She forgets

Apr 22nd, 2022 5:48 pm | By

Majorie Taylor Greene says she doesn’t remember and besides lots of people used her Facebook account to say things so it could have been anyone.

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia insisted under oath that she does not remember expressing support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s execution in 2019.

She’s busy. She can’t remember every little thing.

Lawyers from Free Speech for the People, the group challenging Greene’s candidacy, presented the congresswoman with a print-out of a CNN article that documented Greene’s prior support for political violence against some Democrats.

“She’s a traitor to our country, she’s guilty of treason,” Greene said of Pelosi in a 2019 Facebook video, according to CNN. “She took an oath to protect American citizens and uphold our laws. And she gives aid and comfort to our enemies who illegally invade our land. That’s what treason is. And by our law representatives and senators can be kicked out and no longer serve in our government. And it’s, uh, it’s a crime punishable by death is what treason is. Nancy Pelosi is guilty of treason.”

But asked about those comments at the hearing on Friday, Greene insisted she had no recollection of making those remarks.

“According to this CNN article I did,” she quipped when asked repeatedly by both the lawyers and the judge presiding over the hearing. “I don’t recall saying all of this, but I do recall having said this about the — I totally disagree with the border issue.”

“I’ve had many people manage my social media account over the years, I have no idea who liked that,” she insisted. “I do not know.”

So she’s had many people impersonate her on Facebook by “managing” her account? And she’s let them do it? That seems pretty stupid.

Are there any makeup artists who can do before and after brains? She could do with a massive brain makeover.



Stunned with a hammer

Apr 22nd, 2022 5:19 pm | By

This is so depressing I can barely believe it.

Why why why on earth would anyone prefer the zombie blow-job doll to the gorgeous real woman on the left? Apparently lots of people or this “makeup artist” wouldn’t be doing it, but…I can’t understand why. Zombie blow-up doll looks like exactly that – a porn image, a photo from a failing fashion magazine, a completed mannequin for a store window. You wouldn’t want to talk to her, let alone live with her for the rest of your life.

I was so repulsed I went looking, and found a collection of 21 of these nightmares. The ones on the right all look alike, like zombie blow-job doll. The ones on the left all look human. One has a rash or acne or something that I can see why she’d want concealed, but other than that the TransforMations are all a horrible mindless mistake. What is wrong with people?

Bridal Makeup


Shan’t

Apr 22nd, 2022 11:35 am | By

PCC Lisa Townsend says Nope.

Surrey’s police and crime commissioner has snubbed a complaints panel decision and refused to explain herself to Reigate’s MP after her transgender tweet caused offence. Lisa Townsend was found to have breached her office’s code of conduct by tweeting about “men who keep telling us they are women”.

She has now rebuffed councillors by refusing to carry out their proposed remedy. She said she would “not be writing to explain myself to” complainants, including Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, as was requested by the panel that oversees complaints against her following a two-and-a-half hour long discussion in February.

Women saying men are not women; whatever next?!

Back in December the PCC retweeted and commented on a post from Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling implying biologically male rapists are not female, enraging the trans community.

That “implying” is artful. “Are you implying that biologically male rapists are not female??!!?!”

If “the trans community” is enraged to hear that biologically male rapists are not female, it needs to get over itself. Not that we don’t already know that.

Mr Blunt – who chaired an LGBT group in parliament – and two other men reported her to Surrey County Council’s police and crime panel, and its complaints sub-committee found the language she used was a breach. Four against three members decided that her words “We will not accept this gaslighting from men who keep telling us they are women” failed to treat others with dignity and respect.

Hey. They don’t treat us with dignity and respect. Pay attention.

The Reigate MP came under fire this month for questioning the jury conviction of his fellow MP Imran Ahmad Khan who sexually assaulted a 15-year-old boy in 2008. Mr Blunt said the Wakefield MP was the victim of a “dreadful miscarriage of justice”, which met with such a backlash he had to apologise and resign from his role on the cross-party LGBT group.

But he’s still bullying Lisa Townsend. Chutzpah.



Into a broader fight

Apr 22nd, 2022 10:31 am | By

The ACLU has a page for Women in Prison.

