Yes, the one consolation for the victory of the convicted felon is that he’s not a TransAlly and won’t be appointing any men who pretend to be women to cabinet posts. No, that’s not because he respects women.

In other words, what she said.

All of what she said:

In case I haven’t been clear in the numerous articles I have written in which I slate and heavily criticise what passes for the modern left these days, including Biden and Harris. I understand, as far as I am able, whyTrump was elected, and the absolute shit show surrounding the Democrats. What I have been astounded about are all of these women and men making statements about how Trump will now protect women and children, and will make that his priority. That women and girls will be safe under Trump. I’m sorry if this has offended you, but I stand by it. And yes, he does know what a woman is. You are certainly right about that.

Like for instance:

Antisemitic riots in Amsterdam:

Israeli commercial planes on Friday were bringing home citizens injured in Amsterdam after bursts of violence tied to a soccer game between a Dutch and an Israeli team that Israeli and Dutch officials described as antisemitic attacks.

…

While the exact sequence of events remained unclear, the violence appeared to be the product of two combustible forces in Europe: the unrest that often accompanies gatherings of hard-core soccer fans and tensions over the yearlong Israeli military offensive in Gaza.

In other words men lose control.

Videos circulating on social media and a video distributed by The Associated Press provide a glimpse of the tensions in the hours leading up to the violence. In the A.P. clip, dozens of men wearing scarves with the colors of the Israeli soccer club, Maccabi Tel Aviv, are seen gathering on Thursday at Amsterdam’s central Dam Square, where flares are being lit amid a heavy police presence.

Other video footage verified by The Times shows a group of men trying to take down a Palestinian flag from a building on Rokin, a street in central Amsterdam. One man is heard saying in Hebrew, “The people of Israel live,” while others shout anti-Palestinian chants using expletives. The earliest versions of the videos appeared on social media in the early hours of Thursday.

It’s almost funny, in a way. What’s it about? Israel and Palestine? Or football?

Europe has experienced an increase in antisemitic incidents in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 and the ensuing war in Gaza. On Thursday, a broad coalition of German lawmakers passed a resolution calling on the government to do more to criminalize and otherwise punish antisemitic acts.

Gaza? Or football?

Originally a comment by Mike Haubrich on Historians will.

@Bevin

If you and your child were to be honest about what is going on with the trans issue, you would be more able to resolve it in a way that protects him, or her in the long run. The transgender issue is an artifact of toxic masculinity. Those children who experience the sexism and bullying of not conforming to the gender expectations of their sex are now being shepherded into a belief that they have a gender identity that is different from their sex, and that the gender identity is what takes primacy in defining whether they are male or female; and that is a dangerous social lie that has taken hold.

Rather than resolving the identity issue, the transgender movement exacerbates it because it affirms that male superior roles are “natural,” while female subservient roles are also natural. We should instead be affirming that males with femimine personae are still males, and that females with masculine personae are yet females. But now we are swimming against a tidal wave of gender confusion with the belief in gender identity. To question it in any way is considered bigotry, and so few people want to be thought of as bigoted (except for the redhatted uglies, of course) that they don’t look at this issue with any sort of skepticism.

I’m sure that you honestly believe that your child is trans and needs your protection as such. But this belief is a result of a social phenomenon that actively puts women at risk of violence, preventing women from having safe private spaces away from males and especially when women are vulnerable. There are men who are keenly aware of the social stigma of questioning trans identities, and so they use this to claim they are trans in order to access women’s private spaces. In clamoring to ensure that men who identify as women are safe from men who get freaked out about such things, society has ensured that women will be cornered in locker rooms, in restrooms, in homeless shelters, in rape crisis centers, and other refuges women have fought for in order to have respite from the dangers of male dominance.

Protect your child, yes, but protect him or her by helping them resolve their sexual identity in a way that affirms rather than denies their true nature. There’s confusion among adults in this issue, not helped by the stigma attached to those who are trying to right it. Imagine how it is for children, who are trying to figure out gender even in the best of circumstances.

