.

Does not describe Musk and Murdoch, now does it.

H/t Lisa

It starts today.

From next month in Scotland you’ll be able to drop into a sex shop, make an anonymous accusation of hate crime against someone you dislike and potentially see your bete noir locked up. You think I’m joking – that this is an April Fool come early. I only wish it [were]. In two weeks’ time, this will be the law of the land in Scotland under the SNP’s iniquitous Hate Crime Act which makes ‘stirring up hatred’ a criminal offence punishable by 7 years in jail.  

The sex shop in question is an LGBTQ-friendly establishment in Glasgow’s Merchant City. It is a ‘third-party reporting centre’ set up by Police Scotland to make it easier to accuse someone of hate crime. There will be 411 of these snitching centres across Scotland located everywhere from mushroom farms to caravan sites. Trans activists across the land will be able to accuse JK Rowling, 24/7, of being a transphobe. 

I have questions. Isn’t all this accusing someone of hate crime itself “stirring up hatred”? Can’t we in turn just accuse our accuser of “stirring up hatred”? Won’t the whole thing just turn into a dense knot of people accusing each other until they run out of breath?

The trans campaigner India Willoughby has already tried to have the novelist prosecuted for misgendering him/her. After the complaint was dismissed by Northumberland Police, Willoughby’s supporters made clear they will be accusing her in Scotland. They might even succeed.

Oh? We have boatloads of examples of Willz stirring up hatred. He hardly ever does anything else.

The Scottish government’s definition of ‘stirring up hatred’ is so vague that ministers have given up trying to explain it. They just refer you to the Police Scotland website where a hate crime is defined as ‘any crime which is understood by the victim or any other person as being motivated, wholly or partly[,] by malice or ill will towards a social group’. 

Well then it’s a crime we’re all convicted of the second the accusation is made. If all it needs is someone “understanding” what you say as being motivated, wholly or partly by malice or ill will towards a social group then there is no way you can defend yourself against the charge. You can’t prove that your accuser doesn’t understand it that way, and neither can anyone else. Bang: guilty as charged.

The Scottish Police Federation, an organisation not perhaps known for defending freedom of speech, has warned that the law would ‘paralyse freedom of expression for individuals and organisations by threatening prosecution for the mere expression of opinion’. The First Minister, Humza Yousaf, insisted that this was scaremongering and no one could be prosecuted for what they think. However, it is clear that what they say can and will be prosecuted if the ‘victims’ perceive what they think and say to be discriminatory. 

If no one will be prosecuted for what they think, why is the law worded the way it is?

Man bullying woman episode 3 billion.

Scientific American took it upon itself to change the language of that pregnancy study to exclude the word “women” from its findings. What should it change its name to? Bullshit American? Fashionable Nonsense American? Women Don’t Exist American?

Behold, the abstract, with emphasis added:

Pregnancy is a unique neuroplastic period in adult life. This longitudinal study tracked brain cortical changes during the peripartum period and explored how the type of childbirth affects these changes. We collected neuroanatomic, obstetric and neuropsychological data from 110 first-time mothers during late pregnancy and early postpartum, as well as from 34 nulliparous women evaluated at similar time points. During late pregnancy, mothers showed lower cortical volume than controls across all functional networks. These cortical differences attenuated in the early postpartum session. Default mode and frontoparietal networks showed below-expected volume increases during peripartum, suggesting that their reductions may persist longer. Results also pointed to different cortical trajectories in mothers who delivered by scheduled C-section. The main findings were replicated in an independent sample of 29 mothers and 24 nulliparous women. These data suggest a dynamic trajectory of cortical decreases during pregnancy that attenuates in the postpartum period, at a different rate depending on the brain network and childbirth type.

Developments:

Tick tick tick

NPR on the Opperman Foundation absurdity:

The Dwight D. Opperman Foundation has presented the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leadership Award to accomplished women including Barbra Streisand and Queen Elizabeth II since its inception in 2019.

