Trump goes all ancient Rome on us.

As The New York Times reported, the Republican candidate also told his evangelical audience that he pitched starting a league for migrants to fight one another for sport.

Appearing at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington on Saturday, Mr. Trump described migrants with the dehumanizing terms he often uses to refer to them, saying they were “tough,” “come from prisons” and are “nasty, mean.” Mr. Trump then said that he had suggested to Dana White, an ally of the former president’s who is the chief executive of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, “Why don’t you set up a migrant league of fighters?”

In fact, the former president seemed quite animated on the subject.

Well, sure, that’s the kind of thing that gets him animated.

Referring to Dana White, Trump told the audience, “I said, ‘Dana, I have an idea. Why don’t you set up a migrant league of fighters and have your regular league of fighters, and then you have the champion of your league — these are the greatest fighters in the world — fight the champion of the migrants.’ I think the migrant guy might win, that’s how tough they are. He didn’t like that idea too much, but actually, it’s not the worst idea I’ve ever had. No, it’s, these are tough people, these people are tough, and they’re nasty, mean.”

Unlike Trump of course, who is empathetic and generous and compassionate.

Trump tells the same stupid story all over again. To demonstrate that he’s not rambling.

Men respecting women:

The Times on The Heresy:

Rosie Duffield and JK Rowling…were threatened with murder by a man for daring to dispute the transparent absurdities of the extreme trans lobby, and championing the right of women to enjoy female-only spaces free of men who identify as women. Like Galileo before them, the two women prefer science to “luxury beliefs” as a guide to truth. They happen to share the view that some things just are, and whether or not people like them is neither here nor there.

We all (we heretics) share the view that like and dislike have no power to change reality (except in the very narrow sense of changing our feelings about reality). Normally adults are well aware of this. We can’t make it start raining with the power of thought, we can’t wish the planet into escaping climate change, we can’t resurrect the dead, we can’t reverse crop failures, we can’t go for a stroll on Mars. We know that. Yet somehow this one thing has become an exception to the broad general reality. Why? I have yet to see any convincing explanation.

In 2021 Rosie pointed out that only women have a cervix.

Twenty years ago, no one would have raised an eyebrow at this statement of the blindingly obvious. Yet her party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, reacted to her comment with condemnation. It was, he remarked, “something that shouldn’t be said”. Now, at last, Sir Keir appears to have rediscovered his notes from O-level biology. After taking a lesson from his mentor Sir Tony Blair, who appears to be clearer on the basics, Sir Keir now says women have vaginas and men penises.

Well, to be really exact, he says he agrees with Tony Blair that women have vaginas and men penises. I’m not sure we know he would say that without the Tony Blair intro.

This is an encouraging evidence-based statement from a former practising barrister and director of public prosecutions whose professional currency was indeed evidence. Sir Keir’s Damascene conversion — he once said only 99.9 per cent of women do not have penises — was made during an election debate on Thursday. Asked about why he reprimanded Ms Duffield for her cervix comment, he attempted to use context: it was, he said, “a very toxic, very divided” time.

Yeah, dude, and you jumped for the wrong side, and hung Rosie out to dry, and treated women’s rights as so much dandruff to be brushed off your shoulders. It was and still is a very fucking toxic time for women, and you are no help whatsoever.

I will never understand why they don’t see the absurdity of this. Throw half of humanity – some four billion people – overboard for the sake of a tiny minority of trend-hugging men who claim to be women? Why would any politician make such a grotesque calculation?

Man awarded $35,000 Canadian because a salon refused to wax his legs.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) has awarded $35,000 in damages to an Indigenous transgender woman who was refused a leg wax at a salon in Windsor six years ago. However, the owner of the salon is challenging the ruling, which his lawyer calls “deeply flawed.”

The decision comes six years after the woman contacted Mad Wax Windsor Inc. by phone to book an appointment. She alleged there was a string of discriminatory and retaliatory behaviour by the salon and owner Jason Carruthers. 