Maybe, just maybe, this was never a good idea in the first place.

Trans men sue NHS over ‘half-built’ genitalia

Sorry, mate, just can’t get the parts.

Human rights lawyers are representing patients who have been left with “indeterminate genitalia” and “psychological distress” after their surgery processes were unexpectedly halted.

NHS England had commissioned St Peter’s Andrology Centre, a private clinic in north London, to carry out the surgeries but did not renew the contract upon its expiry in March 2020.

Good old Saint Peter, patron saint of rebuilt peters.

Seeking further information, I learn that andrology is a real thing. Creating a penis out of thigh skin on the other hand, not so much. Whatever you create that way it’s not a penis.

The two genital surgeries in question are metoidioplasty and phalloplasty, in which a penis is created from existing genital tissue or from skin grafts from elsewhere on the body, respectively. They are complex procedures that commonly require three stages of surgery.

It isn’t, though. A pseudo-penis, a dummy penis, a pretend penis, a fake penis – but not a penis.

Department of silly titles department.

Trump’s triumph is a disaster for Starmer and the self-regarding, virtue-signalling elites

Well, yes, but it’s not quite that simple. Just for one thing it’s also a festival for the rich, destructive, profit at all costs elites.

Preening virtue-signaling thought-policing lefties can be annoying, especially when they forget that women are not The Enemy, but that doesn’t make the blunt misogyny and racism and generalized contempt of Trump more acceptable. The choice is not between gender police and Trump; there’s a huge amount of territory between those two silly poles.

That territory is where most people live.

The International Boxing Association speaks up.

The IBA sent a letter to the International Olympic Committee in June last year, warning of the safety risks that women could face at the Paris Games against a fighter who had already failed sex tests. But the IOC took no action, instead allowing Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-ting, a second boxer whose results suggested the same difference in sexual development, to sweep to Olympic titles without losing a single round. Three months on, as the IOC pours scorn on fresh reporting in France about “unverified documents whose origin cannot be confirmed”, the IBA is mounting a staunch defence of the accuracy of its testing procedures.

“It was a chromosome test, to check for XX or XY, and these two boxers didn’t meet the eligibility criteria, because they both fell into the XY category,” Chris Roberts, the IBA chief executive, tells Telegraph Sport. “They were tested twice, in 2022 and 2023. When you receive a secondary laboratory test with the same results, demonstrating that both boxers are ineligible, it’s clear. What comes with it is our obligation and our duty of care to the other athletes.”

A serious obligation and duty of care, because if you put a male boxer in the ring with a female boxer, you are putting the female boxer in extreme danger.

Roberts is unsparing in his argument that the IOC failed to uphold any such duty, with president Thomas Bach insisting with increasing desperation that womanhood could be determined by passport status alone. “In my opinion, Bach has taken two gold medals away from the other two finalists,” he says. “He has a heck of a lot to answer for. I find his comments totally disrespectful. How do you compete as a woman based on a passport? You or I could change our passports to do that.

“We support women’s right to compete against women. In a hard sport, women shouldn’t be subject to anything outside those criteria. When women are going to compete for a gold medal at the Olympic Games, they don’t need another obstacle in the way, an obstacle that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. And these two boxers ended up winning gold medals in both categories.”

It wasn’t fair, and it was dangerous.

There is also the question of why the IOC remains so dismissive about sex tests as a concept, given that Reem Alsalem, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, said last month that they should be mandatory so that women’s events were ring-fenced for those born female.

I’m afraid it’s the usual reason. Women don’t matter. Women aren’t really among the downtrodden, they just pretend to be because they’re Karens.

In a report presented to the General Assembly in New York, she wrote: “There are circumstances in which sex screenings are legitimate and proportional in order to ensure fairness and safety in sports. At the Paris Olympics, female boxers had to compete against two boxers whose sex as females was seriously contested, but the IOC refused to carry out a sex screening. Current technology enables a reliable sex screening procedure through a simple cheek swab with non-invasiveness, confidentiality and dignity.”

