But but but
But but but how can he be anything but a “biological male” when it’s only “biological males” who call themselves trans women? Women don’t call themselves trans women; only men do that.
A purported political or social movement whose only goal is to force everyone to agree that men can be women and women can be men is sheer frivolity but with seriously bad outcomes. It needs to stop.
Originally a comment by Freemage on Peak stupid.
Even if we take as writ the claimed feelings of transwomen, that means nothing in terms of how the law should look upon them. Many religious believers sincerely think their sky-daddy is the best (and only!) sky-daddy. But while they are free to profess this, and try to get others to agree with them, they cannot use the law to force this belief (or at least, the rote repetition of the belief) on others.
This has to be doubly so in the case of trans, because the belief itself clearly cannot be examined..Just because someone sincerely believes they have a woman’s mind, how can they actually know this? One defense usually posited by trans believers in face of skepticism is that critics can’t possibly know what’s in the mind of the transwoman. But this is exactly the issue. Transwomen also have no ability to compare their internal mental structure to that of biological women. They may like things that are generally associated with femininity, but the whole crux of feminism is that femininity as a concept is a social creation, so while a transwoman might be falling into the roles and tastes their culture says women should do and like, they are not, in fact, capable of knowing if those things are what women actually like and want to do.
Final bonus note: She does give the game away here when she adds “soul” after mind. This is a religious belief, and should be treated as such.
The Trump administration has asked the FAA to evaluate the risks of building the president’s “triumphal arch” less than two miles from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, one of the busiest in the nation.
According to documents obtained by CNN, the Department of Interior has requested a formal aeronautical study from the Federal Aviation Administration for the proposed 250-foot arch, which would be built in a patch of grass at the end of Memorial Bridge, across from the Lincoln Memorial.
And would be very ugly and intrusive.
The request, submitted by the National Parks Service, a division of the Interior Department, notes that the total height of the structure will be 279 feet when the site elevation beneath the arch itself is considered.
FAA regulations require structures that exceed 200 feet and positioned at a site that potentially interferes with airspace be subject to a review.
It’s at a site that would interfere with airspace. Let’s skip it.
Pilots must already navigate various hazards as they descend or ascent through the “north approach” flight path that requires them to swing to avoid close encounters with the Pentagon, the Washington Monument and other DC landmarks.
The addition of President Donald Trump’s arch will further complicate flying through the corridor, which has been the site of high-profile and much scrutinized accidents, including last year’s midair collision between an American Airlines plane and a Black Hawk helicopter and a 1982 crash into the 14th Street Bridge upon takeoff.
It’s already a hotspot so let’s just NOT DO IT, ok?
Trump has already stamped his horrible taste all over DC, let’s just skip one that could cause plane crashes, yeah?
Julia Gillard explaining how men are women if they really really think so.
She’s asked if she can say what a woman is. Instead of saying yes of course I can she taaalllkks verrrry slowwwwly about how terrible it is that people keep asking this question. She calls it a gotcha moment – how original. She says, verrry slowwwly indeed, that we have to come at this from first principles. She burbles about rich diversity. She says it’s powerful. Finally at 1:39 [that’s a long time to say nothing relevant!] she gets to the myth.
There are a number of people who genuinely believe they are trapped in the wrong body, and they want to be recognized as the gender that their mind, their mind and soul have always told them that they are.
Ok. First of all, how do you know they genuinely believe that? It’s not knowable. Other people’s minds are a black box. This appalling ideology is based on an assumption that is negated by everything we know about people, minds, knowledge, rhetoric, politics and all the rest of it.
Second, and all too obviously, so the fuck what? People can “genuinely” believe all kinds of bullshit – just look at how many people think Donald Trump is a great guy.
Guess what: we could all claim we genuinely believe we are Julia Gillard. Would she make duplicate keys to her house for all of us?
It’s just staggering that this childish horseshit is allowed to cancel women’s rights.
So I ask “are there aboriginal organizations in australia?” and whaddya know, yes there are.
Yes, there are hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organizations across Australia. They operate in almost every sector—including health, law, land management, and education—and are often structured as Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), meaning they are run by and for Indigenous Australians to support self-determination.
Well whaddya know. By and for Indigenous Australians to support self-determination. But female Australians are not allowed to have self-determination. Furthermore, if they object to this odd exception, they get fines which increase every time they object.
Australia court doubles payout for trans woman in landmark discrimination case
A Sydney court has doubled the discrimination payout for an Australian trans woman who was kicked off a female-only app.
It comes almost two years after Roxanne Tickle successfully sued Sall Grover, founder of the Giggle for Girls app, for blocking her account on the grounds of gender identity.
Grover lodged an appeal against that verdict, but on Friday, the Federal Court dismissed it and further found that Tickle was directly – rather than indirectly – discriminated against by Grover.