I wonder if they really mean women in prison, in the sense of women in prison. The first link we see suggests they don’t.

How Women’s Rights Paved the Way for Gender Justice at the ACLU

Many recent legal battles for the rights of trans and non-binary people are rooted in the same cases that pioneered women’s rights decades ago.

So much for women in prison, and women in general.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-founded the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in 1972, she recognized that laws that stereotype by gender hurt everyone — no matter your gender.

Then why did she call it the Women’s Rights Project? Why doesn’t the ACLU have a page for All Lives Matter? Why is it only women who get shoved into the All category by the ACLU?

That’s why some of WRP’s early cases involved men who had been discriminated against — and it’s why many of our recent legal battles for the rights of trans and non-binary people are rooted in the same cases that pioneered women’s rights decades ago.

Oh piss off. Women still need to work for our own rights just as other subordinated groups do. We still get to talk about our rights without being told to talk about those other people’s rights too and instead and at the same time.

Today, WRP is headed by Director Ria Tabacco Mar. Below, she explains more about why women’s rights are inextricably linked to the broader fight for gender justice.

How has the ACLU’s women’s rights work evolved into a broader fight for gender justice?

So they admit it. I don’t think I’ve seen them spell it out that explicitly before. They no longer fight for women’s rights, they fight more “broadly” for gender justice. All genders matter.

So many of the cases that we are litigating in the LGBTQ space were built on early victories in women’s rights. Those were cases that were initially fought by cisgender women who were considered to be the wrong kind of women, either because they were mothers of young children or because they were, “too macho” and didn’t wear jewelry. Being fired because you’re a transgender woman is just another variation of the same problem.

No it isn’t; not unless you oversimplify the “problem” drastically. Transgender “women” can’t be mothers of young children, for example, because they’re men. A lot of the restrictions and injustices imposed on women were indeed related to their reproductive role, as the subordination of women always has been. Being fired because you’re a man who calls himself a woman is not a variation of that problem.

Gender justice is really about ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to structure their lives and thrive, regardless of gender, unlimited by gender stereotypes.

Which is why it’s no use to women, in exactly the way All Lives Matter is not a useful slogan for anti-racism activists. It’s not only “gender stereotypes” that interfere with women’s ability to structure our lives. It’s not a “gender stereotype” that women need abortion rights in a way that men don’t, however desirable men may find abortion rights. It’s anatomical. The woman makes the baby inside her body; the man does not.

The ACLU has completely lost the plot.



Under the 14th amendment

Apr 22nd, 2022 8:54 am | By

Marjorie Taylor Greene is in court.

The far right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene was cheered into court in Georgia on Friday, for a hearing in an attempt by a coalition of voters and liberal groups to bar her from Congress under the 14th amendment to the US constitution, for aiding the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.

Some people in the courtroom cheered and applauded as Greene took her seat.

As the hearing began, Greene tweeted: “Only the People have the right to choose who they send to Congress.”

Well, no, it’s not that simple. Suppose a candidate is convicted of murder and sentenced to prison, and then elected to Congress – does the candidate get to leave prison and report for duty as a legislator? I don’t think so.

The 14th amendment, passed after the civil war, says: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

That’s one of the very unsettling things about this whole clusterfuck – we’ve been here before, the insurrection was very real, the violence was brutal, the death toll was huge. We think of ourselves as a nice stable democracy, an example to others, but the reality is rather different.

Organisers of events in Washington on January 6 have tied Greene to their efforts. Greene has denied such links and said she does not encourage violence.

In October, however, she told a radio show: “January 6 was just a riot at the Capitol and if you think about what our Declaration of Independence says, it says to overthrow tyrants.”

Who is the tyrant? Show us on the doll where the tyrant is.



Guest post: Dead women can’t say No

Apr 22nd, 2022 3:10 am | By

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? in Miscellany Room 8.

Canada’s Global News reports on Manhunt author’s fantasized depiction of Rowling’s death in novel.

The reporter, Kathryn Mannie, begins with a brief description of the book:

The book is set in an apocalyptic scenario in which people with a sufficient amount of testosterone get turned into monstrous beasts. All that remains of humanity are cisgender women, non-binary people, transgender men and transgender women.

