And then communicate it clearly and accurately

Apr 15th, 2021 9:20 am | By

American Atheists issues a statement rebuking…heresy.

In response to Richard Dawkins’ recent tweet regarding trans people, Alison Gill, Vice President for Legal and Policy at American Atheists, a trans woman, released the following statement:

So American Atheists don’t believe in a god but they do believe in a magical changeable “gender” that means men become women by saying so, and that no one is allowed to believe that’s nonsensical.

The progress of science has helped us better understand who we are as trans people. As the American Psychological Association notes, “Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities.”

What are “identities”? Are they a solid and crisp enough concept to be scientifically investigated? Or are they just a fuzzy category about how people think of themselves?

I think neuroscience and psychology can investigate delusions…but “identities”?

We need science communicators like Richard Dawkins to put in the time to learn this information and then communicate it clearly and accurately to the public, not reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives put forward by the opponents of equality.

Who’s “we”?

And what are these “dangerous and harmful narratives put forward by the opponents of equality”? Notice that claiming to be the opposite sex is Science while saying that isn’t possible is “narratives.” The more important point is that dissenters from trans ideology are not opponents of equality. These shits really need to stop lying about what we think and what we say. It’s even in their own interest to stop, because insisting on telling the lies over and over just makes it look as if lies are all they have. You know? If they can’t make their case without lying that we hate them and hate equality, then what kind of case can it be? Besides empty?

Trans people are under constant attack across our country.

No they’re not.

Implying that our identities are somehow fraudulent and questioning whether we even exist dehumanizes us and helps justify this violence.

No it doesn’t.

Saying that humans can’t change sex is just making a dull factual statement. Brandishing the word “identities” to shore up the claims of being the other sex is just childish word magic. Nobody questions whether or not people who claim to be the other sex exist; we all know you exist, not least because you keep shouting about it.

It’s just hackery, this kind of thing. Stale phrases trotted out to justify fantasy-based ideas of “identity” – it’s silly, it’s childish, it’s beyond tedious.


Apr 14th, 2021 4:33 pm | By

Are they though?

Are trans people really “one of the most marginalized minorities”? We’re certainly constantly told they are, but what are the criteria? Who is keeping track? Where are their findings?

Are they as marginalized as homeless people with mental health and/or drug and/or alcohol issues? Are they as marginalized as very poor people who are too poor to do the things it takes to get out of poverty? Are they as marginalized as refugees and immigrants who don’t speak the local language and have no local friends or relations? Are they as marginalized as abused women? Are they as marginalized as children of fanatically religious parents?

I could go on. There are a lot of very marginalized people in the world, and they’re marginalized for much more material and obvious and intractable reasons than a feeling that one is the sex that one’s body is not.

I wonder if it’s not so much that they’re marginalized as it is that they are setting themselves up for a drastically limited pool of sexual and romantic partners, to say nothing of the complications if they want to have children. I can easily nod in agreement if the Owen Joneses say trans people have trouble finding a love interest, but I don’t nod in agreement that that’s being “marginalized.” Becoming a niche item, sexually speaking, just goes with the territory if you’re trans. That’s one reason it’s not an unmistakably brilliant idea to tell all kids who even pick up a toy meant for “the other gender” that they’re trans.

Meanwhile spare a thought for farm workers. Now they’re marginalized six ways from Sunday, I tell you what.

The ACLU is watching YOU

Apr 14th, 2021 10:46 am | By

No freedom of information for you, terf.

A woman was interested to know how many inmates in Washington state identify as transgender, and how many of those transgender identified inmates have been given transfers to go from men’s prison to women’s prison, and the reverse. To get this information, she filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Instead of getting the information she requested, she got sued by the ACLU.

I’ll wait while you stare in disbelief. It took me quite some time.

To be clear, at no point had this woman contacted the ACLU to tell them she was filing a FOIA. She had used ACLU resources to figure out how to file a FOIA, but that was freely available on their website. The state of Washington is under no obligation to let the ACLU know about every FOIA request they receive, so it remains entirely unclear as to how the ACLU became aware of this woman’s FOIA in the first place.

And as for what business it is of theirs…

Nonetheless, instead of receiving the information she requested, she received an injunction. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against a private citizen for requesting public records from the Washington State Department of Corrections on the number of inmates in state custody who identify as transgender and the number of male inmates who are housed in women’s facilities.

