The BBC has ‘given way to transphobic rhetoric’, according to US activist Erin Reed. Erstwhile celebrity India Willoughby says a new editorial policy is ‘dehumanising’ trans people. Their indignation is reflected across gender activist social media.
Erin and India, in their current iteration at the BBC, are ‘biological males who identify as women’. Earlier this year they would have been trans women. Last year they would have been women.
This in a nutshell is the reason for the anger. Perhaps next year Erin and India will simply be he/hims in BBC copy.
Erin’s piece last week, and India’s latest car protest video, were prompted by the BBC describing Sophia Brooks, who accused Graham Linehan of harassment (he was cleared), as a biological male who identifies as a woman, and using neutral ‘they’ pronouns.
Shock horror as news outlet tells the truth about the sex of an aggressive misogynist man.
But there is a new BBC policy to move towards accuracy. It was shared with us last week that the new informal policy is to use ‘biological male who identifies as a woman’ in every story ‘where it helps the audience understand’.
Golly, helping the audience understand what the hell the story is saying: what a concept!
On the other hand: some teams think facts need a trigger warning (we wrote to them about this), the BBC does still use ‘trans women’ and always qualifies the word male, it still substitutes ‘trans’ for ‘male’ in key stories, its reporting is still patchy (for example its coverage of the puberty blocker trial has been a thin version of what’s needed), drag still holds sway and its regional reporting is still pretty well sunk in a bog of affirmation.
Police are investigating a woman for raising safeguarding concerns about Girl Guide commissioner Monica Sulley
We’re in UpsideDownLand again.
A teacher and mother-of-three has been questioned under caution by Merseyside Police for sending a letter to Girlguiding UK raising safeguarding concerns.
Social media reports showed that Sulley, a trans woman, had posted pictures of herself on Instagram wearing dominatrix clothing, one of which was captioned “Now behave yourselves or Mistress will have to punish you #mistress.” She had also posted a picture in which she wielded what appeared to be a fake assault rifle.
The Merseyside woman, who does not wish to be named, wrote two emails expressing safeguarding concerns about the appointment: one to Girlguiding UK, and one to the local Girlguiding organisation in Southwell. She was one of a number to write such emails: in late November, Mail Online reported that Girlguiding UK was carrying out an investigation into Sulley.
The woman received a formal acknowledgement of her email from the national organisation, which didn’t address the particular issue she’d raised. She then heard nothing more until 7 January this year, when a police officer came to her house and told her she needed to attend the police station for an interview under caution, which “meant that I could attend voluntarily, but that if I chose not to attend I could be arrested.” As a response to a simple email, this felt, she says, as if things were “spinning out of control.”
On 13 January, she was interviewed under caution at Smithdown Lane Police Station in Liverpool. During the interview, which lasted an hour, she was asked about the contents of the email and why she sent it. She was told that she could be charged under the Malicious Communications Act.
If Sulley had been displaying his kink privately, I could maybe see it, but he was displaying it on Instagram. If you flaunt your kink on social meeja you may get talked about.
She didn’t have difficulty answering the questions, she says: “I’d been a teacher and a mum for years and am old enough to feel certain and confident that there was a breach in safeguarding. I kept referring to the unsuitability of such a person for the role, and that it meant that young girls in this case were threatened, that their safety and privacy were threatened.”
She also told the police officer that safeguarding rules exist to protect women and girls from the minority of biological males who are predatory. At the prompting of the duty solicitor, she pointed out that when Girl Guides go to camp, they share accommodation and showers, and that “to have male-bodied men in that setting, I believed, was a safeguarding concern.”
At the end of the interview, she was told that her case would be sent to the CPS for consideration. Her duty solicitor, she reports, “said he had never been more baffled in his life.” When the solicitor asked the police officer whether it was necessary to proceed to the CPS, the police officer replied, she says, that the email was considered a “hate crime”.
Again, this was nearly four years ago, and maybe wouldn’t happen now, but still, godalmighty – that it ever happened is horrifying.
Denise Wilson (Chair of Trustees), Felicity Oswald (CEO) and Tracy Foster (Chief Guide)
02 December 2025
Following April’s Supreme Court decision relating to sex and gender, many organisations across the country have been facing complex decisions about what it means for girls and women and for the wider communities affected.