(I wonder if, in this future, fully intact “transgender women” also turn into beasts? Or do they all have testosterone dutifully reduced to the level that would allow them to join the Penn women’s swim team? And what about transmen? Is Chase Strangio’s T level still low enough to prevent her from becoming a monstrous beast, moustache notwthstanding? Not that I’m interested enough to read it and find out. I’d pay for a root canal before buying (or reading) Manhunt .)

Even with this bare bones outline, we’re in trouble already. The ideas of “cisgender women”, “non-binary people” and “transgender” men and women are plopped in without definition. We’re already supposed to know who and what these entities are. Anyone outside of the trans/GC Twitterverse would have little idea what the hell any of that really meant. Any one without the requisite familiarity with these terms of art will be counting on Mannie as their guide. That, it turns out, will be a mistake.

Then a bit of well poisoning:

In the book, the Rowling character travels with her TERF friends to a castle, where they all perish after it collapses in an inferno.

TERFs are feminists who exclude transgender women in their fight for women’s rights — Rowling is considered by some as a TERF due to transphobic tweets she has shared on social media.

The definition of TERF given here shows that the writer has taken a side, and hidden this fact from the view of most of her readers. The very definition she uses smears women and sneaks TiMs in as women in a few deceptively simple words. Anyone who didn’t know the meaning of TERF before has been given an inaccurate description cloaked in presumed journalistic “neutrality. “Pro-woman is painted as “anti-trans.” How much differently that would have come across if it were rewritten thus:

TERFs are feminists who exclude trans identified males from single-sex organizations, facilities, and institutions intended for women only.

The phrase “transphobic tweets” links to a story about the “backlash” against her “Wimpund” tweet, which is portrayed as a tone-deaf equation of “womanhood” with menstuation that “erases” trans men, as opposed to it being a satirical comment on the erasure of women in messaging intended to convey lifesaving medical information, in the interests of “inclusion”.

Here’s what I consider the least dishonest part:

Several news outlets have reported on a number of negative reviews the book has received on Amazon.

“I have no idea how this even got published. The existence of this book proves once again that misogyny is alright as long as you identify as a member of a certain group,” one reviewer complained. “If you want to read a messed-up individual’s unhinged violent sexual fantasies against women then this is the book for you!”

A handful of other reviews also deride the novel for being misogynistic and promoting violence against women. One reviewer wrote that the book “describes horrible violence towards an actual living person which could be interpret (sic) by extreme activists as an instruction manual.”

But it’s okay, all those bad reviews are by evilTERFs who have axes to grind:

In response to the online backlash, the author is claiming that supporters of Rowling are flooding the Amazon and Good Reads pages for her book with negative comments….Some reviews on Amazon are acknowledging the controversy the book has whipped up, with one person writing, “This book is being bombed with one star reviews because it’s written by a trans woman. The terms ‘misogyny’ and ‘women hating’ are being thrown around because cis women can (sic) handle the fact that a trans women (sic) has written one of the best dystopian books we’ve seen of the last century.”

It ends with quotes from the glowing NPR review, concluding the piece on an upbeat note for our Brave and Stunning trans author.

One of the problems I see with this story is that it focuses too much on the whole “Let’s kill off JKR” theme. Not that fantasizing the death of an actual living, breathing woman isn’t bad. It’s terrible, cruel, and uncalled for. The biggest problem for me is that it takes for granted that Rowling, as well as her supporters and followers, actually want to murder trans people. It’s taken as read that this supposed desire is an accurate and truthful portrayal of what feminists believe, that this could be a possible future if they had their way. It’s another installment of the transperbolic lie that “THEY WANT US ALL DEAD!” The journalist’s definition of TERF reinforces the “anti-trans, not pro-woman” portrayal of feminists, making this dystopian exaggeration into a legitimate artistic act of pre-emptive “self-defence”, instead of a sick, misogynistic projection.

