Category: Notes and Comment Blog

More from the Manchester event:

That hefty guy in the black top and blue skirt near the right margin is the one who told her to “get off our streets.” He flapped his hand at her in a “shoo” gesture. Very bossy, very entitled, very rude, very male.

The People’s History Museum stood up for the people known as “women”!

Then some anti-feminist goons tried to rain on the parade but they failed.

Hmmm. I doubt that.

Donald Trump was “really, really upset” when he learned that his former White House adviser Peter Navarro had been convicted of contempt of Congress, according to the ex-president’s close ally Rudy Giuliani.

“This one really got to me,” Giuliani – the former New York City mayor and Trump attorney – said Friday on the far-right media outlet Newsmax. “I was with former president Trump when we found out about it [on Thursday], and I’ve got to tell you, he was really, really upset about it.”

No he wasn’t. He was pissed off. Not the same thing.

Trump doesn’t get “upset.” Ever. He doesn’t feel sorrow or (emotional) pain or grief, much less sympathy or pain for others. Ever. He never gets anything but angry. You know this, Giuliani knows it, everyone knows it. He doesn’t mind anything that’s not a narcissistic wound to him. He could watch a bear eat Ivanka in front of him and all he would feel is mild regret that he wouldn’t be able to leer at her any more.

What did Navarro do? Oh, a little light treason, that’s all.

A House committee investigating the attack suspected Navarro had more information about any connection between claims of voter fraud that Trump allies had pushed and the assault on the Capitol. But Navarro did not surrender any emails, reports or notes, and he refused to testify.

On Thursday, he was found guilty of two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress, both punishable by up to a year behind bars. Navarro’s sentencing has tentatively been scheduled for 12 January.

Gangster behavior in short.

Is it progressive to tell people to kill themselves?

I would have thought no.

AND ANOTHER THING.

Because I missed it the first time around.

“Most don’t have a grounding in feminist theory” – so she’s saying if you’re not an academic with a grounding in feminist theory, you’re…suspect, shall we say. Not quite good enough. Inferior. Not up to Sally Hines’s standards.

So she’s saying feminism is for academics. Like her. She’s saying it’s an academic subject, with an academic theory, and if you want to argue and dispute claims and ideologies as a feminist, you’d better have that academic grounding.

So she’s saying a political movement, a struggle against oppression and baked-in contempt, is not for most people.

Imagine saying that about striking workers. Or climate activists. Or refugees. Or anti-racism activists. Imagine saying it about any other political activism. She wouldn’t, would she. She’d call it elitist, wouldn’t she.

But somehow feminism is for people like her, especially her. It’s not for the rabble who simply are women and don’t want to be treated as second-rate.

Sally Does SCIENCE!!

Sally Hines is still hating on feminists while claiming to be a feminist.

She starts by reminiscing about her involvement in feminism in her teens and twenties.

A man who wanted to be a feminist ally could usefully run the crèche, wash the pots, write the Xmas cards . But quietly and without expecting praise. Useful possibly. Needed never. Given the megaphone, impossible.

— Sally Hines (@sally_hines) September 8, 2023

But now, she goes on to say, all they have to do is say “I’m a woman” and they’re given the microphone to call feminist women misogynist names…hahaha just kidding. Of course she goes on to say the opposite of that.

She has a PhD in DARVO.

Oh not Kew ffs. Kew is one of the best things on the planet (albeit far too expensive now).

Oh do stop. Write an opera about queer idenninies if you like but leave Kew out of it. Kew is a botanical garden, not a museum of queer idenninies.

The 2/2 has disappeared so I’ll finish the sentence for them – “Although we’re aware that some people view the word as a homophobic insult we really don’t care, because we’re trendier than that. Sucks to be you, sorry.”

And all for what? How many “queer” people feel excluded from Kew anyway?

Have you ever looked into the eyes of a tree? I mean really looked?

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Nothing added to nothing is nothing.