Why did the IOC refuse?

Oh goody goody, another first.

State Sen[ator] Sarah McBride will be Delaware’s next representative in Congress, becoming the first transgender person elected to federal office in the history of the United States.

But not, by quite a long way, the first man elected to federal office in the history of the United States.

That’s part of the fun of trans for men, you know – getting to playact being oppressed and ignored and shoved aside All This Time. When you pause to remember they’re men the game crumbles into nothing.

She will assume the congressional seat vacated by U.S. Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, who will replace retiring U.S. Sen. Tom Carper.

Man replaces woman. Big news.

The tribunal ruled that Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had to apologize to Roz Adams.

The rape crisis centre says it is committed to balancing the views, needs and wants of all its service users.

Does that mean “including the male ones”?

Because if so, that’s the same old problem. A rape crisis service shouldn’t be “balancing” men’s needs and wants with women’s needs and wants. Some men’s “wants” include raping women.

Naomi Cunningham explains:

The point is this. Single-sex spaces for women can’t have men in them, because if they do, they’re not single-sex. 

I told you it was simple. It’s like the “no peanuts” rule for a peanut-free dish. If you label a dish “peanut free”, you have to leave the peanuts out. All of them. The fact that lots of people like peanuts is no answer. Peanut-free dishes aren’t about those people: they’re about the people who may go into anaphylactic shock and die if they eat a peanut. It doesn’t matter if the peanut has been mashed to a paste, moulded into the shape of a walnut and scented with walnut oil, so that no-one looking at it, smelling it or eating it would dream that it might be a peanut. It doesn’t matter if it’s got a special certificate that says that for legal purposes it’s a walnut. It still needs to be left out of the peanut-free dish, or the peanut-free dish ain’t peanut-free. 

Anaphylactic shock, sexual assault – not the same things, but both are unwanted.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Historians will.

…knowingly pushing Genderist (or other generally divisive) policies, ideology, and rhetoric prioritizes support for those things over victory.

The bolded part is the part I don’t get, and is the core ingredient of the dictum I’ve noted here on a number of occasions: “Every organization that embraces trans ideology turns to shit.” How is it that these institutions (or at least some sufficiently powerful, decision-making fraction of them) have been able to so completely delude themselves that genderism is in any way progressive, and are willing to maintain that belief in light of the manifest harms to women, children, lesbians and gays, (whom one would expect to be the normal beneficiaries of progressive attention)?

They can’t not know that these harms are happening. Depending on their degree of support for the trans “rights” that are causing these harms, they have to discount, downplay, or ignore them. They also now have a vested interest in getting others to do the same, whether it be through (mis)information, or actual enforcement. This deliberate institutional suppression and disregard for the injury and distress caused by their support of trans “rights” will often run counter to the organization’s original mandate and reason for being. It inevitably results in a bewildering, Kafkaesque “opposite world” of inherently contradictory and antithetical consequences for the “allies’” own operations. We end up with self-censoring news media failing to report fully and honestly about gender issues; prison systems offering incarcerated male sexual predators more female victims. Health systems eroding the clarity and accuracy of communications by removing the word “women” from bulletins nominally meant to alert women of health risks; sports federations forcing women and girls to play alongside and against men, thereby risking injury and disability; rape crisis centers refusing to offer exclusively female care or spaces; organizations originally established to win and protect the rights of gays and lesbians which have dropped same-sex attraction in favour of enforcing a homophobic same gender attraction based agenda. All of these end points are perverse inversions of the original, normal functions of these bodies. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. TWAW.

Again, I return to my real question. I can almost see what the gender zealots within these bodies and agencies get in return for essentially destroying the credibility and reputation of the organizations they’ve shackled to the cause of trans “rights”: woke cookies and the happy glow of militant self- righteousness in fighting for a Good Cause. I imagine that people have betrayed more for much less than that. But what’s in it for the captured and subservient institutions themselves? What’s the payoff? Why do they let this happen in the first place? Why do they let it continue, once the price being paid (by both the institutions and the innocent victims they’re supposed to ignore) becomes clearer? How far will sunk cost fallacy take you away from what you’re supposed to be doing before you finally admit the costs are truly sunk? How does an organization benefit from having its purpose turned around 180 degrees to make it go backwards? Who outside of trans activism (and the trans medico-pharmaceutical industrial complex), actually benefits from associating themselves with this cause?