Tickle was also awarded compensation of AU$20,000 ($14,000; £11,000), double the original amount.
Unfuckingbelievable.
So in Australia women cannot have anything that is just for women? And the legal system is cool with that, and eager to tighten the screws on women who resist?
Under the country’s Sex Discrimination Act, it is illegal for providers of goods or services to discriminate against another person on the ground of a person’s gender identity.
But it’s not on the ground of the person’s god damn genner idenniny it’s on the ground of the person’s sex. Genner idenniny is just a claim, a pretend, a label, a choice, a fantasy, a stupid idea in the head of a man, a make-believe, a joke, a taunt, a sadistic game, a fuck you to every woman on the planet.
In Friday’s Federal Court judgement, the full court found that Grover had engaged in unlawful direct discrimination, saying she had treated Tickle “who is a transgender woman, less favourably than a person designated female at birth seeking access to the Giggle App”.
Are there any aboriginal groups in Australia? If so have any of them been forced to let newcomers join because to keep them out would be treating the newcomers less favorably than a person designated aboriginal at birth? Please advise.
Grover founded the Giggle for Girls app in 2020 in response to online abuse by men during her time as a screenwriter in Hollywood.
So now it’s Australia that’s abusing her. Thanks a lot.
Mmmmmno.
Frankenstein is transphobic, claims non-binary director
Frankenstein is not tranphobic for the same reason Hamlet is not transphobic. There was no trans to be phobic about when the works in question were created.
Frankenstein is transphobic because it is about “a constructed body”, a non-binary filmmaker has claimed.
Jane Schoenbrun, an American director who describes herself as trans and queer, said the Frankenstein adaptations, based on Mary Shelley’s 1818 gothic novel, are an example of older horror films featuring a “trans monster”.
“This image of the trans monster kept coming up, whether that be Norman Bates or Buffalo Bill or Frankenstein as a constructed body, and there was this lineage of trans people having really complicated feelings about those movies,” Schoenbrun told The Hollywood Reporter.
That’s a less stupid claim – typical news media trick to make the story sound more provocative than it is.
“In one sense, those are the places where they saw representations that felt familiar or comforting in some way to their own experiences – but also, those movies are super f—ing transphobic and problematic,” the filmmaker added.
Maybe that’s because trying to escape your own body is not a healthy impulse, so stories about it make it sound like an unfortunate choice.
Originally a comment by Stewart on The row over.
I’m afraid my conscience won’t permit me not to react to the suggestion that Israel has anything like South Africa’s apartheid (I am not a Zionist and my nearly thirty years lived experience of Israel between 1976 and 2005 were not something I ever wished upon myself).
Israel has Arabs and Muslims in high positions, including an Arab Christian judge (George Karra), who sentenced a former – Jewish, obviously – President of the State (Moshe Katsav) to prison. That kind of thing (of which there is plenty, though not all as dramatic as the example above) leaves comparisons to South Africa in tatters.
Yes, both sides have their racists and religious fanatics and yes, those on the (Jewish) Israeli side have been clawing away with alarming success at gaining more political and legal power, especially in the last decade or so, but for any comparison with South Africa to hold water there must be actual laws that say “Arabs/Muslims may not” do something or that only Jewish Israelis have certain rights or privileges. Daily life in Israel is simply not like that and anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time there cannot take the apartheid accusation seriously.
The two societies may not mix much but it’s certainly not illegal, nor are marriages between Muslims and Jews, though the Interior Ministry will only recognise those that took place elsewhere (no such thing as a civil, non-religious, marriage can take place inside the country, so mixed-religion marriages are not possible there). I remember when the suburb of Neve Yaacov on the outskirts of Jerusalem was new (my father lived there for a while) that it was unpopular with some because there were also Arab families living there. My guess, in general, would be that Jewish Israelis have a far greater fear of entering Arab-only areas than the reverse.
The sad reality is that there are those among us who appear to believe that one’s sexuality or identity is the most interesting and important component to doing a job. That certainly seems to be the case with the LGBTQIA+ crowd, who think that having an actual gay person in charge would be the most groundbreaking event since Eddie Izzard said, ‘Call me Suzy’.
The fact is that neither Labour’s Streeting nor the Greens’ Polanski would ever ‘identify’ as gay. Both would likely talk in terms of being LGBTQIA+. Which is quite a different entity altogether.
And also a much sillier one, as I keep saying, because no one can be all those items.
Homosexuality is so unremarkable now that I’m surprised more politicians haven’t latched on to the Hollywood craze and declared themselves ‘nonbinary’. This, apparently, carries far more cachet, and – most excitingly – a smashing new wardrobe filled with assorted dungarees.