Complex shmomplex. It’s not complex at all. Boys are not girls: get out.
Girlguiding’s governing charity documents set out that the membership and people who benefit from our organisation are girls and women. The Supreme Court ruled that girls and women are defined in the Equality Act 2010 by their biological sex at birth.
Because what the fuck else would they be you dribbling loonies?!
God I’m sick of this playing dumb pretend confusion fantasy disbelief. These are adults; they haven’t been steeped in trans ideology their whole lives; they know perfectly well that boys are not girls. They’re putting on this ridiculous bewildered act because they have somehow convinced themselves that boys who dislike being boys matter far more than mere girls.
Girlguiding’s governing charity documents set out that the membership and people who benefit from our organisation are girls and women. The Supreme Court ruled that girls and women are defined in the Equality Act 2010 by their biological sex at birth.
In other words the court had to go to the trouble of ruling what everyone already knew. No depth of misery at being a boy can make a boy into a girl. That’s not how this works. No depth of misery at being a human can make a human into a giraffe or a bat or a flea or a hummingbird. Wishes can change some kinds of reality, but not all kinds.
Following detailed considerations, expert legal advice and input from senior members, young members and our Council, the Board of Trustees for Girlguiding has made the difficult decision that Girlguiding must change, following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
From today, 2 December, it is with a heavy heart that we are announcing trans girls and young women will no longer be able to join Girlguiding. This is a decision we would have preferred not to make, and we know that this may be upsetting for members of our community.
What a pack of shits. They’re in anguish because they can’t keep on ruining Girl Guides for girls.
Girlguiding believes strongly in inclusion, and we will continue to support young people and adults in marginalised groups.
So, what if you were an organization for children with physical handicaps? Would you allow children with zero physical handicaps to join, with the result that children with physical handicaps would no longer have an organization for them? Would you just ignore the whole point of having that specific kind of organization, which is to provide children who are in some way disadvantaged with a place where that disadvantage no longer applies? If so, WHY???
Oh dear. She’s “trans nonbinareee” she tells us, but do we by any chance know why she has pain from these surgical scars here after her elective double mastectomy? Not that she doesn’t love her mastectomy, no no no, but there is the hurty part. Also, she loves us very much.
She’s startin’ to have some physical limitations? But like she said [sic], she’s starting to have some physical limitations with certain movements [like moving her arms for instance], some pain in certain areas, some muscle isssssues in certain parts.
President Donald J. Trump’s behavior over the holiday weekend has increased concern about his mental acuity. A rant on his social media account at midnight on Thanksgiving itself threatened to strip citizenship from naturalized immigrants, called Minnesota governor Tim Walz a profoundly offensive slur, and ended: “HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for—You won’t be here for long!”
On NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday, Walz responded by calling for Trump to release the results of an MRI he told reporters he underwent in October, later saying: “I have no idea what they analyze, but whatever they analyze, they analyzed it well and they said that I had as good a result as they’ve ever seen.” Although Trump told reporters the MRI was part of his routine physical, medical experts say such tests are not routine.
Walz said to Kristen Welker: “Here we got a guy on Thanksgiving, where we spent time with our families, we ate, we played Yahtzee, we cheered for football or whatever. This guy is apparently in a room, ranting about everything else. This is not normal behavior. It is not healthy. And presidents throughout time have released a couple things. They’ve released their tax returns—not Donald Trump—and they’ve released their medical records—not Donald Trump. And look, the MRI is one thing, but I think what’s most concerning about this is, as your viewers out there are listening, has anyone in the history of the world ever had an MRI assigned to them and have no idea what it was for, as he says? So look, it’s clear the President’s fading physically. I think the mental capacity, again, ranting, you know, crazily at midnight on Thanksgiving about everything else. There’s reasons for us to be concerned. This is a guy that randomly says the airspace over Venezuela’s closed. He’s ruminating on if you could win a nuclear war. Look, this is a serious position. It’s the most powerful position in the world, and we have someone at midnight throwing around slurs that demonize our children, at the same time he’s not solving any of the problems. So I’m deeply concerned that he is incapable of doing the job.”