It’s curious that a movement that views “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as unspeakably violent, is so unabashedly and self-righteously violent in its own rhetoric on social media. And now, long form fiction. The writer of this Global piece would be hard pressed to find anything at all from the feminist side that comes anywhere close to the years of demonization, harassment, and threats that trans activists and their allies have heaped upon women who dare to say “no” to male entitlement dressed in a frock. This extreme asymmetry suggests that the question of exactly who, if given the opportunity, would be killing whom a somewhat different answer than Felker-Martin is positing in his screed. If feminists had been threatening rape and murder against TAs, it would have been front page news; the writer of this article would pointed it out. It would be being retweeted over and over. But rape and death threats to women? Same old same old. This book is just more of the same. It sounds like little more than a bog standard trans activist’s “Shut up, TERF; choke to death on my dick!” tweet, padded out to the length of a novel. Dead women can’t say “No.”



Your instructions

Apr 21st, 2022 5:55 pm | By

Hmmm let’s see.

https://twitter.com/LabelFreeBrands/status/1517253809286041601

Correct yourself briefly and move on.

No. I was right, so I’m not going to correct myself.

Interrupt people with quick corrections.

Not in a million years. They weren’t wrong, so I’m not going to correct them any more than I’m going to correct myself, and anyway I wouldn’t correct them if they were “wrong.” Officiously interrupting people to correct them on something that doesn’t matter in the first place is not a fun hobby.

Don’t complain about how hard it is!

Don’t tell me what to complain about! Who do you think you are? Anyway I don’t care how hard it is, because I have no intention of doing it in the first place.

Say “thank you” when someone corrects you.

How about “fuck off”? Will that do? It will have to do, because I’m certainly not going to say thanks.

Try practicing new pronouns with a friend!

You think my friends are that tedious and dim-witted? You must be thinking of your friends.

Last: don’t apologize profusely.

Oh that’s an easy one. See if you can figure out why.



Treat

Apr 21st, 2022 12:09 pm | By

BBC headline:

Queen gets her own Barbie for Platinum Jubilee

Really? Only now? You’d think she could have had one right away when they first came out. They were only $3.



Why, by Jove, it’s the female athletes!

Apr 21st, 2022 10:54 am | By

Jon Pike on the use of passive and speculative wording to arrive at one’s desired conclusion:

It’s always female sport that needs conceptual engineering. Funny how that works.

They’ve given up on the claim that T reduction is all that’s needed, he says, and that’s good, that’s an advance, but…

Oh for fuck’s SAKE was my initial response, and then my ongoing response. Unique individuality in a pig’s eye. Lia Thomas’s advantage is not part of his “unique individuality,” it’s all too generic. Get a fucking clue.

Seriously. Anything “could be” regarded as anything; the Amalgamated Union of Weasels issues a complaint of plagiarism.

His PhD students need to suck it up. The point is crucial.

Then he goes in for the kill.

Bam.



Looking at solutions

Apr 21st, 2022 10:24 am | By

BASEM UK finally understood that it has made a tiny mistake.

Let’s just ignore the bit about personal attacks, in order to focus on the astonishing fact that they apparently had no idea they should have women on a panel discussing a plan to destroy women’s sports. How did they manage that I wonder? Wouldn’t you think it was obvious? I would…but then I’m a woman. This could indicate why it’s a good idea to include women, or it could indicate that women should always be shut out. Difficult call.

https://twitter.com/VixenScience/status/1517115483711066114


Basic precautions

Apr 21st, 2022 9:48 am | By

Pro tip: If you try to overthrow the government, don’t brag about it to your Uber driver on your way home.

On 6 January 2021, Jerry Braun hailed an Uber in Washington DC and got in the car, nursing a bleeding eye wound. The Uber driver noticed and asked, “So, has it been violent all day?”

“Well it started around, right when I got there. I tore down the barricades,” Braun bragged.

The conversation, captured on video by the driver’s recording device installed on the dashboard, triggered a 15-month long investigation by the FBI. Earlier this month, on 12 April, Braun was finally arrested by federal authorities and charged with violent entry or disorderly conduct, obstruction during civil disorder, and entering and remaining on restricted grounds, according to an affidavit by Lucas Bauers, FBI special agent.

Just a harmless prank.

Braun boasted openly to the Uber driver about his involvement in the deadly riots, which resulted in the deaths of five people. When he explained he’d torn down the barricades, the driver asked: “You did? Why?”