…

In their phone call, the woman testified, Carruthers told her there was no one on staff who would be comfortable providing services to “someone like you.” Carruthers denied using that phrase or misgendering A.B., but said he didn’t have a staff member who could provide “male waxing services.”

I have to admit I know nothing about “waxing services”…but I’m guessing the issue was that the staff was female and they were suspicious of his motivation. I can hear it now – “Oh no dear, all the way up.”

The HRTO ordered Carruthers, the salon and another business to pay $35,000 in damages to A.B., plus interest, and that both Carruthers and salon staff undertake online human rights training.

Why? It’s not a “human right” to get someone to pour hot wax on your legs and then pull it off.

In welcoming the tribunal’s decision, A.B. said no one can silence her or the facts laid out by the tribunal. “This decision brings me some peace,” she said in a media release. “It helps tell the story of the discrimination I faced and the steps taken to escalate that discrimination and harassment against me.”

And the CBC reports all this ridiculous nonsense as if it were true and reasonable. Pathetic.

As long as I’m on the subject…exploring the Texas ACLU Facebook led me to the page of The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity. Guess what: they too refuse to say “women.” (And what tf is reproductive equity?) It’s all people who are pregnant, abortion care for Texans, yadda yadda. “Women” is a filthy word and absolutely must never be used under any circumstances.

It’s been two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned, forever changing the landscape of reproductive and constitutional rights. Despite the challenges and ongoing attacks on abortion access, we’ve persevered and continue to show up for Texan abortion seekers. Thanks to your unwavering support, we’ve expanded our reach and are helping more people than ever before, and we continue the fight towards abortion access for all.

***

Each of our clients receives all of our effort and love to help them have access to abortion and other reproductive services they need. No questions, no fear, and no stigma. Our heart is always with you guys.

***

We fund abortions for Texans in states where abortion is legal. We can also help you pay for ultrasounds, contraception, and other reproductive healthcare.

***

This Pride Month, let’s remember that reproductive justice and queer liberation are inseparable.

Everyone deserves access to abortion and comprehensive healthcare, including queer and trans folks.

​​Pride isn’t just a celebration—it’s a call for liberation. There is no reproductive justice without the liberation of all our queer friends and family, and there is no pride without global liberation.

***

We’re thrilled to announce that our final Fund-a-Thon total is $106,630!

All money raised from Fund-a-Thon goes towards the cost of abortions for Texans who are forced to travel to other states for their care. With our trusted partner clinics in Texas, we are also funding other reproductive care like ultrasounds, contraception, counseling, trans care, and more.

***

It’s a universal rule.

ACLU Texas’s Facebook page is interesting – it talks about immigrants, LGBTQIA+ Texans, people, lives, abortion, reproductive healthcare decisions, migrants, racial profiling, abortion access, abortion care, pregnant people, Pride, the First Amendment, a drag artist, asylum, library books that “center Black, Brown, and LGBTQIA+ stories” – and so on, but there is one subject, one cause, one set of people it just doesn’t name.

And we all know damn well what it is.

Filthy women-hating ACLU.

It doesn’t “include everyone”; that’s meaningless.

Women have historically been the Other sex, the inferior sex, the weaker sex, the stupid sex, the timid sex, the dirty sex, the whorey sex. The point of Title IX was to get rid of that age-old inferior status. It was not to pamper men who like to wear frilly underpants.

“Including everyone” is beside the point. Laws against murder don’t “include everyone”; they make murder a crime. Not everything is or can be or should be “inclusive.”

We need a new direction. Right and left aren’t cutting it. Up? Sideways? Inside out?

Speaking of women’s rights…

The Taliban are reportedly demanding that no Afghan women be allowed to participate in the UN meeting in Doha starting 30 June, set up to discuss the international community’s approach to Afghanistan, and that women’s rights [not be] on the agenda.

And who are the Taliban? Are they all men perhaps?

The Taliban did not participate in UN talks earlier this year, with the UN chief António Guterres saying at the time that the group presented a set of conditions for its participation that “denied us the right to talk to other representatives of the Afghan society” and were “not acceptable”.