Last night, on Air Force One, Trump responded oddly to a reporter’s question about Walz’s call for Trump to release the MRI results: “[I]f they want to release it, it’s okay with me to release it,” Trump said. “It’s perfect. It’s like my phone call where I got impeached. It’s absolutely perfect…. [I]f you want to have it released, I’ll release it.” When a reporter asked “What part of your body was the MRI looking at?” Trump answered: “I have no idea. It was just an MRI. What part of the body? It wasn’t the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it. I got a perfect mark, which you would be incapable of doing,” he said, pointing at the female reporter. He then pointed at another female reporter and said: “You, too.”
He didn’t get a perfect mark. If the test were on misogyny on the other hand, that he would ace.
Today White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt released a memo from the president’s physician, Sean P. Barbabella, saying that “advanced imaging” was performed on the president as a preventative measure. The memo said this imaging “was performed because men in his age group benefit from a thorough evaluation of cardiovascular and abdominal health.” It said Trump’s cardiovascular and abdominal imaging is “perfectly normal.”
Conspicuously absent from the memo was any reference to the president’s brain.
Picky picky picky. Brain, abdomen; what’s the difference?
The White House is saying Trump’s MRI was just normal routine preventative care. The trouble is, that’s not a thing. I asked Google/AI specifically: Is it true that preventative MRI scans are normal? The answer is no.
No, preventative full-body MRI scans are not considered standard or normal by major medical organizations. While they can find abnormalities, they are not recommended for the general public because they often lead to false positives, unnecessary anxiety, expensive and potentially risky follow-up procedures, and lack of proven effectiveness in improving health outcomes or lifespan. Standard MRI scans are typically used to diagnose specific symptoms or monitor a known condition, not for general, symptom-free screening.
And yet the White House swears up and down that Trump’s MRI was just totally normal routine boring standard practice.
The Creeps at the Failing New York Times are at it again. I won the 2024 Presidential Election in a Landslide, winning all Seven Swing States, the Popular Vote, and the Electoral College by a lot. I won our Nation’s Districts by 2750 to 550, a complete wipeout. I settled 8 Wars, have 48 New Stock Market Highs, our Economy is Great, and our Country is RESPECTED AGAIN all over the World, respected like never before. The last Administration had the Highest Inflation in history – I have already brought that down to normal, and prices, including groceries, are coming down. To do this requires a lot of Work and Energy, and I have never worked so hard in my life. Yet despite all of this the Radical Left Lunatics in the soon to fold New York Times did a hit piece on me that I am perhaps losing my Energy, despite facts that show the exact opposite.
He still has his Energy, damn you! He also still has his random Capital Letters – Work and Energy get caps but prices, groceries, life, piece, and facts do not. Even dear friendly opposite does not get a capital letter.
They know this is wrong, as is almost every thing that they write about me, including election results, ALL PURPOSELY NEGATIVE. This cheap “RAG” is truly an “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE.” The writer of the story, Katie Rogers, who is assigned to write only bad things about me, is a third rate reporter who is ugly, both inside and out.
Doooooooonald, you’re projectiiiiiiiiiing again.
There will be a day when I run low on Energy, it happens to everyone
Here is what I’ve learned from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal so far: If you are rich, practiced in the art of flattery, generous with favors and connections and donations, give star-studded dinner parties, and offer flights on your private plane, nobody cares if you hired a 14-year-old girl for sex.
Or, nobody except those boring cranky argumentative people who think women and girls matter.
Even if you went to jail for it—though Alan Dershowitz and future labor secretary Alexander Acosta finagled a deal whereby you didn’t serve your whole sentence and were allowed out during the day and on weekends. Nobody’s going to ask a lot of follow-up questions about your activities in the years since your encounter with the law. It was just the one time! Mistake of judgment!
As Jeffrey Epstein’s very good friend Noam Chomsky (yes, that Noam Chomsky) put it in 2023 when The Wall Street Journal asked him about his extensive contacts with Epstein over many years, “What was known about Jeffrey Epstein was that he had been convicted of a crime and had served his sentence. According to US laws and norms, that yields a clean slate.”
What???
Like hell it does.
It yields a you have served your sentence. Having served a sentence is not the same thing as a clean slate. It means you can’t be sentenced again for the same crime; it does not mean you are now a decent human being. You may be a reformed human being, but then again you may not. Having served a sentence doesn’t tell us which you are.
