And proud of it

Oct 7th, 2021 10:31 am | By

Some “women’s officer.”

Moving to instruct

Oct 7th, 2021 10:28 am | By

Trump’s goons plan to ignore the subpoenas, because he told them to. Telling them to equals telling them to invite prosecution and conviction and a sentence, but whatevs, that’s their problem.

All four Trump aides targeted by the select committee – [Mark] Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel – are expected to resist the orders because Trump is preparing to direct them to do so, the source said.

It’s not clear how Trump can “direct” them to do anything. He’s not their boss and he’s not god of the universe. They don’t have to do what he tells them to do.

But increasingly concerned with the far-reaching nature of the 6 January investigation, Trump and his legal team, led by the ex-Trump campaign lawyer Justin Clark the former deputy White House counsel Patrick Philbin, are moving to instruct the attorneys for the subpoenaed aides to defy the orders.

So the ex-boss’s attorneys are “moving to instruct” the underlings’ attorneys to protect the boss at their own expense. But the underlings’ attorneys are the underlings’ attorneys, not the boss’s. I don’t see how the boss’s lawyers get to “instruct” the underlings’ lawyers to throw their own case. I hope they send a message back instructing Trump to go fuck himself.

Trump’s strategy mirrors the playbook he used to prevent House Democrats from deposing his top advisers during his presidency. The former White House counsel Don McGahn, for instance, only testified to Congress about the Mueller inquiry once Trump left office.

Yes but the key difference there is during his presidency. This isn’t that.

House select committee investigators had demanded that the four Trump aides turn over emails, call records and other documents related to the Capitol attack by Thursday and then appear before the panel for closed-door depositions next week.

But with the former president expected to insist to Philbin that Meadows, Scavino, Bannon and Patel mount blanket refusals against the subpoenas, the source said, the select committee at present appears likely to see none of the requests fulfilled.

Again – what force does Trump’s “insisting” have? Who cares what he insists? He’s just some guy who cheats at golf.

This wretched island

Oct 7th, 2021 6:13 am | By

Brighton and Hove News reports:

A targeted campaign against a philosophy professor accused of transphobia has been condemned as harassment by the University of Sussex.

Posters demanding the university fire Kathleen Stock appeared on campus this morning, and smoke bombs were set off as a masked protester held a banner saying Stock Out at the entrance to campus.

The protesters say Professor Stock seeks to exclude and endanger trans people by, for example, supporting female-only spaces and sport and questioning the safety of puberty blocking drugs prescribed to minors.

In other words she seeks to support the safety of women and of minors who want to harm themselves by halting puberty. She doesn’t seek to endanger anyone, and she seeks to “exclude” men from women’s spaces, because women need some spaces away from men. Some kinds of exclusion are permissible and necessary.

This latest campaign today posted a “mission statement” on its Instagram page which said: “Stock is one of this wretched island’s most prominent transphobes, espousing a bastardized variation of ‘radical feminism’ that excludes and endangers trans people.

Yo, radical feminism is about women. It’s not about trans people, nor should it be.

It concludes: “Our demand is simple: fire Kathleen Stock. Until then, you’ll see us around.”

A University of Sussex spokesperson said: “We were extremely concerned to see the harassment towards our staff member and took immediate action in response to this, which we continue to do.”

That will be $10,000

Oct 6th, 2021 5:48 pm | By

yatakalam has been reading the ruling so that we don’t have to. It’s quite remarkable.

Nelson says she gets “misgendered” when she gets coffee or goes to the grocery store. Nonsense. Commercial transactions don’t work that way. The only pronoun likely to come up is “you.” Nelson seems to be a bit of a liar on top of everything else.

These clips are sickening to read.

Their proper pronouns

Oct 6th, 2021 5:28 pm | By

More pronoun gibberish from the BC human rights tribunal:

A former server at a Gibsons, B.C. restaurant has been awarded $30,000 after a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal decision found they were unfairly terminated for asking managers and co-workers to call them by their proper pronouns.