So private citizens don’t get to have civil liberties? Or freedom of information?

The citizen sent her request on March 18.

The Washington Public Records Act guarantees that citizens have the right to access public records, and requires the government to respond to requests within five days. Only personal student or patient information, employee files, and some investigative records are exempt.

Yet by April 8, instead of the information she requested, she received an email that the ACLU of Washington Foundation and Disability Rights Washington, along with their clients “who are current and former transgender, non-binary, and intersex inmates and in the custody of Washington Department of Corrections,” had personally named her in a lawsuit to prevent the information she requested from being released.

So not only are women in prison forced to have men locked up with them, women in general are not allowed to ask questions about it.

Washington state radio host Dori Monson has detailed several accounts of women who are housed in women’s prisons in the state and have been raped by gender non-conforming males who identify as transgender and have successfully been transferred into women’s prisons. Monson writes that there were “two inmates moved from male to female prison. One is a serial killer who admitted to killing prostitutes and hating women, another is a sex offender charged with having sex with a 12 year old.”

But we can’t ask questions about it. If we try we’ll be sued.

How can anyone know that?

Apr 14th, 2021 9:59 am | By

What is the point of any of it if you can’t or won’t think clearly and say things clearly? Very first paragraph of Hemant Mehta’s oooh Dawkins is twanzphobic post:

On Saturday, for some reason, Richard Dawkins randomly decided to question the humanity of transgender people — under the guise of I’m-just-asking-questions — while comparing their situation to that of Rachel Dolezal.

No he didn’t. Even if you disagree with what he said, even if you despise what he said, he still did not question the humanity of any people. Not even close. Saying men are not women is not questioning anyone’s humanity.

It’s a pretty glaring sign of a weak case when people keep stumbling into those lies while trying to defend it. If the harm done by not agreeing that men are women if they say they are has to be inflated as denying their humanity, then it’s probably not much harm. If it were real harm, there would be no need to talk childish nonsense about denying their humanity.

Trans people, on the other hand, aren’t changing genders just for the hell of it. They sure aren’t doing it because it gives them some kind of advantage in society. More to the point: They don’t “choose to identify” as the other gender as if it’s some kind of light switch; they are the other gender. If they undergo surgery or take hormones or request a change on their driver’s license, it’s to correct a mistake, not because they wanted to be another gender on a whim.

How does Mehta know that? How can he know it? How does he and how can he know that it’s true of all trans people, i.e. all people who say they are trans? I don’t think he can, so I don’t think he does. It’s in the nature of the whole “trans” belief system that we can’t possibly tell who is faking it and who isn’t, or that absolutely no one is faking it. The criterion is: they are if they say they are. The problem should be obvious: people can lie, and they can be wrong. People can also be confused, ambivalent, changeable – a lot of things that make simple self-descriptions not so absolutely reliable that outlandish claims have to be believed without question. Usually the default is to believe what people say about themselves, unless there’s a lot of cash at stake, but when people say something magical about themselves, politeness does not require us to believe it.

It can be true, and it seems to me very likely that it is true, that some trans people really believe the whole magical explanation and that some are consciously faking it and that some are somewhere between the two. Where Mehta gets his certainty that all trans people just are the other “gender” is beyond me.

So back to Dawkins. He’s comparing a liar, whose lie he passes off as genuine, to trans people, whose truths he dismisses. He’s comparing race to gender, as if they’re the same thing, in a way that allows bigots (including right-wing Christians) to use his words as a weapon against trans people. He also defines trans women as “men [who] choose to identify as women” (and vice versa) when that’s not the case at all.

Not ever? Not ever? But we hear from people who choose it all the time. As the trend has intensified and spread, we’ve been hearing from plenty of people who choose it, and plenty who argue loudly and often that self-declaration is all that’s required.

Why is questioning someone’s humanity just a fun little hypothetical for him?

Does he realize he’s parroting arguments made by conservative Christian pastors who have long fought against LGBTQ rights?

There it is again. Saying that men are not women is not questioning anyone’s humanity. Women and men are human. As for the conservative pastors, there’s always some overlap even with people we intensely disagree with – in fact there’s more overlap than disagreement. If we could compile a list of everyone’s beliefs, most of them would be uncontroversial and universal.