Epstein had no problem attracting famous, brilliant, immensely powerful people into his circle, almost all men.
Because women are for poking; women are not for brilliant. Nobody cares what’s in a woman’s brain.
Everyone who hung out with Epstein had more than enough information to ask hard questions about their dear friend Jeffrey and chose not to ask them. Or maybe even to think them. As the Nobel Prize–winning theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, who himself left Arizona State University over sexual harassment accusations, told an interviewer in 2011, “As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people.”
Oh come on. That’s azza scientist I judge based on empirical evidence? I’ve seen all these very young women around him but I haven’t watched him fuck them so I would believe him and no one else? That’s not judging on empirical evidence, that’s seeing what you want to see and nothing else. Or as Katha puts it, “Empirical evidence apparently doesn’t include a conviction for soliciting a minor and lifelong placement on the sex-crimes registry.”
These are men accustomed to looking beneath the surface and pursuing what is hidden wherever it leads—about science, language, world affairs. But about these women those men evinced a profound incuriosity. They were just the scenery, the help, or as Dominique Strauss-Kahn memorably put it, the “equipment.” In degree but not in kind, they are like the men in Southern France who were invited to rape a drugged Gisele Pelicot, and justified this bizarre situation on the basis that her husband had given permission.
The president has picked up where he left off before Thanksgiving, when it comes to his anger at the six Democratic lawmakers who took part in a video urging service members to “refuse illegal orders”.
A reminder, that Trump initially went on a Truth Social tirade, accusing the members of Congress (all of whom are veterans or former intelligence officials) of sedition, adding that their actions are “punishable by death”.
They are all veterans or former intelligence officials, and he is not. He is a real estate hustler. That’s it, that’s his “profession”. He’s qualified to tell service members to commit war crimes by his decades of experience building casinos and golf resorts.
In 2003, aged 20, Appel trained as a hairdresser and worked in a salon for a decade. In 2011, he met his husband-to-be, and in 2017 they moved to New York, where he enrolled at Columbia University. Studying non-fiction writing, while campaigning against the incoming Trump administration, he became embedded within the so-called liberationist movement that includes LGBT rights.
In the three-and-a-half years he spent there, Appel saw fellow students becoming indoctrinated with pseudoscientific, anti-Western dogma sold to them as progressiveness. He began to see that what was happening was cult-like and “in many ways worse than Lamb of God”.
Any slight digression from the “trans women are women”, “death to the West” type politics was severely punished, he says. “Intelligent young people bent over backwards to be anti-racist, against imperialism and even embracing Islamic jihadists in the process.”
And embracing the idea that being critical of Islam is equivalent to being racist, or for the less subtle types racism tout court.
Social justice warriordom morphed into the cult of queer, and punishments meted out for failure to adhere to the creed were severe, involving bullying and ostracisation.
He had been indoctrinated in the view that sees white cis men (gays included) as the enemy. For these new puritans, the airing of grievances was the preferred blood sport, and there was an obsession with identifying the oppressor, rather than the victim.
That’s a good point. The sadistic thrill of othering one of their own is the top priority.
In his third year at Columbia, he continued to excel, but mentally he was falling apart. “Suddenly,” Appel says, “I was having these symptoms that were exactly like [the ones I experienced as a teenager].”
He found himself flooded with constant anxiety about being a bad person, misspeaking, misgendering and sinning. “It was so all-consuming,” he says. “People started to call me something called ‘cis’ and it had to do with my gender performativity. It sounds horrible. It sounds like sissy.” Not only that, but it was said “in the same cadence that the middle-school kids called me fag, and with the same hatred and the same vitriol behind it”.
The hatred and vitriol are the point. The cause they’re in aid of is just the launchpad.
Now a full-time writer, and non-aligned politically, Appel says: “You have to keep in mind that arguing with these people is like trying to argue with a biblical literalist, in that they believe that holding certain views makes them a good person and protects them from going to hell.
“Now I can say, there’s no third gamete, men should not be in women’s prisons, children are never in the wrong body, and not all white people are racist. I will be saying this even if they bring back the guillotine, right before the blade falls.”
They don’t need the guillotine. They could just lock you in a cell with a video of India Willoughby talking on a loop forever. This is hell, nor are we out of it.