That’s the lede and already we’re in the woods. Who were unfairly terminated? The tribunal? The restaurant? One of the advantages of non-customized pronouns is that they convey information – that’s what they’re for. They don’t always convey all the necessary information, for instance when there is more than one she or he involved, but they’re better than a vague “they” that could refer to anything, including a group of objects.

The whole article is like that – you keep having to stop to correct what you thought you’d just read. No you don’t get used to it, because it’s inherently confusing and clumsy.

The decision says bar manager Brian Gobelle was particularly hostile, repeatedly and persistently referring to Nelson with she/her pronouns and with gendered nicknames like “sweetheart,” “honey,” and “pinky” — a reference to their pink hair.

The situation eventually escalated into a verbal altercation between Nelson and Gobelle, during which Nelson touched Gobelle’s shoulder and called him “sweetheart” in return — though Cousineau determined this did not amount to a physical assault.

Touched? Or slapped? From another account I read it appears Nelson slapped his shoulder.

Nelson was fired.

“Eventually [Kingsberry] told Jessie Nelson that they had just come off ‘too strong too fast’ and were too ‘militant’ — a word that reminded Jessie Nelson of what Mr. Gobelle had said about them,” Cousineau wrote.

“They challenged Mr. Kingsberry that they were being fired because of their pronouns. Ms. Coplin recalls Mr. Kingsberry telling Jessie Nelson that ‘part of the problem is making sure you vibe with the team,’ and that they had made people uncomfortable.”

They who had made people uncomfortable? It’s unclear, it’s confusing, it’s ambiguous – just what you don’t want in a legal ruling.

Following their termination, Nelson alleged that Gobelle’s conduct towards them, and the employer’s response, amounted to discrimination in employment based on their gender identity and expression.

But when “gender expression” becomes a matter of ordering everyone to use scrambled pronouns to refer to you then you’re making the job more difficult than it has to be. That’s not a plus.

In her decision, Cousineau wrote that “like a name, pronouns are a fundamental part of a person’s identity. They are a primary way that people identify each other.”

That’s nonsense. Pronouns are not like a name, that’s the whole point of them. And we don’t get to make ordinary parts of speech personal and special to us and our precious IdenTitty, because language has to be shared to work. All these stupid narcissistic tedious road blocks are not The New Utopia, they’re a giant pain in the ass.

“Using correct pronouns communicates that we see and respect a person for who they are. Especially for trans, non‐binary, or other non‐cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity.”

Fuck that. Life isn’t nursery school. It’s not anyone’s job to pamper and cuddle and soothe all these wounded Victims of Gender. We’re not required to use the incorrect pronouns in order to “validate” every whiny narcissist we encounter.

How is it not obvious how stupid and childish all this is? On the one hand you have the real injustice of the residential schools, for example, and on the other hand you have this ludicrous privileged spoiled-brat tantrum. How can anyone think they’re on an equal footing?

Jobs are about getting something done

Oct 6th, 2021 2:35 pm | By

No, “preferred pronouns” are not a human right. A Canadian human rights tribunal thinks they are though.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled in favor of Jessie Nelson, a British Columbia restaurant server who is biologically female but identifies as nonbinary. Nelson, who asked colleagues to use “they” and “them” pronouns, was repeatedly called “she” and “her” by former colleague Brian Gobelle, who also called Nelson nicknames such as “sweetheart,” “honey,” and “pinky,” the tribunal’s ruling said. After Nelson unsuccessfully asked Gobelle to stop, the employee went to management, who declined to intervene right away, the court said. Nelson and Gobelle then got into a heated discussion about the issue, and Nelson was fired four days later for coming on “too strong and too fast” and being too “militant.”

Ok there’s more than one issue here. The male colleague should definitely not have been calling Nelson unwanted sexist nicknames, and management should have immediately told him to stop. If she then tried to tell him to stop and then got fired for it, that’s highly unfair.

But the “pronouns” are another story. She shouldn’t be ordering fellow employees to remember not to use the pronouns that come naturally, but instead ones that don’t, because that’s a lot of mental effort for a fundamentally stupid enterprise. People shouldn’t take their priceless bespoke identities to work.