Here’s a more pressing question: What is the Center for Inquiry going to do about this?

When Donald Trump banned trans people from the military, CFI’s president denounced it by saying “We stand proudly with the transgender community as an ally in the fight for equal treatment.”

Well, the foundation that Dawkins began is now a division of CFI. Dawkins is on CFI’s Board of Directors. In the past, when one of CFI’s affiliates posted a transphobic comment online, the organization acted quickly to take it down and reiterate its support for the trans community.

So what will they do now? Do they stand with Dawkins, who mischaracterizes trans people and suggests that those who reject trans identities are unfairly maligned, or do they stand with trans people?

Maybe they don’t see what Dawkins said in such stark terms as Mehta tries to put them in – i.e. as “denying the humanity” of anyone.

Anti-cancel culture cancel culture

Apr 14th, 2021 8:16 am | By

So, I replied to Iona Italia’s “both sides” tweets, argumentatively but not rudely, and today I find that she’s blocked me. It’s her right to block me or anyone else, of course, but I can still point out some flaws in both her claims and her approach to disagreement.

What’s surprising about it, to me (perhaps I’m naive), is that she’s part of the anti-woke anti-feminist anti-cancel culture crowd, the Peter Boghossian-James Lindsay-Helen Pluckrose crowd, the let debate flow no matter what crowd. In short these are people you don’t expect to block you just for disputing them.

I think those are reasonable questions, and not abusive – and furthermore I really did (and do) want to know what her response is. She hasn’t given any, to me or anyone, all she’s done is complain about the volume of replies. Fair enough, a torrent of replies can be overwhelming, but does that make it reasonable to treat everyone who did reply as a wrongdoer? That’s the only real point of blocking now, because you can always just mute instead. It seems silly to say things on Twitter and then get indignant when people reply. That’s how Twitter works: you say things and sometimes people reply. Conversation may ensue.

Again: real question, to which I would have liked a real answer. I don’t understand her thinking, and given her allegiances and allies, I’m curious about it.

I’ll have to stay curious though.

Guest post: Compromise update

Apr 14th, 2021 7:16 am | By

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Why won’t you bitches compromise?

Frankly, I think most people sounding the “why won’t you compromise” and “both sides are so extreme, ick!” and “I’m frankly sort of in the middle” are virtue signalling; they are better. They are also committing the fallacy of the golden mean. The right answer does not always lie between the two “extremes”. And sometimes one extreme is not extreme.


While we are on the subject, in the “2+2” controversy, the 6 vs. 4 debate is so intensely toxic on both sides that expressing any view that is not extreme (e.g. 2+2=5), will instantly attract attacks.

Meanwhile the “Holocaust” debate seems to be totally dominated by those extremists who want to exterminate all the jews, and those crazy radicals who don’t see any need to kill any jews, while more moderate voices who acknowledge the need to kill half the jews are shut down from both sides.

This just in: In the 2+2 debate the 6 camp has changed it’s position to 2+2=8 while the 4 camp is still sticking to its guns. Hence we now embrace the original claim of the former (2+2=6) as the moderate, responsible, non-extreme position.

And now a soccer result: Real Madrid vs. Andorra: 10-0. In other words a draw.

And it looks like we have another update on the 2+2 front. The 8 camp (formerly known as the 6 camp) has once again changed its position to 2+2=12 while the extremists in the 4 camp are still stubbornly clinging to their increasingly extreme views. As good moderates we therefore update our position to 2+2=8.

Under the partition

Apr 13th, 2021 5:39 pm | By

But this NEVER happens. Never never never never. It’s fine to force women to share showers and toilets with men because this never happens.

A police officer “arrogantly” tried to film a female colleague as she showered at their force headquarters unisex changing rooms, a jury has heard.

PC Jonathan Eaton, 32, of Gloucestershire Police, denies a voyeurism charge relating to an incident on 27 February 2019.

Newport Crown Court heard the woman spotted the phone being held underneath the partition as she was drying off.

PC Eaton was suspended from duty when he was arrested.

That never happens though. Never.

Why won’t you bitches compromise?

Apr 13th, 2021 3:26 pm | By

Another “oh both sides are just so extreme.”

So…it’s extreme to say that men can be women and it’s also extreme to say that men can’t be women? It’s all just a matter of sides and not in the least a matter of what’s true and what isn’t?