But this year, the Opperman Foundation selected four men, including conservative media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Elon Musk, and Martha Stewart. Ginsburg’s family blasted the selection last week, saying the decision is an “affront” to the memory of the late justice and her values.

“This year, the Opperman Foundation has strayed far from the original mission of the award and from what Justice Ginsburg stood for,” Jane Ginsburg, daughter of the Supreme Court justice, said in a statement.

“Strayed from” is putting it politely. Raced away from at 500 mph would be more like it.

“This year we selected leaders in different fields. We honored men for the first time,” Opperman said in a statement. “We thought RBG’s teachings regarding EQUALITY should be practiced. We did not consider politics.”

Yes you honor “teachings regarding EQUALITY” by giving a boost to rich people, white people, straight people, titled people, and above all male people. Giving a boost to women is an affront to EQUALITY.

Stewart, Musk, Murdoch, Michael Milken and Sylvester Stallone were the five “iconic” and “exceptional” recipients of the 2024 RBG Leadership Award, the foundation had said in its initial news release on Wednesday.

Milken, an investment banker famous for creating the junk bond market, was arrested in the late ’80s for securities fraud. After he was released from prison, he built a reputation on his philanthropy. President Trump pardoned Milken in 2020.

Stewart served time in a federal women’s prison from October 2004 through March 2005 for her part in a stock scandal.

Musk, the billionaire owner of SpaceX, has been accused of antisemitism and, since taking over Twitter — now known as X — reportedly allowed pro-Nazi content to proliferate on the platform, prompting companies to pull ad revenue.

Actor Stallone of Rocky fame has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault, all of which he denies and for which he’s never been charged.

They’re iconic! Also, EQUALITY.

The Opperman Foundation put out a statement yesterday the stupidity of which boggles the mind.

PHOENIX, March 18, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — The purpose of the RBG Leadership Award is to remember Justice Ginsburg and to honor her. She changed America by teaching us that all are EQUAL. The opportunities available to millions of women in the last 50 years speak for itself.

Yes indeed, the opportunities speak for itself. Maybe get an adult to write your press releases in future.

Anyway, no, that’s a very childish and crude summing up of Justice Ginsburg. She focused on the way women were treated as not “EQUAL”. Her point was not “all are EQUAL so let’s keep giving all the prizes to men.” Not even close.

This year we selected leaders in different fields. We honored men for the first time. We thought RBG’s teachings regarding EQUALITY should be practiced. We did not consider politics. Instead, we focused on leaders, who, in their own way, have made significant contributions to society.

Murdoch? What “contributions to society”? Also “RBG’s teachings regarding EQUALITY” were not that men should continue to win all the prizes.

How do people get so confused?

This ought to be 100% parody but IT ISN’T. The award was intended for women…

The organizer behind an honor named for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a lifelong champion of women’s rights and liberal causes, is canceling the award ceremony scheduled for April after facing blistering criticism from her family and friends over several of this year’s planned recipients.

Justice Ginsburg helped establish the award in 2019, the year before she died. It was originally intended for “women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility,” but four of the five intended recipients this year are men. 

That right there is more than bad enough but it gets insultingly worse. Four of this year’s five “planned recipients” are men, and hahaha joke’s on you, bitches, they’re some of the worst men anyone could find.

Among them are Elon Musk, the tech entrepreneur who frequently lobs tirades at perceived critics; Rupert Murdoch, the tycoon whose empire helped give rise to conservative news media; and Michael R. Milken, the financier who was a face of corporate greed in the 1980s and served nearly two years in prison before becoming a philanthropist.

I mean seriously?? What is even the point? What is the point of giving an award to Musk and Murdoch and Milken? An award for what? Why do they need an award? Of all the people on the planet those three seemed the most deserving of an award? An award in the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg?? What is the thinking here?