A top Republican and Democrats in Congress suggested on Sunday that American military officials might have committed a war crime in President Trump’s offensive against boats in the Caribbean after a news report said that during one such attack, a follow-up strike was ordered to kill survivors.
The remarks came in response to a Washington Post report on Friday that said that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had given a verbal order to kill everyone aboard boats suspected of smuggling drugs, and that this led a military commander to carry out a second strike to kill those who had initially survived an attack in early September.
“Obviously if that occurred, that would be very serious, and I agree that that would be an illegal act,” Representative Mike Turner, Republican of Ohio and a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.
Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on CBS that if the report was accurate, the attack “rises to the level of a war crime.” And on CNN, when asked if he believed a second strike to kill survivors constituted a war crime, Senator Mark Kelly, Democrat of Arizona, answered, “It seems to.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the thinking is that once the enemy is disarmed and helpless it’s a war crime to kill said enemy.
I don’t fully understand why that doesn’t apply to dropping bombs on small boats, but anyway.
Well it certainly sounds weird. What formal armed conflict? The drug cartels have formally declared war?
Democrats have repeatedly criticized the boat strikes as illegal, likening them to extrajudicial killings. Mr. Kelly was part of a group of six lawmakers who made a video this month that reminded troops they were obligated to refuse illegal orders, though it did not mention any specific order.
On Sunday, Mr. Kelly, who is being investigated by the Pentagon for his remarks in the video, said he had “serious concerns about anybody in that chain of command stepping over a line that they should never step over.”
Mkay so I’m not the only one who doubts the drug cartels have declared war on the US.
Still, many Republicans have expressed support for the military operations in Venezuela. On Sunday, Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a close Trump ally, dismissed The Post’s report and defended the administration.
Mr. Mullin, who is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Mr. Trump was “protecting the United States by being very proactive.”
Well, that’s one way of putting it. No doubt Lt. Calley would have said it if it had been current jargon at the time.
Tracey Smith used phrases including ‘a person is dangerous when they have nothing to lose’, ‘be warned’, and ‘bullets will be flying around’.
Lede:
A woman who tried to summon her MP to court has been jailed for harassment.
Clear enough?
What comes next:
Tracey Smith, who is a trans woman, sent Solicitor General Ellie Reeves 22 emails and 10 voicemails calling her “transphobic” and accusing her older sister – Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves – of physically assaulting her at a buffet bar.
Smith used phrases including “a person is dangerous when they have nothing to lose”, “be warned”, and “bullets will be flying around”.
Newspapers have no business lying about the sex of a violent threatening man in a news article.
The good news is he was sentenced to 26 weeks in prison.
Nevertheless The Standard calls him “her” and “she” throughout the article.
It was as Mara Hafezi watched the first wave of runners line up for Nike’s latest After Dark race aimed at women that she noticed something wasn’t quite right. The 10km event, held last Sunday evening around the Excel centre in east London, had been marketed as an opportunity for women to come together and “reclaim the night” — but among the thousands of female runners in attendance were a handful of men.
“It was really disappointing,” said Hafezi, 35, from London. “The moment you have men involved, whether it’s two or twenty, it’s no longer a women’s-only race. There were people asking, ‘Why are they here?’ I just couldn’t understand it.”
They were there to underline the message yet again that women don’t matter.
Venezuela has reacted angrily to US President Donald Trump’s statement that the airspace around the country should be considered closed.
The country’s foreign ministry called Trump’s comments “another extravagant, illegal and unjustified aggression against the Venezuelan people”.
The US does not have legal authority to close another country’s airspace and the Venezuelan statement accused Trump of making a “colonialist threat”.
Colonialist or idiotic. One of those.
Trump wrote on Truth Social: “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY.”
Writing something on a personal social media platform is just that. It has no more force than a tweet about what someone had for lunch.
Furthermore, writing it in all caps is also toothless. It doesn’t become more of a legal order when issued in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
With Trump ratcheting up his threats, some Democratic and Republican members of the US Congress have expressed anger that he has not sought legislative approval. “Trump’s reckless actions towards Venezuela are pushing America closer and closer to another costly foreign war,” top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer posted on X on Sunday. “Under our constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.”
War Powers refers to both Congress’ and the President’s Constitutional powers over military or armed conflicts by the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2. This presidential power is titled as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it.