All too goddam true.

I get the point, and it’s not wrong, but.

First, the issue isn’t the victory for the people who voted for him, the issue is the victory for him.

Second, and more urgent, the issue isn’t that the people who voted for him are clearly stupid and evil, the issue is that HE is clearly stupid and evil, especially the evil part. The issue is why do so many people embrace such a blatantly obviously unmistakably horrible person? One with no redeeming qualities? Honestly it’s hard to find people with no redeeming qualities at all – there’s usually something – good jokes or a bit of charm or occasional generous impulses. Something.

So yeah. It does bother me – profoundly – that so many people love such a howling wilderness of awful.

Whatever else happens, people will still be punished for violations of The Orthodoxy.

A female footballer with suspected autism has been hit with a six-match ban after asking a “bearded” transgender opponent: “Are you a man?”

The 17-year-old cried as she was found guilty of “discrimination” by a national serious case panel over remarks made during a match against a trans-inclusive club.

Serious case forsooth. About as unserious as it gets, if you ask me. Do I think the bearded opponent was genuinely wounded in his feelings? No I do not.

The panel is understood to have found the young woman repeatedly asked whether the alleged victim was a man after she had already been informed the opponent was transgender.

Yes, and? “The opponent is transgender” doesn’t answer the question, now does it.

That hearing was branded “farcical” by one of those present on the call, who said the alleged victim was repeatedly “misgendered” as “he” by panel members, and was also said to have been asked repeatedly: “How many LGBQT+ players do you have in your team?”

Her parents were outraged both by the hearing and the outcome, with her mother telling Telegraph Sport: “We’ve always taught our daughter to ask questions, and if she doesn’t feel comfortable or she doesn’t feel safe then she should go to somebody in charge and ask the question. In safeguarding training at places of work, you’re always told that you should question everything but she’s been told and effectively sanctioned by the FA for doing so. She asked, ‘Are you a man?’, and she admitted to that. The FA is essentially saying that no woman, when faced with what appears to be a male on the pitch, is entitled to ask a question.”

Yes, the FA is saying that and trans ideology in general is saying that, loudly, angrily, often. Women are not allowed to avoid men in any situation or setting whatsoever.

Behold – a piece of good news on this day of horror. Roz Adams wins £70,000 and a public apology from Edinburgh Bully Rape Victims Centre.

A trauma specialist has been awarded almost £70,000 and won a public apology from the rape crisis charity who forced her out of her job in a row over women-only spaces.

The payment to Roz Adams was twice the anticipated figure and came after a tribunal found she was the victim of a “heresy hunt” at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC), where her “sex realist” beliefs were at odds with those of Mridul Wadhwa, the trans activist who was the centre’s chief executive.

The trans activist and man.

Adams suffered harassment after she stood up for a female victim who wanted assurances she would receive counselling from a woman, with Wadhwa identified as the “invisible hand” behind the counsellor’s persecution.

For 16 months under Wadhwa, who identifies as a trans woman but has no gender recognition certificate, the ERCC had no women-only spaces. Referrals to the centre have been paused while its safeguarding procedures are revamped.

Honestly the fact that Wadhwa has no gender recognition certificate is really beside the point. I know it’s not beside the point legally, but in terms of reality, it is. You can’t change sexes with a certificate. You can’t do it at all, and claiming to be able to do it with a certificate is like claiming you can do it with a paper clip or a bottle-opener or a tablespoon of baking soda.

At an earlier redress hearing, Adams argued that Rape Crisis Scotland (RCS), the umbrella organisation for 17 centres across Scotland, was at fault for failing to have a clear definition of “woman”. She urged the tribunal to make a ruling that would affect centres nationally.