“Using correct pronouns communicates that we see and respect a person for who they are,” Devyn Cousineau, a member of the tribunal, wrote in the 42-page ruling

One, no it doesn’t, but two, since when is that something we have to do on the job? Jobs aren’t about “seeing people for who they are,” they’re about doing the job. It all sounds so very The Office. Imagine if Michael had had pronouns to mess around with; he could have spent all day every day creating drama about them.

“Especially for trans, non-binary, or other non-cisgender people, using the correct pronouns validates and affirms they are a person equally deserving of respect and dignity.”

Again, not what people go to work for, but also – no actually it doesn’t. Using the “correct” i.e. incorrect pronouns for Certain Special People in fact betrays that they have no dignity. People who carry on about “their” pronouns are childish and laughable. Who doesn’t know that? It’s all just an elaborate pretense, this “validation” nonsense. Less “Joe forgot their invoice” and more “Oh grow up” would be the way to go.

Nelson felt it was important to bring the fight for equality for all transgender and nonbinary people facing discrimination, according to a statement provided during the testimony portion of the tribunal.

It’s not [bad or unlawful] discrimination to call a woman “her.”

“I am here today in bringing this forward because it is important for me, as a trans person, to have my existence respected. I’m a human being with a beating heart and a desire to be seen and valued and heard in the world,” Nelson testified.

Then do something worth seeing and valuing and hearing. Having Special Pronouns is not it.

The tribunal also ordered the restaurant to implement a pronoun policy.

They’ll need an eyeroll policy with that.

Other government entities have taken steps toward promoting gender-neutral policies, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently urging “pregnant people” to get vaccinated against COVID-19…

Yes and that’s a bad thing. These Special Flowers in search of Recognition and Validation are shooting the legs out from under feminism, but they’re too stupid and too self-obsessed to realize it. They’re poisonous.

Now seeking transfer

Oct 6th, 2021 11:35 am | By

First, a news item from the Toronto Star August 21 [warning: graphic violence]:

Rhoderie Estrada went to sleep likely around 10 p.m. after folding laundry, watching Korean dramas and putting her three young daughters to bed in their two-storey East York home.

In the early hours of May 26, 2018, her husband came home to a nightmare — Estrada lying bloodied on their bed with head injuries too severe for him to perform CPR.

Now, after five days of deliberations, a jury has found Yostin Murillo and David Beak guilty of the first-degree murder and sexual assault of Estrada, a 41-year-old long-time dialysis nurse at St. Joseph’s hospital who adored — and was fiercely protective — of her children.

Fast forward to September 28:

One of a duo convicted of bludgeoning a woman to death after breaking and entering her home, robbing and raping her is now seeking transfer to a women’s prison. Fearing the inmate’s pattern of repeat violent criminality may be a barrier, transgender activists are protesting as discriminatory a clause in the prison policy that allows male convicts to be denied transfer to women’s prison if deemed a health or security risk.

Yes because obviously the tender feelings of a man who raped and beat a woman to death are far more important than the fears of women who will be forced to share prison space with him.

Also obviously he’s definitely sincere about Feeling Like A Woman Inside and not at all using the policy of putting men in women’s prisons if they say they are trans as a way to get away from other men and at vulnerable women.

Her body her choice

Oct 6th, 2021 11:08 am | By

No, his shirt needed no improvement.


Abortion Access Front explained:

No matter who you are, if you have a uterus, abortion is only and always YOUR choice. We are sure @DaveBautista will approve of our fix to his shirt! #AbortionAF

No matter who you are, if you have a uterus, you are a woman or girl. It’s women who get pregnant, not people in general. Women are subordinated and dominated and denied basic rights for exactly that reason, so no, it’s not a generic “you” who needs abortion rights, it’s women.

H/t Sackbut

High stakes for people

Oct 6th, 2021 10:16 am | By

Rewire News is also avoiding the word “women” when it reports on abortion and the campaign to make it illegal again.