Which brings me onto the reaction to this Dual of The Divas between Streeting and Polanski. Of course, the bona fide members of the all-or-nothing LGBTQIA+ mob were outraged at the suggestion that Streeting could take the crown. Some septum-pierced, grammarless hack said he was ‘Getting out ahead of this right now’, before declaring: ‘We simply do not claim Wes Streeting as the first gay PM. A man who has thrown trans people under the bus, who backs attacks on LGBTQ migrants, on POC [people of colour], on [the] working class… is not emblematic of our movement and is certainly no trailblazer.’
…
Trouble is, there seems to be rather a lot of these people about. Polanski is being touted as the champion of LGBTQIA+ politics, but it does not seem to me that this particular individual will concern himself with the first three letters of this increasingly foolish acronym, whose rights are in direct opposition to the TQIA+. Most gay people who want nothing to do with gender ideology call themselves LGB. That is because we do not want to see women’s hard-won rights demolished, we do not want to see lesbian-only spaces invaded by men, and we most certainly do not want to see gender theory in action – especially when it comes to influencing other people’s children.
Say not the struggle naught availeth.
Corporate Memphis enough yet?
It’s part of a wider study on trans understandings of transition.
Isn’t that WONDERFUL?
Bad Kennedy is getting his wish.
Before Nov. 19, 2025, the CDC’s website was unequivocal on the topic: “Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder,” it read. After Nov. 19, the guidance essentially reversed. “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” it now says. “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”
That claim, reflecting the longstanding vaccine-skeptical views of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), is false. But new research published in the journal Science suggests that it’s affecting what Americans believe about vaccines.
Well it would be, wouldn’t it. There’s no vaccine to protect against bullshit.
Didlaw can reveal that the Claimant in the above case, heard in Leeds ET for 6 days from 23 March 2026, has been successful in her discrimination claims against NHS England.
The ET upheld the following claims:
- The Claimant’s complaint of indirect discrimination in relation to sex under section 19 Equality Act 2010 in relation to NHS England’s Trans Equality Policy and Trans Equality Procedure which permit trans colleagues to use toilets (and showers) that correspond with their gender identity rather than their biological sex;
- The Claimant’s complaint of harassment related to sex and gender critical beliefs as a result of NHS England’s Trans Equality Policy of permitting trans women to use female only facilities; and;
- The Claimant’s complaint of harassment related to her gender critical beliefs in that the Respondent’s Trans Equality Procedure had the effect of violating her dignity or creating the Proscribed Environment on the grounds of her gender critical beliefs.
Isn’t it funny how everyone used to know that and there was no need for tribunals to discover it all over again. Of course women don’t want to share public toilets and showers with men. That’s why separate facilities exist.
The Claimant is employed by NHS England, is female, Muslim and has PTSD. She also holds gender critical beliefs. Her claims were pursued relating to these characteristics. In October 2017 NHS England produced documents titled ‘Trans Equality Policy’ and ‘Trans Equality Procedure.’ These documents confirmed that trans colleagues could use the single-sex facilities that corresponded with their gender identity once they reached ‘full time presentation….in the new gender role.’
They had no right to do that. A new “gender role” doesn’t make a man a woman. It’s childish to pretend otherwise.
Yes but…
Ok but we shouldn’t have to have PTSD or be religious to refuse to share showers and toilets with men. Just being women should be enough.
A new Green MSP previously posted online that they could not wait for the late Queen Elizabeth II to “kick the bucket”, it has emerged.
They? Even the Telegraph does the “they” thing?
Iris Duane, a biological male who uses she/her pronouns, referred to the late Queen as “big lizard Lizzie” in a social media post in January 2022.
I don’t care about the anti-monarchism, it’s the “biological male” who “uses” female pronouns that I can’t be doing with. We don’t “use” the pronouns that other people refer to us by which. The correct word would be “demands” and the answer should be no.
The controversy came after it emerged a second newly elected trans Green MSP does not have a permanent visa to work in the UK.
Q Manivannan, an Indian immigrant who identifies as non-binary, was elected as an MSP on the Edinburgh & Lothians East list.
The former PhD student has appealed to colleagues for £2,089 of funding for a temporary graduate visa that would allow them to work as an MSP.
Golly. Who knew it was that easy?
Also why would colleagues want to give him £2,089?
Manivannan was elected on the Edinburgh & Lothians East list using the same proportional representation system.
The self-described “queer Tamil immigrant” was only able to stand in the election after SNP ministers loosened the rules on who could be a Holyrood candidate.
Foreigners could previously only become an MSP if they had indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Last year, the SNP government introduced legislation that meant they could qualify if they had leave of any type, such as a short-term study visa.
So he’s there to study for a short term and he runs for a job in the parliament. It seems…disconnected.