Ah compromise and trade-offs again, just like Andrew Sullivan. So if people are loud and threatening and abusive enough for long enough then the people they are threatening and abusing have to compromise with them and trade some rights in order to keep others? Does that seem fair?

Drawing criticism

Apr 13th, 2021 12:26 pm | By

Typical Pink News way of framing “he said a thing we don’t like”:

Richard Dawkins drew criticism Saturday (10 April) for a provocative tweet that compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal.

No he didn’t draw criticism; people decided to criticise him.

On Saturday morning, an entire minute after tweeting about the late Prince Phillip’s top hat, the evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist abruptly gave his take on trans lives that absolutely nobody asked for.

Remind me – how does Twitter work, again? You’re supposed to wait for someone to ask you a question before you tweet? You mustn’t tweet about subject X unless someone asks you to? Have I got that right?

Dawkins compared trans folk to Rachel Dolezal, the white woman who appropriated a Black identity while pursuing Black activism and academia.

Note the “folk.” Why folk? Why is it so often folk? What is that?

Also what is it to “pursue academia”?

But to the point, yes, he compared people who say they are a sex they are not to Dolezal’s saying she’s Black when she’s not. There are core similarities, you see.

Dolezal once likened herself to trans people. At the time, her words were rebutted by the psychologist and author Guilaine Kinouani, who told BBC Newsnight: “Comparing [being trans] with trans-racialism is a fallacy. It’s a false equivalency, which in my mind doesn’t advance our understanding of race, of transgender issues, neither of Black womanhood. [She’s a] white woman who’s quite oblivious to the fact that Black women’s experiences and bodies have been appropriated.”

Wo, well that’s us told!

Kidding. What a bizarre item to choose to support the case you’re trying to make. “This one person said that’s false.” Not really a conversation-stopper!

Similarly, Dawkins’ comment quickly became a lightning rod for criticism, with trans folk and allies responding with frustration and exhaustion.

Folk again, and passive-aggressive imputation of guilt again. Dawkins’s tweet didn’t “become a lightning rod”; some people chose to respond to it. I’ve done some responding to Dawkins myself in the distant past, but I don’t think I called him a lightning rod.

His argument has long been debunked by, you know, science and the very advocacy group for “reason and science” Dawkins founded.

That part is true.

Financing insurrection

Apr 13th, 2021 11:41 am | By

Christians and Proud Boys unite to fight the common enemy…

A data breach from Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo has revealed that millions of dollars have been raised on the site for far-right causes and groups, many of whom are banned from raising funds on other platforms.

Some of the biggest beneficiaries have been members of groups such as the Proud Boys, designated as a terrorist group in Canada, many of whose fundraising efforts were directly related to the 6 January attack on the United States Capitol.

Church militant.

Candyce Kelshall, the president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies-Vancouver, who at at Simon Fraser University researches violent transnational social movements, said that far-right crowdfunding on GiveSendGo was just “the tip of the iceberg”, and similar efforts were happening across up to 54 other crowdfunding sites that her research had revealed.

She said, however, that GiveSendGo was “particularly insidious” due to its presentation of such crowdfunding in the guise of religion-based charity.

Also due to the many ways churches are exempt from laws and regulations that apply to the rest of us.

Reminder that sxpzllnx

Apr 13th, 2021 10:27 am | By
Reminder that sxpzllnx

What’s NARAL doing sharing this?

Of course women (and girls) are the only people who get abortions. What is a man going to do with an abortion? Men don’t get abortions, women do. The reasons are too obvious to spell out.

You can’t “remind” people of nonsense. “Reminder that owls aren’t the only rabbits who get shovels!” Can’t remind me of that because I never knew it because it’s a consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers.

These are just feelings and thoughts

Apr 13th, 2021 10:05 am | By

Meghan Murphy is underwhelmed by Andrew Sullivan’s urging us to “compromise.”

The problem begins with the premise: that the category of “trans” is either a definable or rational category, distinguishable from those who do not identify as “trans.” Often, explaining that there is no such thing as a “trans person” is (disingenuously, in my opinion) interpreted to mean I wish to “deny the existence” of people who identify as trans. I do not. I am well aware there are people in this world who identify as transgender or who have attempted to “transition” to the opposite sex or gender. It is the category itself that makes no sense. Anyone could be trans, should they choose to claim it. It means nothing and demands nothing. Today I could be a woman, tomorrow I could decide I am trans, and nothing will have changed. The identity is no longer based on surgeries, body modifications, appearance, or medication. It is a feeling or pronouncement.