“Even though the legal question doesn’t have to do with abortion, the stakes here are still incredibly high, especially for people in Kentucky,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, who will argue the case on October 12.

But Kolbi-Molinas doesn’t mean people in Kentucky, she means women in Kentucky.

If Cameron is able to intervene and the law gets upheld, it could effectively ban abortion after 15 weeks in a state that has just two clinics and multiple restrictions, including a 24-hour waiting period and bans on insurance coverage of the procedure. Both clinics are in downtown Louisville, which means access is limited for people in other areas of the state.

It’s not people who need access, it’s women.

The raw deal men are getting

Oct 6th, 2021 9:52 am | By

On both sides.

Dominic Raab has rejected the idea that misogyny should become a hate crime in the wake of the Sarah Everard murder, but then appeared confused about its meaning as he suggested it could apply to abuse against either women or men.

You can’t make misogyny itself a hate crime – that’s just stupid. You can point it out and fulminate against it and try hard to convince people to get rid of it, but you can’t make it a crime. It would be like making atheism a crime, or theism, or belief in reincarnation, or not liking grapefruit.

Perhaps the idea is to make it an aggravating factor in crimes against women? That would make a little more sense, I guess.

The justice secretary, who has said he is not a feminist and previously complained about the “raw deal” men are getting, said it was his “number one priority to make sure women feel confident in the justice system”.

I bet it’s not though. I bet he said that because it seemed politic, but I bet it’s not.

However, pressed on BBC Breakfast about whether misogyny should be a hate crime, he appeared not to understand the term as he said “misogyny is absolutely wrong, whether it’s a man against a woman or a woman against a man”.

Well yes, there’s no mere “appearance” about that; he clearly doesn’t understand the term. You can use “sexism” that way but not misogyny, because of the “gyny” bit. The “mis” is hatred and the “gyny” is women. The word he wants is “misanthropy,” hatred of humans.

About that doorstep

Oct 6th, 2021 9:17 am | By

Graham Linehan tells us that David Lammy told a whopper about the silence of his constituents on the trans issue. It’s quite a startling whopper.

Speaking to Rachel Burden on Radio 5 Live, 29th September, Lammy criticised the BBC for focusing on  “identity issues” and denied that voters are concerned about gender ideology, saying to Burden “you have chosen to ask me about an issue that has never, ever been raised on the doorstep”.

He took an almost identical line while talking to Nick Robinson of BBC’s Today programme on the same day. “Nick you are deliberately asking me about an issue which you know does not come up on the doorstep. It’s a bit of a trap to get caught up on identity politics.”

It’s maddening in more than one way, that claim. It’s maddening in its dismissiveness about the concerns of women, and it’s maddening in its absolutist nothing to see here take when we know there’s everything to see.

Now, activists from Lammy’s own constituency Labour Party (CLP) have revealed they told him that former Labour voters had expressed despair that the party is ignoring women.

Graham gives four examples of such expression, the final one being that Lammy

Met with women party activists who spoke with him for three hours, detailing their concerns about the Labour party’s support for Self-ID. He agreed that the women in the party should be widely consulted on the issue.

There could be an argument that Lammy is justifying this in his head with the fact that he said on the doorstep, which means the public in general, as opposed to Labour activists…until you scroll down and read the conversation with one of those activists.

Now I’d started to meet a lot of women… I was already aware of all of this, by the way, I am a signatory of Labour’s Women’s declaration. So I have lots of friends within that group…and I knew what was happening and what was going on. And then I started to meet people on the doorstep. And there were more and more women, and we have quite a high lesbian ratio of women in this area. A lot of them moved here thirty odd years ago and found it a good place to stay and they liked it. So they were being very open on the doorstep and saying “we’re just not voting for them. What do they think they’re doing?” And I’d say you know “I’m totally on board with you and I’m not the only one. There’s loads of us fighting.”

So that’s…you know…the doorstep.

Read on.

The perps on the women’s ward

Oct 5th, 2021 3:03 pm | By

Apparently the hospital situation is as bad as ever.