“The last thing we intended was to offend the family and friends of R.B.G.,” Julie Opperman, the chairwoman of Dwight D. Opperman Foundation, which awards the prize every year, said in a statement on Monday. 

Oh fuck off. Never mind anybody’s family and friends; explain what can possibly be the point of giving an award (intended for women) to three of the richest and worst bad men on the planet?

Ms. Opperman explained that the reason for including men as recipients this year was to reflect and uphold Justice Ginsburg’s “teachings regarding equality.”

Yeah great joke but now seriously tell us why you did it.

The foundation “did not consider politics” but focused on selecting leaders who “have made significant contributions to society,” she said.

“Leaders”? What leaders? They’re not leaders, they’re men who made themselves a lot of money.

The intended recipients this year, who also include the businesswoman Martha Stewart and the actor Sylvester Stallone, were scheduled to be honored with the renamed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leadership Award at a gala next month at the Library of Congress. 

Why is it renamed? Why leadership? It’s a power-worship move – it’s a grovel to power-loving men who wield their power to break everything and insult everyone. It’s a flaming insult to RBG herself.

H/t Sackbut

Not reassuring.

What he says:

Neale Hanvey: The Hate Crime Act should deeply worry all women and LGB people

2nd October 2023

I MAKE no apology for what I am about to write because it may be the last time I am able to do so. In a few short months, the Scottish Government’s Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 will come into effect and my world and that of women up and down Scotland will enter a very dark place. Our contribution to political discourse will not only be ignored by government, it may cease to be lawful. Discussing the fundamental characteristic that defines us, our sex, is likely to be considered an aggravated hate crime. I still struggle to believe this illiberal control on freedom of thought and expression is happening in Scotland, the country of the Enlightenment, the country that only 10 years ago was gripped by an independence campaign of hope, vision and ambition. Growing up in the industrial macho culture of Fife was no picnic for a young gay guy like me but, despite the challenges of Aids and Section 28, I was able to forge a happy work and home life while being able to demonstrate in the workplace and in public for equality before the law. It was also an extremely tough environment for many women and there was tremendous solidarity between the women’s movement and gay rights movement as we worked together to effect legal protection in statute. Back then, many people had to conceal their sexuality at work lest they were sacked, so finding your crowd behind the blacked-out windows of a gay bar was a release and somewhere you could luxuriate in just being yourself among trusted friends. Life in the 1980s was by no means perfect but I remember those days of solidarity and shared endeavour fondly despite the tragic losses to the ravages of Aids. Under this new legislation, introduced to parliament by the current First Minister when he was justice secretary, that social world and activism of the 1980s is likely to be considered criminal. The legislation’s exclusion of “sex” and “beliefs” as protected characteristics means women do not exist as a sex class for the purposes of the act. This also casts doubt on how anyone can lawfully exercise their now-established Equality Act protections for gender-critical beliefs without that being declared a hate crime.

And although the act includes sexual orientation to be a protected characteristic, it is silent on the definition of sex, so the same applies to lesbians and gay men who are by definition homosexual and attracted exclusively to same-sex partners. [Con]sequently, the disgusting and frequently violent misogynistic abuse meted out against Joanna Cherry MP, Joan McAlpine, Johann Lamont and brave female detransitioners from cry-bully activists is not captured by this definition as a hate crime. They are all fair game in this First Minister’s Scotland.

Abuse of women is not considered a hate crime, but saying a man is a man is.

Jumping ahead:

I fully expect to be accused and arrested under this law. So far, I’ve had repeated vexatious actions against my office; I’ve suffered murderous threats as the trans rights activists cheer on.

I’ve been dragged through the media for highlighting gender reform conflicts with women’s rights and child safeguarding and I am abused regularly on social media by those who claim to be on the right side of history. Newsflash – they’re not.