And by “other representatives” he of course meant the female half of Afghan society.

In trying to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table now, the UN was giving in to their demands to exclude women’s rights, said the former Afghan minister of women’s affairs Sima Samar.

“This situation is an indirect submission to the will of the Taliban. Law, democracy and sustainable peace are not possible without including half of the population of the society who are women.”

The war on women has so many fronts these days.

Always with the distortions and untruths.

BBC Radio 4:

The author JK Rowling has said she’ll struggle to support Labour at the General Election, accusing Sir Keir Starmer of abandoning women who are concerned about transgender rights.

What a sly invidious way of putting it. No we’re not “concerned about transgender rights.” We’re concerned about women’s rights. Transgender people should have the human rights everyone else has.

They say it not once but twice.

JK Rowling says she has been a Labour voter all her adult life but she says as long as Labour remains dismissive and often offensive towards women concerned about transgender rights, she will struggle to support the party.

This despite the fact that she explicitly said that is not what she is saying (or what we are saying). Just yesterday she said it.

More on the guest appearance of out on parole Sarah Jane Baker still busy intimidating women.

That’s the fella – red beret, sunglasses, striped top, black shorts.

He comes into view at 5 seconds, brandishing his anarchist flag on its metal pole.

It appears that team trans has succeeded in completely shutting down the Let Women Speak [note the irony] rally in Brighton.

And That Guy was there.

Tick tick tick tick

No one in r/Costco — the Reddit group dedicated to the beloved bulk store — could get over it. The hefty, store-brand olive oil bottles they had been purchasing for years, the ones they all agreed were the best and cheapest around, suddenly cost twice what they used to…No one in r/Costco — the Reddit group dedicated to the beloved bulk store — could get over it. The hefty, store-brand olive oil bottles they had been purchasing for years, the ones they all agreed were the best and cheapest around, suddenly cost twice what they used to.

…

In March, a study from scientists at the European Central Bank and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found that rising temperatures could add as much as 1.2percentage points to annual global inflation by 2035. The effects are taking shape already: Drought in Europe is devastating olive harvests.

…

Of all the goods that could be affected by climate-driven price spikes, food is among the most vulnerable, Kotz said. Plants lose more water through their leaves, stop forming flowers and fruit, and eventually are unable to perform photosynthesis. Crops, livestock and fisheries are keenly sensitive to changes in their environments. Sea creatures have been known to cook to death inheat waves.

And of all the goods that humans and all other animals depend on for survival, food is pretty god damn crucial.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a U.N. coalition of the world’s top climate scientists — projects that disasters will increasingly strike multiple agricultural regions at the same time, creating worldwide shortages. One study found that the risk of simultaneous crop failures in major corn-growing regions could increase from a 6 percent chance per year in recent decades to 40 percent if the world warms to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures — a threshold the planet is likely to exceed within the next decade.

In other words: get ready for famine.

Chapter eleventy billion of Starmer saying his record on women’s rights is fabulous so shut up.

Keir Starmer has said he is proud of Labour’s history on women’s rights after JK Rowling said she would struggle to support the party because of its stance on transgender rights. Starmer told reporters on Saturday that he was “very proud of the progress” of past Labour governments, which made a “material difference” to women’s lives.

Yes see that’s not the issue – as of course he knows perfectly well. The issue is what he will do, and the fact that he gives every indication that he will continue to fling shit at women who refuse to agree that men can be women. We’re not asking about Labour’s past, we’re asking about Starmer’s present and future. We’re asking because he keeps throwing women to the wolves.

Writing in the Times on Saturday, Rowling, a former Labour member and donor, said she would struggle to vote for the party “as long as Labour remains dismissive and often offensive towards women fighting to retain the rights”. She said she had a “poor opinion” of Starmer’s character and claimed he was “dismissive and often offensive” of women’s concerns about sex-based rights.