NHS trusts are “gaslighting” patients over the inclusion of transgender patients on single-sex wards, a whistle-blower nurse has warned.

Dr Sinead Helyar said that in at least one trust if patients question why there is a male-bodied person on a female-only ward, medics have been told to “reiterate… that there are no men present”.

I don’t know why the Telegraph calls her a nurse and then a doctor, but anyway, we’ve heard this story before, and it’s pretty sick-making that it hasn’t been fixed.

Official NHS trust policy documents also compare patients who ask for single-sex spaces to racists and label them “transphobes”, “offenders” and “perpetrators”, she said.

Staff who raise safeguarding concerns may be threatened with disciplinary action or even criminal charges, according to Dr Helyar who warned that the NHS is influenced by controversial LGBT charity Stonewall.

That doesn’t sound like “influenced by” so much as “taking dictation from.”

Speaking in a personal capacity to a panel organised by parliamentary campaign group Children and Women First at the Conservative Party conference, Dr Helyar said that NHS policy is “formulated and enacted to the detriment of women”.

She said that many trusts, often under the influence of Stonewall, had developed transgender accommodation policies that “have failed to consider the rights and needs of women” and instead of equal treatment “prioritise male transgender patients in the very spaces set out for women”. 

You can’t have “equal treatment” in this situation when the whole issue is separation. If women want to be separate from men while men want to be in women’s spaces, you have to pick one or the other, you can’t provide “equal treatment.” Equal treatment isn’t always the right answer to a question. The rich and the poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.

A spokesman for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said that their guidance “aims to strike an appropriate balance” and the trust “strives to treat all people in its care and all staff with dignity and respect.”

No, that’s your problem right there. There is no “appropriate balance.” If I come to your house and grab a wheelbarrow load of your stuff, you’re not obliged to strike an appropriate balance such that I get to keep half of your stuff. Women should never be pushed to “balance” their right to safety and privacy with men’s desire to take that right away.

A Stonewall spokesperson said: “Trans women should be able to access dignified and high-quality healthcare in the same way as everyone else.

“Inclusive healthcare practices make us all safer and, in 2021, it should not be controversial to ensure that all LGBTQ+ people get the healthcare and support that they deserve.”

At Stonewall, we’ll continue to work with public sector organisations, including NHS trusts to ensure that their LGBTQ+ staff are supported at work.”

Blah blah blah waffle waffle evade evade. Notice that spokestwerp carefully never says what’s at stake. Dignified and high-quality healthcare, fine, but the issue is men insisting on being on women’s wards because they identify as women. If men can force their way onto women’s wards then where is the dignified and high-quality healthcare for them? Stress doesn’t help with healing, so forcing women to accept men on their wards is not high-quality anything for them.


Oct 5th, 2021 12:10 pm | By

The Catholic church knew and did it anyway, Facebook knew and did it anyway.

Facebook’s internal research found that Instagram, which it acquired in 2012 for $1 billion, makes eating disorders and thoughts of suicide worse in teenage girls, whistleblower Frances Haugen said in a “60 Minutes” interview on Sunday.

Haugen, a former product manager at Facebook, gathered internal documents as she grew frustrated by the company’s prioritization of growth and user engagement over its negative impacts, The Wall Street Journal reported.

According to internal studies retrieved by Haugen, Facebook found that 13.5% of teen girls say Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse, and 17% of teen girls say Instagram makes eating disorders worse.

Well, look at it this way: Instagram is just one of many. Women and girls are constantly bombarded by images and videos and marketing that tell them how fabulous they’re supposed to look and how disgusting they are if they don’t look fabulous in that correct way.

“And what’s super tragic is Facebook’s own research says as these young women begin to consume this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. It actually makes them use the app more,” Haugen said. “They end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more.”

And from Facebook’s point of view the key bit there is not “hate their bodies more and more” but “use the app more.” Which one puts more money in Facebook’s pocket? There you go.

330,000 or so

Oct 5th, 2021 11:55 am | By

Maybe it’s something about the Catholic church? Is that possible?