The bar for prosecution is extremely low. No corroboration is required and the definition of “harassment” is ill-described and includes a wholly subjective test of “causing the person alarm or distress”. Such nebulous scope invites vexatious and malicious complaints, prosecutions, convictions and potential incarceration.

Homosexuality was not decriminalised in Scotland until 1981. This bill re-introduces this harm in its effect as it seeks to criminalise the act of defining who and what women and same-sex-attracted people are and in so doing erases the rights and protections we fought so long to establish. It must be repealed, but until then all we have is courage.

And a firm intention to stay out of Scotland.

The Times on Trump’s perilous situation:

The judge in the civil fraud case, Arthur F. Engoron, levied the $454 million penalty and other punishments after concluding that Mr. Trump had fraudulently inflated his net worth to obtain favorable loans and other benefits. The case, brought by the New York attorney general, Letitia James, has posed a grave financial threat to Mr. Trump.

It would be interesting to know how the $454 million penalty compares to the money he pocketed via inflating his net worth to obtain favorable loans.

The company providing the bond would essentially promise to cover Mr. Trump’s judgment if he lost an appeal and failed to pay. In exchange, he would pledge cash and other liquid assets as collateral, and he would pay the company a fee as high as $20 million.

But Mr. Trump does not have enough liquidity to obtain the bond. The company would require Mr. Trump to pledge more than $550 million in cash and securities as collateral — a sum he simply does not have.

Loser!

Although the former president boasts of his billions, his net worth is derived largely from the value of his real estate, which bond companies rarely accept as collateral. Mr. Trump has more than $350 million in cash, a recent New York Times analysis found, far short of what he needs.

Well maybe he should have thought of that before he decided to do all this inflating his wealth to obtain fraudulent loans activity. What goes around comes around, as the saying goes. He cheated, he got caught, and now nobody wants to help him deal with the penalties. Whose fault is that? Not ours. Not Obama’s. Not Rachel Maddow’s. I kind of think it’s his own fault.

HAhahahahaha Trump can’t find anyone who will oblige him in the matter of the bond.

Donald Trump‘s effort to secure a bond to cover a $454 million judgment in a New York civil fraud case has been rejected by 30 surety companies, his lawyers said on Monday, inching him closer to the possibility of having his properties seized.

The former president must either pay the sum out of his own pocket or post a bond to stave off the state’s seizure while he appeals Justice Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 judgment against him for misstating property values to dupe lenders and insurers.

Trump, two of his adult children and other Trump Organization executives had so far approached the 30 companies through four separate brokers without success, his lawyers said. The other defendants face judgments totaling $10 million.

A bonding company would be on the hook for any payout if Trump loses his appeal and proves unable to pay.

And oddly enough they don’t want to be on that hook. What goes around comes around, Don.

Willoughby demonstrating what a stalwart feminist woman he is.

Pink News gloats:

Planet Fitness has stood by its decision to ban a member who took a picture of a trans woman using a gym’s female locker room and confronted them [him] about their [his] presence there.

You can see why they would have a ban on taking pictures in the locker rooms, but when the reason for doing so is documenting a man in the women’s locker room it’s another matter.

It comes after a complaint raised by US woman Patricia Silva, who allegedly saw a trans woman shaving in the locker room of her Alaska gym and took a picture of the individual in question.  

Allegedly saw a trans woman but definitely took a picture. We see you, PN.

Silva recounted that she approached the trans person and told them [him] they [he] should not be using the same changing room as herself. 

In a video shared to Facebook, Silva recounted the incident and persistently misgendered the person: “I just came out of Planet Fitness. There is a man shaving in the women’s bathroom. 

Yeah that’s the important thing. He invaded the women’s locker room but that’s ok; she documented his invasion and shock-horror she “misgendered” him!! The trivialization of what he did compared to the heavy breathing over what she did is one outrage, and the lying about what he did and what it means for his victims is another outrage. There are always so many outrages in these things that we lose track.