“Well, because, so we could get to the Capitol,” Braun replied.

It’s common sense, man.

The driver asked: “Well, how’d that work out for ya?”

“Well, it looks like, uh, Biden’s gonna be our president,” said Braun.

And the driver turned him in.



Centers for Disease Passive Observation

Apr 21st, 2022 9:27 am | By

Can we have public health regulations or no?

The Biden administration on Wednesday appealed a federal court ruling striking down the mask requirement for passengers on planes, trains, buses and other public transportation after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the mandate was “necessary for the public health.”

That judge thinks bus drivers and flight attendants and the people who need to use buses and trains and planes should just take their chances, for the sake of our Divine Freedom. That judge who is very young and inexperienced and a Trump appointee.

While the C.D.C. wants to keep the mandate intact, it is also pressing the appeal to preserve its public health powers. But doing so is potentially risky. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which will hear the case, has a conservative bent, and the case could end up before the Supreme Court. If the ruling striking down the mandate is upheld, that decision could permanently weaken the agency’s authority.

How are we defining “conservative” here though? It seems like a very odd notion of conservatism to think people should be free to spread disease, or that rules are inherently bad things. It’s not so much conservative as bonkers-AynRandian, or Purely Selfish Libertarianism.

“This sets up a clash between public health and a conservative judiciary, and what’s riding on it is the future ability of our nation’s public health agencies to protect the American public,” said Lawrence O. Gostin, an expert in public health law at Georgetown University. “The risk is that you will get a conservative 11th Circuit ruling that will so curtail C.D.C.’s powers to fight Covid and future pandemics that it will make all Americans less safe and secure.”

There again, what’s “conservative” about that? Trumpian, yes, but conservative, no. This nonsense is tribalism rather than any recognizable right v left issue.

The C.D.C. actually has very limited regulatory authority; by and large, the power to impose public health restrictions lies with state and local governments. But legal experts agree that interstate transportation is a notable exception. In interviews, several said Judge Mizelle badly misread the law.

When it passed the Public Health Service Act of 1944, Congress authorized the C.D.C. to “make and enforce such regulations as in its judgment are necessity to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of communicable disease.”

The law also suggests some steps the C.D.C. could take to prevent the spread of disease, including sanitation, disinfection and pest extermination.Judge Mizelle construed those suggestions as the C.D.C.’s only options — a narrow interpretation that “fundamentally misunderstands the scope of authority allowed to C.D.C.,” said James Hodge, the director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University. She also erred in likening the mask mandate to a quarantine, he said.

Oh ffs – really? That’s childish. Pretending a “for example” is a complete list is a rules-lawyering kid’s trick. “You said I couldn’t have any more cookies, you didn’t say cake!!”

The judge also faulted the C.D.C. for failing to solicit public comment on the mask order — a finding that Professor Gostin said “defies common sense.” While administrative law requires public comment for most federal actions, it also allows for exceptions for “good cause.”

No it’s fine. Next time the National Weather Service issues a hurricane warning they should solicit public comment before anyone takes it seriously. That’s always worked well in the past.



How to hold a pen

Apr 21st, 2022 9:07 am | By


Only following the rules

Apr 20th, 2022 3:40 pm | By

Another woman speaks up:

The double Olympic champion Katie Archibald has sharply criticised the transgender policies of the International Olympic Committee and other sports bodies – saying they have not only let down female cyclists by underplaying biology but left trans women, such as Emily Bridges, facing intense scrutiny.

Maybe, but the intense scrutiny on Bridges is his fault as well as that of sports bodies. He should have been sharply aware all along that he should never compete against women, end of story.

Archibald, who won the second of her cycling gold medals in Tokyo last year alongside Dame Laura Kenny in the Madison, said it was wrong for governing bodies to ignore the science that shows trans women who have gone through male puberty have a retained advantage in strength, stamina and physique.

However, she also expressed deep sympathy for Bridges, who broke the junior men’s 25-mile record before transitioning in 2020, saying she was only following the rules of cycling’s governing body, the UCI, before it decided to block her racing as a woman last month.

Not “only.” Not really. Yes cycling’s governing body is at fault but Bridges’s conscience was AWOL. It’s an unfair advantage, it’s obvious that the advantage is unfair, and people should just stop.