An estimated 330,000 children were victims of sex abuse within France’s Catholic Church over the past 70 years, according to a report released Tuesday that represents the country’s first major accounting of the worldwide phenomenon.

The figure includes abuses committed by some 3,000 priests and other people involved in the church — wrongdoing that Catholic authorities covered up over decades in a “systemic manner,” according to the president of the commission that issued the report, Jean-Marc Sauvé.

Of course they did. They’re the church, God’s own representatives on earth, so obviously they get to decide. Raping children is just God’s reward to all these goddy celibate men for managing his propaganda.

Olivier Savignac, the head of victims association Parler et Revivre (Speak Out and Live Again), contributed to the investigation. He told The Associated Press that the high ratio of victims per abuser was particularly “terrifying for French society, for the Catholic Church.”

Savignac assailed the church for treating such cases as individual anomalies instead of as a collective horror.

Kind of like the way the police treat Wayne Couzens as an individual anomaly.

Sauvé denounced the church’s attitude until the beginning of the 2000s as “a deep, cruel indifference toward victims.”

That’s one of the problems with godbothering: the focus is on the imaginary Boss Man and the Boss Man’s deputies, and the mere human beings are just his slaves.

27 occasions not enough

Oct 5th, 2021 11:31 am | By

You know…if most of your police despise women, then your police are not going to be very good at pursuing cases of violence against women. They’re more likely to decide it was actually her fault, or a “sex game,” or a misunderstanding, or too trivial to bother with.

The father of a woman who died after being choked by her abusive partner has accused police of paying “lip service” to the protection of women and girls and called for a public inquiry into the culture of UK policing.

West Midlands police apologised last month for a number of failings in the case of Suzanne Van Hagen, 34, who suffered months of domestic abuse before she died in February 2013.

They were called nine times, but somehow they just couldn’t figure out what was going on.

A neighbour, who was asked by police to keep a log of suspected abusive incidents at Van Hagen’s flat, made a note of 27 occasions before she was found dead with bruising around her neck.

Officers said that bruising around her neck was the result of a sex game and ruled the cause of death was an accidental drug overdose.

Suppose it was indeed “a sex game” – why is it her neck that was bruised? Whose idea was it to play that particular “game”? Why are men never found dead as the result of a “sex game” i.e. choking? Why is it always women who are choked and men who explain to the police that they were playing a game?

On one occasion, a police family liaison officer told Van Hagen’s younger sister: “Your sister had two legs and she should have used them.”

Wayne Jones, the detective who led the failed investigation into Van Hagen’s death, was sacked two years later for sexually harassing four female colleagues.

There it is. You have your sexual harasser cops, so you put them in charge of investigations into violence against women. That will work out beautifully.

Institutional misogyny

Oct 4th, 2021 4:09 pm | By

Owen Jones:

Also Owen Jones:

Some kind of mind here o’erthrown

Oct 4th, 2021 3:25 pm | By

Speaking of Dillahunty and dogmatism and the infallibility of personal beliefs…from last year:

A serious drift

Oct 4th, 2021 11:18 am | By

Jonathon Van Maren writes:

French clinicians are also now taking a stand. In an open letter published four days ago on the L’Express website (and covered almost nowhere in the international press), over fifty medical professionals and prominent academics, including doctors, legal experts, educational experts, philosophers, sociologists, psychiatrists, judges, and psychoanalysts, excoriated transgender ideology and condemned “sex reassignment” in children. Published in association with the Observatory of Ideological Discourses on Children and Adolescents, the letter is worth reading in full:

The link doesn’t work, but we can read the translation JVM shares.

We can no longer remain silent about what appears to us to be a serious drift committed in the name of the emancipation of the “transgender child” (the one who declares that he was not born in the “right body”). Radical discourses legitimise requests for sex change on the basis of feelings alone, which are set up as the truth.