And we’re expected (on pain of punishment) to take those pronouncements as absolutely and obviously true, and not just true but beyond question. We’re not allowed to doubt them or even to suspend judgement about them – we’re not allowed to treat them as meaningless claims about the internal self that are of no interest to anyone else. Things don’t usually work that way. We’re not usually ordered to believe whatever claims people make about their hidden surprising reality-contradicting Selves. It’s not a reasonable request, let alone command.

The question is also not and should not be one of “belief.” Stating “I believe trans people when they tell the stories of their lives,” as Sullivan writes, means nothing at all. What is it you believe? That these individuals feel at odds with their bodies? That they dislike the gender stereotypes imposed on them? Welcome to life. These feelings are not necessarily abnormal.

And they’re also not of interest to the wider world. Again, this isn’t a usual expectation – that we “believe” all stories people tell about themselves. The stories people tell about themselves are their concern but they’re not ours, not without a good reason, not as a general rule. Stories of police brutality or sexual harassment are of interest to the wider world, but stories of My Special Self are not.

And even for those individuals who may legitimately suffer from what is termed “gender dysphoria,” meaning that their body dysmorphia or rejection of either masculinity or femininity is so acute it constitutes a form of mental illness, “believing” them remains a meaningless approach. I also “believe” girls struggling with anorexia think they are fat, despite being dangerously thin. It doesn’t make them actually fat. These are just feelings and thoughts, which do not require the creation of an entire separate legal category of people…

That “just” in front of “feelings and thoughts” is so necessary. Our feelings and thoughts are important to us, but they’re not equally important to everyone else. You know why? Because everyone else’s feelings and thoughts are more important to everyone else, that’s why. This is the core thing that growing up has to teach us, and people who fail to learn it do not make good adults. See: Trump, passim.


Apr 12th, 2021 5:33 pm | By

Scientific American tries to tell us that “youth” who identify as trans need to take puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, yes need I tell you. It’s science.

This week Arkansas became the first state to ban physicians from giving hormones or puberty-delaying drugs to transgender people under age 18. Doctors who do so could be stripped of their licenses and sued. The law is called the Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act…

The state senate sponsor of the Arkansas bill, Alan Clark, has said that puberty blockers and hormone treatments are “at best experimental and at worst a serious threat to a child’s welfare.” But medical and scientific organizations say his claim is wrong.

We are given the usual long list of organizations and the usual claims that it’s all safe safe safe.

The Netherlands group was the first to study puberty blockers in transgender children. And Annelou de Vries, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, says she has not seen any major side effects in the approximately 1,500 adolescents treated at her clinic. Last June her team published a study showing that 178 transgender adolescents receiving blockers had better psychological functioning and fewer suicide attempts, compared with 272 transgender youth who did not receive early care.

What about the long haul though? What about how they fare as they get older? Is it really a safe bet that tinkering with teenage bodies this way will be good for them for the next 50 or 60 years?

And are the people doing this research inquiring into how these teenagers became convinced they’re the other sex in the first place? If you become convinced that you can’t be happy unless you have a diamond belt buckle, then having a diamond belt buckle may make you happy for a time, but how did you become convinced of that in the first place? Is it a real need or longing? Or is it a socially generated need or longing, which can be intense, for sure, but is very subject to decay and change over time. How sure can the researchers really be that blockers and hormones will be good for the subjects over a lifetime?

As their investigation progresses, Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues are trying to get as much information as they can about how gender-affirming treatments affect the body, which will help physicians better target treatment to individuals and know what to watch for. One major medical concern about puberty blockers is their effect on bone growth. The drugs prevent the accumulation of bone mineral in growing children, which is why physicians try not to administer them to adolescents for very long. But a study by the Netherlands team found that transgender boys’ bone density returned to normal within a few years.

Cool cool cool. Go ahead and weaken their bones then. Might as well, right?

The theoretical base

Apr 12th, 2021 12:08 pm | By

But hey at least it’s nothing to do with social contagion, so that’s good.

I guess Strangio has access to the minds of all people who identify as trans, and thus knows all their thoughts and where the thoughts came from. Must be a lot to keep track of.