“It is my opinion that the international governing bodies of several sports have let down transgender athletes, in particular transgender women, with their inclusion policies,” Archibald said in a statement.

“These policies have put the athletes, their involvement in sport, and their personal lives under intense scrutiny when all the athletes have done is follow the rules and enter a category they were encouraged to enter.”

But they shouldn’t have. Archibald is being generous, but too much generosity is how we got here in the first place, and I think we need to shelve it. The athletes all know it’s unfair, and they do it anyway. I’m way more interested in the unfairness to women than I am in the unfairness to men who are trans.



Includey inclusionism

Apr 20th, 2022 11:14 am | By

I am so fucking livid about this. All this time and still they think it’s ok to set up a panel of five men to talk about how much of women’s sport it’s ok for men to destroy in the name of “inclusion.” WHAT ABOUT WOMEN?? Do they even realize we exist? Do they think we’re computer programs? Blowup dolls? Aliens? Hello hello is this microphone even on?

https://twitter.com/deeokelly1/status/1516834325102215174


The very important session

Apr 20th, 2022 10:38 am | By

They’re just trolling us.

Yay! Let’s talk about fairness and safety for women [though we carefully don’t say “for women”] in sport by asking a bunch of men what they think!

Oh wait, isn’t there one woman included? The token woman you might say?

No.

Taunty McTauntface. Dr Blair Hamilton is not a woman. Hastings Football Club on “social media abuse” of Dr Blair Hamilton:

Hastings United Football Club would like to respond and condemn the disgraceful and tasteless comments made on Twitter since the announcement of Blair Hamilton’s call up to the England Women’s University Squad.

The ‘U’s will continue to support equality in football and are proud to have Blair Hamilton represent us on the national stage. We do not condone messages of abuse, many as always coming through online accounts where the individuals hide behind a username. Online abuse is still abuse and the accounts have been reported and passed on to Twitter.

All our staff, players and supporters stand alongside Blair and will continue to support her both on and off the pitch.

Insultingly, they file this under “Womens News.” [sic]

They also, also insultingly, don’t say what the “abuse” was, or what it was about. I’m making a wild guess that it wasn’t abuse and it was about putting a man on a women’s football team.

pause to confirm

Oh yes, it’s this guy:

Transgender woman who used to play men's football receives England  Universities call-up | The Argus

We’ve seen that photo before.

So yes, a panel of five men, one of whom identifies as a woman and feels entitled to compete against women in football, are getting together to decide what rights women can have.



In a frank and open manner

Apr 20th, 2022 9:44 am | By

The story of the groomers and their sex show for “children as young as 5” is being framed in the non-conservative press as a matter of threats and abuse against the organizers as opposed to a matter of grooming.

The Guardian for instance:

Sex education theatre show for children cancelled after ‘violent threats’

The Family Sex Show organisers receive abuse over UK production aimed at children as young as five

A theatre show that promised to reimagine sex education by discussing the issue in a frank and open manner with audience members as young as five years old has been cancelled after “violent threats” were made against its organisers.

But small children don’t need “sex education” apart from a few basics. That kind of “sex education” is of interest to no one except groomers, who want to train children to be compliant with their molesters.

The company added it would have offered “safe and positive learning to children, young people and guardians about rights, bodies, sex and relationships, advised by safeguarding and educational specialists”.

Its statement said: “We believe that what has happened is reflective of structural and societal attitudes towards relationships and sex education as well as art, culture and who is allowed to create and what we are allowed to engage with in the UK.”

Of course it is. It’s reflective of “structural and societal attitudes” that small children shouldn’t be tricked and manipulated into thinking it’s fine for adults to, say, guide a small hand to the adult’s genitalia.

The Independent takes the same line. (The BBC, the Guardian, and the Indy all seem to be reporting This Egg’s Twitter version of the story.)

The Family Sex Show, an educational theatre production aimed at children, has been axed after the venue said its staff had been subjected to “unprecedented threats and abuse”.

The show, which covers themes such as gender, consent, pleasure, queerness and masturbation, was due to open at Bristol’s Tobacco Factory in May.