That right there is an important point that doesn’t get enough attention. Feelings are…not necessarily reliable as to the truth of a matter, even the truth of one’s own physical or mental state. Feelings can mislead. I think we all know this if we think about it, which often takes some nudging. Mere lack of sleep can cause very bleak moods, and if we don’t know this we can draw wild conclusions, then wake up the next morning wondering what the hell got into us. Feelings are not necessarily the truth, not even our own feelings about our own inner state, however paradoxical that may sound.

Perhaps thinking it might provide an answer, the Scottish Government has issued new LGBT inclusion guidelines since 12 August, under which children from primary school age will be able to change their names and gender at school without their parents’ consent. Without their consent and even without their parents being informed if the child requests it.

Sure, because children of six or seven know so much more about “gender” than their pesky stupid benighted parents do.

What is happening in our neighbouring countries could very quickly happen in France: the protean diffusion of these beliefs has resulted in a considerable inflation of requests for sex changes among children and more particularly among teenage girls in recent years...

Trivialised speeches claim that we could do without the biological reality, the sexual difference between men and women, in favour of chosen singularities based solely on “feelings”. These misleading ideological discourses are transmitted on social networks where many teenagers with identity problems come to seek solutions to their malaise. In the name of “self-determination” – a slogan that appeals to all progressives — children and teenagers are convinced that they can change their sex with the help of hormone treatments or even mutilating surgery. This rhetoric, spread by activists in many Western countries, uses fallacies designed to deceive.

How did we get here? And do we (still) have the right to react without being insulted or threatened? How can these rights to self-determination be a fulfilling progress? This phenomenon, the “transgender child”, is in reality a contemporary mystification that must be vigorously denounced because it is a matter of ideological embrigadement [recruitment]. They would have us believe that, in the name of the well-being and freedom of each individual, a child, freed from the agreement of its “reactionary” parents, would be able to “choose” its so-called gendered identity.

But the child is a being under construction, his or her future is in constant evolution before reaching a stage of maturity. Neuroscientists, developmentalists, psychoanalysts, child psychiatrists, paediatricians and all specialists in early childhood are unanimous on this subject.

So the child doesn’t necessarily have a stable “gender identity,” and anyway we don’t really know what “gender identity” is. Where does gender identity stop and marketing begin? Is gender identity really anything more than the accumulated ideas of what women wear and look like and say and do, ditto men? If it’s not, can we really be confident that it’s a thing as opposed to a string of impressions?

We denounce this abduction of childhood. It is now urgent to inform as many citizens as possible, of all professions, of all sides, of all ages, about what could well appear tomorrow as one of the greatest health and ethical scandals, which we would have watched happen without saying a word: the commodification of children’s bodies. For by persuading these children that they have been “assigned” a sex at birth, and that they can freely change it, they are made lifelong patients: lifelong consumers of hormonal chemicals marketed by pharmaceutical companies, recurrent consumers of ever more surgical operations in the pursuit of the chimerical dream of a fantasy body. 

Don’t we think pharmaceutical companies have already made a pretty decent haul, what with the opioids and everything?

Confusion reigns, largely maintained for the purpose of manipulating humanity in its deepest substratum: its evolution, its temporality, its wanderings and its doubts. In the name of rejecting a supposed gender assignment, we are in the process of witnessing, embarrassed, without understanding anything, an identity assignment. Thus Claude from the Club des cinq, once described as a tomboy, is now presented as transgender. We could laugh about it if it weren’t symptomatic of our era, which is struck by political radicalisms that pre-empt all debate.

We could laugh about it if it weren’t trashing so much of the world we need to live in.

A milestone

Oct 4th, 2021 10:21 am | By
A milestone

Where vaccine-resistance gets us:

The United States surpassed 700,000 deaths from the coronavirus on Friday, a milestone that few experts had anticipated months ago when vaccines became widely available to the American public.

An overwhelming majority of Americans who have died in recent months, a period in which the country has offered broad access to shots, were unvaccinated. The United States has had one of the highest recent death rates of any country with an ample supply of vaccines.

Why? Because we also have one of the highest rates of stupid.