And the bit where he takes it back

Apr 12th, 2021 11:59 am | By

Huh. I thought Dawkins wouldn’t backtrack, but…wrong again.

Funny. It was always easy for him to brush off feminist women who disagreed with him, but trans women? Not so much, I guess.

Too much, and so disrespectful!

Apr 12th, 2021 11:02 am | By

So there can be such a thing as too much deference? Who knew?!

The BBC’s wall-to-wall coverage of Prince Philip’s death has become the most complained-about moment in British television history, as viewers expressed their annoyance that shows such as EastEnders and MasterChef were replaced with royal tributes.

At least 110,994 people have contacted the BBC to express their displeasure at the decision to turn most of the corporation’s TV channels and radio stations over to rolling tributes to the Queen’s husband.

BBC One and BBC Two dedicated Friday evening’s programming to Philip, and their ratings fell as viewers switched off altogether, turned to streaming services or watched shows such as Gogglebox on Channel 4.

But but but but he was so important. Plus his death was such a shock and surprise, what with him being only 99 and all.

How we’ll miss those stories of the dear man crashing his car into people as he careened along the roads near Sandringham.

Within hours of Philip’s death the number of complaints about the coverage had become so large that the BBC set up a dedicated form in an attempt to streamline the process. This form was then taken down on Sunday, making it harder for people to register their displeasure.

Well they weren’t supposed to use the form. Peasants.

Not all the complaints were about the extent of the BBC’s coverage. Almost 400 people wrote in to complain that Prince Andrew had featured despite his association with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and refusal to answer questions posed by the FBI.

That is, despite his association with serial rapist and trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his refusal to answer questions about whether or not he had joined his pal Epstein in any of the serial raping of trafficked teenage girls. That association.

A further 233 people complained that BBC presenters were not wearing sufficiently respectful clothes, with viewers complaining that not all newsreaders were wearing black…

collapses in helpless laughter

Working tirelessly

Apr 12th, 2021 9:34 am | By

Republican slapstick:

In an email on Monday morning, the National Republican Senatorial Committee announced that its chairman, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), presented Trump with its first-ever “Champion for Freedom Award.” The NRSC said that the award is given to conservative leaders who work “tirelessly” to “stop the Democrats’ socialist agenda.”

Trump was handed the award on the same weekend that he rambled on about his usual grievances at the RNC’s spring donor retreat while delivering remarks at his Mar-a-Lago resort. The former president, however, reportedly saved his most incendiary insults for McConnell, who he derided as a “dumb son of a bitch” for not opposing the November election results.

Well it doesn’t get much more freedom than that.

Following a series of confusing events after Trump lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to the NRSC, RNC and the National Republican Congressional Committee to stop using his name and likeness in their fundraising efforts, Scott was deployed by the NRSC to head to Mar-a-Lago to make nice with the former president. Trump and the NRSC chairman reportedly discussed how they could team up and find suitable candidates for the 2022 midterms that the former president could get behind, including incumbents.

And they decided one great way to boost Republican chances would be for Trump to call Mitch McConnell names. Hence the award!

Or something.


Apr 12th, 2021 9:19 am | By

Well, no.

Where to begin. “Gender affirming care” isn’t a medical thing, it’s a political thing disguised as medical. There’s no such thing as “gender affirming care.” Saying he means it “in the most literal and serious sense” is ludicrous: not prescribing cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers can’t possibly be seen as literal (and serious) genocide. It’s not even literal withholding of life-saving medical care, which itself couldn’t be called genocide without a lot of other factors added. It’s not even that, and on the contrary, it’s intended to avoid risky interventions in natural puberty. There’s a heated debate about whether cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers are harmless or not, about whether they’re harmful or not, about whether they help struggling adolescents cope with puberty or make it worse, about whether the psychological relief they provide to some who get them is worth the risk they pose to all who get them, and so on. There’s already plenty of evidence that some people who take cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers go on to regret it. Withholding cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers is simply not comparable to deliberately murdering an entire population. It’s not comparable to Stalin’s genocide in Ukraine, it’s not comparable to Hitler’s genocide, it’s not comparable to the genocide of the Tutsis in Rwanda or the genocide in Darfur. It’s not like that.

Dr. Tess Tanen is trans. Dr. Tanen is wrong about genocide.