What does “queerness” have to do with sex education? What is “queerness”? How is it different from same-sex attraction? Above all why would anyone want a random theater group teaching sex ed on stage?



Girlguiding is a home for trans people

Apr 20th, 2022 8:31 am | By

Girlguiding UK issues a statement:

We have been involved in a legal case with a former volunteer since 2018 and we have now reached a settlement. Please find our statement below.

Girlguiding’s full statement regarding its legal case with Katie Alcock:

Girlguiding celebrates the ever-growing diversity of its membership. We are committed to balancing the views, needs and wants of all of our members in a complex and changing world. It’s important that we do this in a thoughtful and respectful way, reflecting our volunteer code of conduct. So we have a diversity and inclusion strategic plan which underpins our commitment to inclusion.

Define diversity. Define inclusion.

Diversity meaning girls from all backgrounds, excellent, keep doing that. Diversity meaning boys, then you’re not Girlguiding any more. Same for “inclusion.”

Girlguiding recognises that gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act and that there are girls and volunteers who hold gender critical beliefs within our membership. We respect and value their right to do so, and to express those beliefs. Girlguiding is also, and shall remain, a home for trans people. Whatever their protected characteristics, all our young members and adult volunteers are welcome within Girlguiding.

All trans people? So male trans people as well as female ones? Then it’s not Girlguiding any more.

Our priority is to ensure that we offer a safe space where all girls are welcome to have fun, learn, and grow, and feel that they can be who they truly are. 

But when they say “all girls” they mean…?

Girlguiding has evolved for 110 years and will continue to evolve to ensure that it remains a forward-thinking, inclusive and diverse organisation where all girls, young women and volunteers feel welcome and belong.

But when they say “all girls” they mean…?

On another subject – I would love to know why on earth the image at the top is of a girl’s hand holding a pen incorrectly.



Apprentice judge

Apr 19th, 2022 5:37 pm | By

Oh, great. Who is the judge who struck down the mask mandate? A Trump appointee, age 35, rated unqualified.

US District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle has been serving as a federal judge in Florida for more than a year. Notably, the Senate vote confirming her to the lifetime appointment came in mid-November 2020, after the presidential election. She had been given a “not qualified” rating by the American Bar Association, based on her limited amount of experience post-law school.

Terrific! And she’s risking people’s health and lives, especially bus drivers, for a childish and stupid idea of freedomfreedomfreedom, meaning I can do whatever I want to and other people don’t matter.



Whatever we want

Apr 19th, 2022 4:58 pm | By

Activist asks: Why can’t I just do whatever I want to? Why????

Columnist Leanne Wood in The National [Wales]:

“Being trans in the UK is fucking agony right now.”

My friend’s words last week following publication of guidance for separate and single-sex service providers by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. She goes on: “So now the EHRC want to help people exclude me from taking a piss in a bathroom that I’m comfortable in”.

As if that were the only possible criterion.

Here’s the thing: the fact that he’s comfortable in the women’s toilets doesn’t mean that anyone else is comfortable in the women’s toilets while he’s in them. It’s not just automatic or obvious that his comfort matters more than anyone else’s. It’s very odd that he assumes it does. Trans dogma is like that – it trains people to think their comfort is the only comfort that counts.

Trans people are protected under the Equality Act (2010) with several exceptions around access to some spaces. EHRC guidance seeks to exploit these exceptions.

Wtf? How is it exploiting exceptions to use them? That’s what they’re for. And the issue isn’t trans people not being protected, it’s women and girls needing protection. Again, what men who identify as trans want doesn’t automatically trump what women and girls need. Leanne Wood has apparently been well trained to think it does.

Trans people should have every right to use whatever facilities they want and to go wherever they want.

Of course they shouldn’t, any more than anyone else should. People can’t just use whatever they want and go wherever they want; that’s not how any of this works. That’s a small child’s view of life.

After all, gender reassignment is a legally protected characteristic and the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) (2004) allowed people to change their legal gender. So what’s the problem? 

Well, for a start, the problem is that none of that equals “trans people can do whatever they want and go wherever they want.”

There’s a lot more drivel along the same lines. It’s pitifully unreasoned and unargued.