How it started
How it went on
It’s “extremist” to say that men are men.
Here’s the thing. Reality is what it is. Fiddling with the names doesn’t change the reality except in cases where the naming really is subject to change. There are plenty of social names that can indeed be changed, but it doesn’t follow and it’s not the case that therefore men can be women. Male and female are not purely social categories.
The Free Speech Union declares:
The FSU is disappointed that the King’s Speech included a draft bill to ban conversion therapy. Trying to force gay people to become straight is already illegal in this country, so what does the Government want to ban?
We fear Labour wants to make it a criminal offence for parents and health professionals to try to persuade gender-confused children not to embark on irreversible, life-changing medical treatment that can leave them permanently sterile and cause other lasting harms. If that is the Government’s intention, we will vigorously campaign against the bill.
There’s a crucial difference there. Being gay requires zero medical or physical intervention of any kind. It requires no action of any kind. It requires no performance. It requires no demands placed on other people. Being trans cannot claim this level of non-interference. In theory people could just announce they’re trans while continuing to look and talk like the sex they really are, but in practice we don’t see that.
In practice what we see is people, including children, making drastic permanent changes to their bodies in a doomed attempt to become the sex they are not, motivated by a loony popular fad.
Satire, incloosion, hilarity, music, jokes, exclusion – everything.
It is considered one of the funniest episodes of a beloved sitcom, but the Father Ted storyline about Eurovision has been dragged into the row over Israel’s participation in this week’s song contest.
Ireland’s national broadcaster, RTÉ, which is boycotting the competition in protest against Israel’s inclusion, will instead broadcast the 1996 episode A Song for Europe, in which the characters Father Ted and Father Dougal perform their song My Lovely Horse and earn nul points.
The decision prompted condemnation on Tuesday from Graham Linehan, one of the show’s creators, who accused RTÉ of using the show as “a tool of antisemitic harassment” and said it was an “act of pointed, gleeful counter-programming”. He demanded the resignation of the broadcaster’s director-general, Kevin Bakhurst.
The fact that RTÉ is boycotting the competition because Israel is in it is rather startling. The pope versus the Jews all over again is it?
Originally a comment by Sumi on To discourage the others.
Where are the US doctors willing to be jailed for their beliefs? Where are the doctors willing to rely on the necessity defense and jury nullification?
Canada has had no abortion laws for almost four decades because one doctor, Henry Morgentaler, wouldn’t back down when the government tried to shut his abortion clinics.
Morgentaler survived Auschwitz and Dachau before coming to Canada and completing his medical studies in Montreal. He set up illegal abortion clinics in several cities and dared the governments to act. In 1973, he admitted to performing over 5,000 abortions and was arrested and charged.
Between 1973 and 1975, Morgentaler was tried three times in Montreal; each time, he raised the defence of necessity, and each time, he was acquitted. Prosecutors appealed, the appeals court overturned the jury and ordered him jailed in 1975. He served 10 months, suffering a heart attack while in solitary.
On his release, Morgentaler set up more abortion clinics. By that time, the law had been changed and appeals courts could no longer substitute a conviction for a jury acquittal; they could only order a new trial. With all the jury nullifications, the cops were getting cold feet about further arrests.
In 1982, Canada amended its constitution to bring in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, codifying many of the rights in the American Bill of Rights. Morgentaler challenged Canada’s abortion law under the new Charter. In 1988, the Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional and told Parliament to rewrite it. The House of Commons passed a new bill by nine votes and sent it to the Senate for approval. The bill failed on a tie vote. Since then, Canada has had no criminal restrictions on abortion and it is a publicly funded medical procedure.
I don’t think Canadian juries are more prone to nullification than American ones. Even a rural Texas jury doesn’t want to jail doctors, especially when rural hospitals are closing. Necessity is a common law defense in American law too, typically applying in emergency situations where immediate action is required to avert imminent danger – such as saving the mother’s life. Where’s the doctor crazy enough to do the right thing by the mother, damn the consequences?
What level of hate? What hate? It’s not hate to say that a man is not a frog or a lampshade or a car or Albania or sunset over the Pacific. It’s not hate to say that people are not something they are very obviously not – it’s just stating the obvious.
It can of course be cruel to tell people they are ugly or boring or a nuisance, but saying that a man is a man isn’t like that. If there’s any cruelty in this conflict it’s the cruelty of men trying to usurp even being a woman. It’s not hate to tell men they can’t join a group that’s specifically and explicitly for women, and it’s not hate to tell them they’re not women. They may not like it, but that’s another matter.
It’s a kind of egotism, this puffing up ordinary expressions of reality into “cruelty” and wounded feelings and sleepless nights and whole piles of handkerchiefs soaked with tears. Maybe it’s time to grow up now? Hmm?