McFatridge declined to make a ruling with wider implications. He said: “It is clear … that this is an area where people hold strong beliefs and individuals on both sides of the argument hold strong views that the other side are wrong or misguided or indeed that these opposing beliefs are dangerous.”

Well, yes, but that seems beside the point. Legally speaking maybe it’s not, but ontologically speaking it is. People can hold strong views about anything, and they can simply be wrong, including obviously blatantly undeniably wrong. People who think what sex a person is is a matter of self-declaration as opposed to a brute fact are just wrong. It doesn’t matter how strong their belief is, it matters how well it maps onto the reality.

Strength of belief surely just can’t be a criterion in law, can it? When humans are notoriously able to believe any damn thing they feel like believing?

All right. At such times one must cling to any consolation one can find.

The consolation here is that Sultana is an MP, which is not as disgusting as the return of DT, but it’s still very disgusting, and not our fault.

It’s not looking good.

Harris needs Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and it doesn’t look as if she’s going to get them.

Return of the Toad. I can’t stand it.

Trump finishes his campaign by calling Nancy Pelosi an evil sick crazy bitch.

Standing at his final rally of the 2024 campaign, former President Donald J. Trump in the first minutes after midnight on Election Day used a crude sexist remark to attack Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker who is one of his longstanding political rivals.

“She’s a bad person,” Mr. Trump said at the Van Andel Arena in Grand Rapids, Mich. “Evil. She’s an evil, sick, crazy —” He made an exaggerated face, his mouth open wide to draw attention to the next syllable: “Bi—”

Then he held up a finger dramatically, feigning that he’d caught himself. “Oh no,” he said. As the crowd of thousands began laughing, Mr. Trump mouthed the word into the microphone. “It starts with a B, but I won’t say it,” Mr. Trump added. “I want to say it.”

As the crowd roared even louder, some of the attendees began to supply the word he’d barely omitted, shouting, “Bitch!”

Hawhawhaw. I bet quite a few of them went home and punched the first female human they saw.

Mr. Trump has used misogynistic language to refer to Vice President Kamala Harris and has fostered an environment at his rallies where speakers and attendees feel comfortable making the kind of gendered insults that, in another political era, would have been unthinkable to say in public.

He’s normalized abusive misogynistic insults (as well as racist ones). That’s his legacy.

Mr. Trump has argued that Ms. Harris, who would be the first female president if she wins, lacks the stamina and intelligence to lead the country. He appeared to embrace a remark shouted by a rallygoer that insinuated Ms. Harris was a prostitute. And he voiced some approval of an audience member’s idea to put Ms. Harris in the ring with the boxer Mike Tyson.

In Reading, Pa., Mr. Trump was telling an off-topic aside on Monday about Mr. Tyson when a man in the crowd used it as an opportunity to demean Ms. Harris. “Oh, he says, ‘Put Mike in the ring with Kamala,’” Mr. Trump said. “That will be interesting.” The crowd cheered.

He’s trash. Here’s hoping we can dump him at last.

Well, now, if you can’t or won’t define it, then why are you making policy and laws about it? How are you providing services to it if you don’t know (or refuse to say) what it is? Please explain.

Remember Dr Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who buried evidence that puberty blockers don’t reduce gender dysphoria?

She may end up regretting it.

The finding that the PUBERTY BLOCKERS don’t make children with gender distress less distressed “might be weaponized” – i.e. might prompt medical people to stop blocking children’s puberties on account of how it doesn’t make them any less unhappy. It seems Olsen-Kennedy wants the children to keep on not having a normal puberty even though she now knows it won’t make them less unhappy. “Oh, it doesn’t work? Well, we have to keep doing it anyway, or the bad people will win.”

You’d have thought the whole point was to make the kids less unhappy, right? But oh no. The point was…uh…the point was to normalize blocking puberty, so that more and more kids will do it, even though it won’t make them any less miserable.

So now I know this is a thing.