She said Planet Fitness proceeded to cancel her membership, which the gym company said was due to her taking photographs inside the locker room, which is prohibited.  

While men forcing themselves on women in the women’s locker room is not prohibited.

How is that fair?

In a statement, the gym brand – which has more than 2,500 locations – said whilst people might feel “uncomfortable” with trans folk using the same spaces as them, this “discomfort is not a reason to deny access”. 

That’s right: carefully trivialize the presence of a man in the women’s locker room and then pretend the fake triviality is relevant to keeping men out of women’s locker rooms. The issue isn’t “discomfort”; the issue is threat, shame, fear, risk, assault, rape.

The policy statement added staff should work with members and employees to “address this discomfort and to “foster a climate of understanding”. 

Meaning a climate of understanding for the men perving on women. Definitely not a climate of understanding for the women who don’t want men perving on them in the fucking locker room.

In a statement shared with the Daily Mail, Planet Fitness said: “As the home of the Judgement Free Zone, Planet Fitness is committed to creating an inclusive environment. 

“Our gender identity non-discrimination policy, states that members and guests may use the gym facilities that best align with their sincere, self-reported gender identity,’ it read.  

Oh, sincere. That changes everything. I have just one question – how the fuck do you know when it’s “sincere” and when it isn’t????

“Scientific” American goes out of its way to pretend women don’t exist.

You’d better be getting all your hating done now if you live in Scotland. Scottish Legal News:

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act will be activated – on April 1.

The law creates new stirring up of hatred offences for protected characteristics including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

But not, of course, sex. It’s fine to stir up hatred of women – by calling us “terfs” for instance – but don’t you dare say that man in the dress and catch-me fuck-me shoes is a man.

Victims minister Siobhian Brown said: “For those impacted by hatred and prejudice, the results can be traumatic and life changing. While we respect everyone’s right to freedom of expression, nobody in our society should live in fear or be made to feel like they don’t belong, and the Scottish Government is committed to building safer communities that live free from hatred and prejudice.”

Except women of course. Women just have to put up with it.

BBC Scotland elaborates:

First Minister Humza Yousaf was the justice secretary who shepherded the Hate Crime bill through the Scottish Parliament, declaring at the time that it “sent a strong and clear message to victims, perpetrators, communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be tolerated.”

The law criminalises threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred against someone who possesses, or appears to possess, certain characteristics.

They are age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics sometimes known as being intersex.

Why not sex? Why are women excluded from this protection?

Also, while we’re on the subject, why not class? If you’re going to do all this box-ticking, why not women and why not class? Is snobbery dead in Scotland?

The new law also provides for stiffer sentences for offenders convicted of crimes deemed to be “aggravated by prejudice,” — in other words if they demonstrate malice or ill-will towards their victim based on the protected characteristics listed above, with the addition of a category for race, colour, nationality or ethnicity.

But not sex.

Finally we get to that.

Controversially, the protected characteristics in the act do not include sex itself, an omission criticised by some feminist groups.

Well yes. I think the law itself is probably a bad idea, especially in Scotland, but if you’re going to have such a law, why tf are you leaving women out? Do you seriously think women are not subject to hatred and contempt? Not to mention violence?

“This new law leaves women unprotected from hate crime,” the Scottish National Party MP Joanna Cherry KC told me. It would, she predicted, “be weaponised by trans rights activists to try to silence, and worse still, criminalise women who do not share their beliefs.”

All but certain, in my view.

That disgusting rapey UN Women poster is from last October, but I think I missed it then. (I did a quick search of posts, and was surprised to see how many hits “trans lesbians” got.) Let’s give it the hostile attention it deserves.

Remember, says the UN, men are lesbians too.

Remember, laydeez, you are required to fuck men no matter what. You don’t get to opt out by saying you’re a lesbian because haha men can just say they are lesbians too and then you have to welcome their lesbian dicks.

That’s what “inclusion” means: women don’t get to say no. Ever.