The new and alarming surge of deaths this summer means that the coronavirus pandemic has become the deadliest in American history, overtaking the toll from the influenza pandemic of 1918 and 1919, which killed about 675,000 people.

That’s absolute numbers though, so it’s debatable whether the rona is the deadliest. Deadliest in absolute numbers but not per capita.

Not that that’s anything to brag about.

“This Delta wave just rips through the unvaccinated,” said Howard Markel, a medical historian at the University of Michigan. The deaths that have followed the wide availability of vaccines, he added, are “absolutely needless.”

This is why I stare in disbelief at Twitter warriors raging at vaccination.

The recent virus deaths are distinct from those in previous chapters of the pandemic, an analysis by The New York Times shows. People who died in the last three and a half months were concentrated in the South, a region that has lagged in vaccinations; many of the deaths were reported in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas. And those who died were younger: In August, every age group under 55 had its highest death toll of the pandemic.

Vaccines have been proven highly effective in preventing severe illness and death, and a study from the C.D.C. that was published in September found that after Delta became the dominant variant, unvaccinated people were more than 10 times as likely to die of the virus as the vaccinated were. The study, which spanned from April to mid-July, used data from 10 states, New York City, Los Angeles County and King County, Wash., which includes Seattle.

But the Twitter warriors shout that it’s the government wanting to control us.

But the recent deaths have left families and friends, some of whom said they had thought the pandemic was largely over, stunned and devastated. Weary doctors and nurses voiced frustration that many of the patients whose lives they were now struggling to save had shunned vaccines.

I’d be voicing more than frustration.

Vaccine mandates have begun to take effect in some states and within some companies, and on Friday, California became the first state to announce plans to add the coronavirus vaccine to other vaccinations required to attend school, starting as early as next fall. But only 65 percent of the eligible U.S. population is fully vaccinated. The nation’s vaccination campaign has been slowed by people who say they are hesitant or unwilling to get shots, amid a polarized landscape that has included misinformation from conservative and anti-vaccine commentators casting doubt on the safety of vaccines.

But why? That’s what I’ll never get. It’s like saying doctors are the enemy, or fire departments are stealing our souls, or clean water is the devil’s work.

Our stance is truly “zero tolerance”

Oct 4th, 2021 9:30 am | By

More calls to fire and shun people who don’t believe men are women:

AN SNP politician has retweeted a message calling for Joanna Cherry to be expelled from the party.

Kirsty Blackman, the MP for Aberdeen North, appeared to endorse the post amid an ongoing row over trans rights.

Or trans “rights.” The issue gets wildly confused because of the chronic failure to specify which “rights” we’re talking about. Just saying “trans rights” makes it sound as if the issue is basic human rights, when in fact what is contentious is the claim that men who identify as trans have a “right” to invade women’s spaces and take women’s prizes and jobs with no questions asked. It’s not a basic human right to be “validated” as whatever you say you are. If it were we could all identify as the Queen and sleep in her bed.

Ms Blackman retweeted a message from another user which read: “If my party truly stands for trans rights and equality, if our stance is truly ‘zero tolerance’, then it has to start from within. Joanna C must be expelled from the SNP.

“Show the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK that ‘zero tolerance’ means exactly that.”

Yeah, show the world that the SNP has zero tolerance, that sounds like a great idea!

Zero tolerance of what, dumbfuck?

Zero tolerance of ignoring the rage of dumbfucks on Twitter?

The Edinburgh South West MP [Joanna Cherry] was sacked from the SNP’s Westminster front bench in February amid deepening divisions in the party.  

This morning, she tweeted: “As a lesbian & a feminist I’ve spent a lifetime campaigning for equality & to be clear I support trans rights.”

What I don’t support is the right of any man to self-ID as a woman & access the single sex spaces which the #EqualityAct protects for women & girls.”

What I’m saying. I too support trans rights, meaning the same human rights everyone has. I don’t consider it even slightly a “right” to self-ID as a woman and proceed to grab everything that belongs to women – it’s the opposite of a right, an anti-right, a force that steals other people’s rights.