Nevertheless, Presidents have engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002. However, Congress never explicitly declared war during these operations; therefore, they are not considered official wars by the United States.
So that works out. Presidents can do wars, they just can’t call them wars. Cool.
Woman jailed for harassing Rachel Reeves’s MP sister
But it’s not a woman. But the Guardian just plain lies about it before admitting it.
A woman who tried to summon her MP, the solicitor general Ellie Reeves, to court has been jailed for harassment in London.
Tracey Smith sent Reeves 22 emails and 10 voicemails calling her “transphobic” and accusing her older sister – the chancellor, Rachel Reeves – of physically assaulting her at a buffet bar.
Smith, who is a trans woman, used phrases including “a person is dangerous when they have nothing to lose” and “bullets will be flying around”.
Not until the third paragraph does this respectable mainstream news outlet admit that Smith is a “trans woman” i.e. a man. The shamelessness of it is breathtaking. Yet again, for those at the back of the room, these are not our fucking crimes.
…a few days ago, my friend and co-editor Lucy Hunter Blackburn and I were sent an open letter signed by a motley crew of more than 150 members of Scotland’s “academic, heritage, arts, literary and cultural sectors”.
It was addressed to the board and senior management of the National Library of Scotland and, in the whiny voice of an entitled teenager denied the latest iPhone, complained that the inclusion of a “certain book” in the library’s centenary exhibition created a “hostile environment for queer and trans people working at and visiting the library”.
How would that work exactly? Can people visiting the library somehow sense that the “certain book” is there even if they don’t so much as glance at the centenary exhibition? Does wrong-think exude a poisonous miasma?
The book in question is The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht, a collection of essays on women’s rights campaigning in Scotland edited by me and Lucy. It was briefly the subject of controversy earlier this year when the National Library excluded it from its centenary exhibition, despite it winning a public vote, after staff concerns that it would cause “harm”.
It was re-instated following a torrent of complaints, and today sits proudly among the 200-plus books that shaped people’s lives, including Robert Louis Stevenson‘s Kidnapped and Juno Dawson’s What’s The T, described as a “no-nonsense guide to all things trans and/or non-binary for teens”.
A splendid display of Scotland’s diverse and inclusive culture one would think, but not, it seems, for the self-appointed guardians of our nation’s culture.
Their missive went on to complain, with no evidence, that “anti-trans activists had been emboldened to harass library visitors”. The library has, in recent months, become “materially less safe”, they said.
And by “materially” they mean…?
It was signed by such luminaries as writer Catherine Wilson Garry, Dave Coates, duty manager of the Fruitmarket Gallery, and Ryan Van Winkle, director of Stanza, Scotland’s international poetry festival.
Peppered among the poets, arts administrators and writers were a number of academics including no less than three professors at Glasgow University and Dr Kevin Guyan, of Edinburgh University, who also happens to be chair of the Scottish Government-funded charity the Equality Network.
A Glasgow University lecturer posted the letter on social media urging people to sign it in support of the library’s queer and trans staff who were “going through an awful time at the moment”.
Are they? Who says? Is the time they’re going through worse than the time women (to choose just one random example) are?
An “awful time” caused, according to the signatories of the letter, by a book written by 34 women about a campaign for women’s rights. A book so powerful that it can cause harm simply by sitting on a shelf next to an Oor Wullie annual. A book so toxic, these modern-day witchfinders cannot even bear to speak its name.
You know…if people are having an “awful time” because of a campaign for women’s rights…doesn’t that tell you more about those people than it does about the campaign for women’s rights? I mean it’s like saying racists are having an awful time because racism is frowned on. “Aw, honey, are you? Well try not being a racist then.” Same with books about women’s rights. If you’re miserable because of a book about women’s rights maybe that’s a you problem and not a that book problem.
It’s old news, but it’s so absurd I can’t just look away.
Most recently, there was this nugget of information from a New Yorker magazine story about the president. Trump “considers exercise misguided, arguing that a person, like a battery, is born with a finite amount of energy,” writes Evan Osnos.
This belief is also described in the Washington Post’s biography of the 45th president, which explains that he gave up sports after college because of this same mysterious “battery” belief, that working out would deplete his energy.
But but but then how does he explain all the successful athletes who…work out?