…

Asked for his response to Rowling’s comments, the Labour leader said: “I do respect her, but I would point out the long record that Labour has in government of passing really important legislation which has advanced the rights of women and made a material difference.”

Again. Not the question. Never mind the record; what are you going to do?

On trans rights, he said a Labour government would seek a “reset moment where we can bring the country together and ensure that all debate is done in a respectful way”.

Ok here’s a tip: it’s not “respectful” to parry all questions, much less to reply to questions about what women say with “I agree with what Tony Blair says.”

On Saturday, when asked whether he would now apologise to Duffield, Starmer said: “I think it’s very important, in all political space, that we treat all views with respect and all people with dignity and that’s what I tried to do throughout this. I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve made as a Labour party in government in the past when it comes to women’s rights. I’m conscious that the battle for women’s rights is never over. We need to make further progress in this country.”

In other words he refused, for the billionth time, to answer.

Same old same old same old same old.

Keir Starmer has said he is proud of Labour’s history on women’s rights after JK Rowling said she would struggle to support the party because of its stance on transgender rights.

Starmer told reporters on Saturday that he was “very proud of the progress” of past Labour governments, which made a “material difference” to women’s lives.

Yes we know, and that’s not the issue. The issue is not past Labour but current Labour.

Writing in the Times on Saturday, Rowling, a former Labour member and donor, said she would struggle to vote for the party “as long as Labour remains dismissive and often offensive towards women fighting to retain the[ir] rights”. Asked for his response to Rowling’s comments, the Labour leader said: “I do respect her, but I would point out the long record that Labour has in government of passing really important legislation which has advanced the rights of women and made a material difference.”

Again: we know, but the issue is what Labour does now, and patting yourself on the back for what it did in the past is just changing the subject. If a married man starts punching his wife regularly she’s not going to be mollified by his reminding her of how nice he was to her ten years ago.

On trans rights, he said a Labour government would seek a “reset moment where we can bring the country together and ensure that all debate is done in a respectful way”.

Blah blah blah. That’s just filler. It means nothing.

On Saturday, when asked whether he would now apologise to Duffield, Starmer said: “I think it’s very important, in all political space, that we treat all views with respect and all people with dignity and that’s what I tried to do throughout this. I’m very proud of the progress that we’ve made as a Labour party in government in the past when it comes to women’s rights. I’m conscious that the battle for women’s rights is never over. We need to make further progress in this country.”

In other words no. We know. That’s the problem.

More on Starmer’s exasperated contempt for women:

Starmer has a woman problem, or more specifically, he finds the women who argue for their sex-based rights to be respected, both in law and in practice, extremely irritating. He could barely contain his exasperation during the BBC’s Question Time on Thursday when a young woman asked him about his current views on biological sex, reminding him that he had previously criticised Labour MP Rosie Duffield for stating that “only women have a cervix”. He said at the time her statement of the obvious was something that shouldn’t have been said. “It’s not right.”

It seems he has changed his mind – or has he? Adopting his best human rights lawyer pose, and with only the slightest hint of condescension in his voice, he replied: “Well look, on the biology, I agree with what Tony Blair said the other day in relation to men having penises and women having vaginas.”

I have to stop at that point, again – this time not to snarl but to laugh. Tony Blair said what??? Who ever heard of such a thing? Who knew? This changes everything!!

I mean he didn’t need Tony Blair to say it, did he. It’s not what you’d call an arcane fact. When I quoted him a day or two ago I was so annoyed I didn’t even notice the absurdity. “Tony says men have wee-wees and women have foofies!” Dude everyone says men have penises and women have vaginas. Everyone. You don’t need an authority to say it for you: it’s common knowledge. You really really don’t need MY FRIEND THE FORMER PRIME MINISTER SAYS. You don’t need to name-drop or show off or offer an imprimatur.

It’s far more disgusting than funny, but still, it is also funny.

A little happy ending story.

A pet donkey that escaped his owners five years ago in California has been found “living his best life” with a herd of wild elk. Terrie and Dave Drewry, of Auburn, are convinced the animal, filmed by a hiker earlier in June, is their pet “Diesel”.