We are allowed to have women-only spaces

Apr 11th, 2021 5:30 pm | By

Peter Tatchell orders women to let men into spaces reserved for us.

Excluding trans women from women’s spaces because of physical or sexual violence by a tiny unrepresentative minority is like banning all Muslims because of terrorist acts by a handful of extremists. SO WRONG!

May be an image of 4 people, people standing and text that says '¡NO! En nombrede lahumanidad sa NosNEGAMOS aceptar un NEGAMOS RESIST RESIST PROTECT TRANS YOUTH N S TRUM'

So then not allowing men into women’s spaces because of violence by a minority is also like “banning all Muslims because of terrorist acts by a handful of extremists”? So then women don’t have a right to women-only spaces at all, ever, no matter what? Do women have to give birth in public then? Do we all have to do everything in public and leave all our doors and windows open?

In other words Peter didn’t bother to think about what he was saying, he just saw an opportunity to tell women what to do, and he seized it.

Not everyone said yes sir, whatever you say sir. A lot of people pointed out that it’s not his place to tell us we have to include men in spaces reserved for us.

He did a followup post explaining that he’s right.

As a follow up to my post on Wednesday about trans rights, which generated a staggering 1,400+ comments: I am not telling women what to do. I am merely expressing my point of view, in the same way that I accept that straight people have a right to comment on LGBT+ issues. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Moreover, I’m simply echoing the many feminists & women’s organisations that have been trans-inclusive for many years – with the support of staff and women service users, and without any problems. They endorse trans rights and inclusion. Are all these feminists and women’s organisations also misogynists?

He is telling women what to do though, and condescending to us as well.

I reject the trope of trans women as predators. Although I share the concerns of those who are worried about women’s safety, I don’t agree that a blanket ban on trans women is right or the answer. Men who want to harm women don’t need to pose as trans women to do harm.

In addition, many acts of women-on-women violence are committed by women who are not trans, so demonising trans women and focusing on them as a huge threat is disproportionate and not evidence based.

If there are trans women who have a history of violent or sexual assaults on women, and have not demonstrably reformed, I agree they should not have access to women’s spaces. Indeed, many women’s organisations already vet women & trans women to exclude anyone perceived to be a threat or not a genuine trans woman.

I recognise that there are many deeply held differences on this issue but believe they can be reconciled in a way that supports both women’s and trans rights. All women, trans or not, are victims of misogyny. And trans women suffer particularly high rates of male hate crime, domestic violence and sexual assault. This common oppression by men must surely give all women, including trans women, an interest in working together to fight misogyny in all its forms. I have supported every women’s rights struggle, including trans women’s rights, for over 50 years and will continue to do so, even if we disagree on the trans issue. Solidarity with all women worldwide fighting for respect, dignity, rights and freedom x

But trans women aren’t women, they’re men who “feel like” women or some such woolly nonsense. They’re not women, and they have a striking tendency to hate us. We don’t want to invite them to our party, and we don’t have to. Women are concerned with stuff that affects women; trans women are a massive change of subject. We don’t want to talk about their subject, and we don’t have to. Men as a group have a strong tendency to hog the microphone; we don’t want to share the microphone with them, and we don’t have to.

Please be less inclusive

Apr 11th, 2021 3:07 pm | By

Be more inclusive by never mentioning mothers or fathers.

Schools and sporting groups in Victoria will be told to  avoid terms like “mum”, “dad”, “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” as part of a push to curb the dropout and suicide rates of LGBTQI+ young people.

Here’s a surprising fact: lesbians and gay men can have mothers and fathers. I don’t think lesbians and gay men object to the words “mother” and “father.” (I don’t know why schools are talking about “mum” and “dad” instead of “mother” and “father”; mum and dad are personal names, which schools shouldn’t be using for anyone, because it’s intrusive and weird. “Mum” and “dad” are not nouns, they’re family nicknames.)

The North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network has set up the #SpeakingUpSpeaksVolumes campaign which will bring in unisex bathrooms, non-gendered playing teams and rainbow flags in a bid to be more inclusive.

But that’s not more inclusive, it’s vastly less inclusive. It excludes girls from school. Girls aren’t going to want to go to a school where they have to share the toilets with boys. And the sports thing, as we know to the point of tedium, excludes girls from sports.

Oh well, just girls.