…

Diesel was spooked and took off during a hiking trip with Mr Drewry near Clear Lake, California in 2019. Weeks of volunteer searches proved fruitless, and a trail camera image a few months later was the last time he was seen…Then hiker Max Fennell spotted the herd earlier this month, describing the donkey as “happy and healthy”, and posted his film on social media…The elk herd is a few miles away from where Diesel first went missing and in an area where there are no wild donkeys.

So that’s two good reasons to think it really is that particular donkey.

And Max Fennell got a nice letter from PETA.

Bad stupid man complains about woman having concerns he doesn’t approve of.

Bad stupid man accuses women who disagree with his bad stupid tweet of “swarming” his “mentions.” Man said a bad stupid thing and women replied. That’s not “swarming” and man’s “mentions” are not sacred ground that must be kept immaculately clean.

Hmm. Nigel Farage speaks up in defense of manly pastimes like beating up women:

Nigel Farage has praised the misogynist influencer Andrew Tate for being an “important voice” for the “emasculated” and giving boys “perhaps a bit of confidence at school” in online interviews that appear to be aimed at young men over the past year.

The Reform UK leader spoke in favour of Tate for defending “male culture” in a Strike It Big podcast that aired in February, while acknowledging that the influencer had gone “over the top” and elsewhere that he had said some “pretty horrible” things.

Good old male culture, with its mischievous delight in choking and punching and raping women.

Since December 2022, Tate has been facing charges in Romania of human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women, which he denies.

Many politicians and teachers have spoken out against Tate’s influence on young boys in the UK, after the self-proclaimed misogynist said women belonged in the home and were a man’s property. “There’s no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist,” Tate said in one video.

So cheeky! Isn’t he delightful?

In other clips reported by the Observer, the British-American kickboxer – who poses with fast cars and guns, and portrays himself as a cigar-smoking playboy – talks about hitting and choking women, trashing their belongings and stopping them from going out.

…

In his Strike It Big podcast appearance in February, Farage said Tate had been “an important voice” for men, who were being told that male culture should be looked down on.

“Tate was a very important voice for an emasculated … you three guys, you are all 25, you are all kind of being told you can’t be blokes, you can’t do laddish, fun, bloke things … That’s almost what you’re being told. That masculinity is something we should look down upon, something we should frown upon.”

So get out there and beat up some women!

Well you see by “inclusivity drive” we mean inclusion of more boys and no girls.

A leading Scottish school is facing a backlash after its head girl was replaced with a boy in what it claimed was an inclusivity drive.

It is an inclusivity drive – it’s more inclusive of boys.

Williamwood High School in East Renfrewshire has scrapped its positions of head boy and head girl and replaced them with two gender neutral “captains” who are elected by other pupils. Under the system, two of the three male candidates secured the posts while none of the four girls who put themselves forward were chosen.

So it’s inclusive of pupils who don’t want girls as heads or captains or bosses or leaders or whatever label the school comes up with.

The school is facing a backlash from parents and female pupils who claimed that girls are being denied opportunities under the supposedly “progressive” policy. Securing the posts can boost university applications and offer other opportunities such as public speaking.

Yes and that’s why they should all go to boys! Girls are no good at things like university and public speaking.

The school is currently in the process of applying for charter status from the controversial charity LGBT Youth Scotland, which advises against use of words such as boy and girl in classrooms. The organisation advises schools that terms such as “head pupil” are “more inclusive” as alternatives may distress pupils who identify as transgender or non-binary.

Ah. So that’s the real reason. Erasing girls from everything is more “inclusive” of hypothetical gender-magic pupils.

A spokesman for the council said: “Across all our schools, senior pupil leadership teams are in place to represent their peers. The composition of these leadership teams varies, with many schools across Scotland moving away from a head boy and a head girl to appointments of school captains to allow for greater equality.”

But that doesn’t allow for greater equality, you imbecile. Pay attention. It enables less equality, as in zero.