He’s fooled himself into thinking a few superficial trappings can fool a survival mechanism (telling a conspecific’s sex) that’s hundreds of millions of years old. We are wired to clock someone’s sex from scores and scores of yards away, even in dim light where all we can make out is a sillhouette and a gait. No doubt many of the other people he thinks he’s fooling are just being nice and humouring him, or hoping to avoid an angry, aggressive “IT’S MA’AM!” response. Even if his makeup was, according to his hair stylist, “on point and flawless,” it might only mean he’d applied it comparatively well, not that it was succeeding in erasing his maleness. Is the stylist going to risk pissing off the guy sitting right there in the chair? Easier and safer to flatter and lie. Stephonknee Wolscht didn’t fool anyone into believing he was a five year old girl; anyone who “accepted” him as such was just playing along, but doing him no favours.

I wonder if this guy’s failure to pass will spur him on to more radical, surgical interventions to “feminize” his facial bone structure and his body shape? For most men, it would take this kind of cheating to “pass,” and even then, the surgical interventions, like the superficial wardrobe, make-up, and comportment gambits, tend to exaggerated and stereotypical.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on But are you?

It’s so creepy because it’s so paranoid. Signalling that there’s a kind of diffuse, spectral force of terror out there. The world is just so, so full of evil people! But I’m not one of them! I’m safe!

The real force of terror is the idea itself — the paranoia that at any moment you could be marked as One of Them instead of One of Us, the Good People. So you must be vigilant and demonstrate your commitment to Us, against Them.

It’s the Crucible. The poster might as well say:

I am not a witch.

If you are

in any way

afraid

of being harmed by a witch

or you suspect

that someone’s a witch

let me know.

I’ll prove I’m not a witch

by joining in the witch hunt.

Ron DeSantis is doing his best to nullify the Voting Rights Act.

In mid-August, lawyers representing Florida Republicans made a startling admission. The state’s new congressional map, drawn by governor Ron DeSantis, made it harder for Black voters in north Florida to elect the candidate of their choosing. On Sunday, a judge in Florida ruled the map was unlawful.

From 2016 until last year, Florida’s fifth congressional district had stretched more than 150 miles across the northern part of the state, from Jacksonville to just west of Tallahassee. It was a portion of the state once home to the Ku Klux Klan and lynchings. In 2022, it was represented by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, and 46% of eligible voters were Black.

That year, DeSantis went out of his way to chop the district up into four majority-white ones, all of which elected a Republican last fall.

…

It was the kind of concession that politicians, wary of doing anything that could be perceived as motivated by racial animus, rarely make. And it was particularly striking in Florida, where a provision in the state’s constitution specifically outlaws diminishing the influence of Black voters in that way. Voters overwhelmingly approved that provision as part of a set of anti-gerrymandering reforms, called the fair districts amendment, in 2010.

Welp 2010 was another world. This is now, and racist gerrymandering is the hot new trend.

So it was no surprise that circuit judge J Lee Marsh struck down the map. “Under the stipulated facts [in the lawsuit], plaintiffs have shown that the enacted plan results in the diminishment of Black voters’ ability to elect their candidate of choice in violation of the Florida constitution,” he wrote in his ruling.

…

DeSantis is already appealing the ruling and the case is likely to be decided by the Florida supreme court, where he has appointed five of the seven justices. And the governor has his sights set on an even bigger goal – getting rid of the protection in the state constitution altogether. It’s an aggressive legal gambit that’s part of a broader conservative push in the courts to limit considerations of race in redistricting, even when it’s being used to protect voters of color.

“Even”? The word you want is “especially.”

While the Florida case is unique because it involves a state-based constitutional provision, it could have broader implications if it reaches the US supreme court, said Mark Gaber, the senior director of redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center, a non-profit group. The court could be forced to decide whether “the history of past discrimination makes it constitutional to prohibit the diminishment, the retrogression, of minority voting strength”, Gaber said. Its decision could affect a handful of other states that have implemented their own standards barring retrogression.

We must pretend that slavery and racism never happened starting NOW.

Talk about too much power in the hands of one unelected gazillionaire…

Elon Musk says he refused to give Kyiv access to his Starlink communications network over Crimea to avoid complicity in a “major act of war”. Kyiv had sent an emergency request to activate Starlink to Sevastopol, home to a major Russian navy port, he said. His comments came after a book alleged he had switched off Starlink to thwart a drone attack on Russian ships.

A senior Ukrainian official says this enabled Russian attacks and accused him of “committing evil”. Russian naval vessels had since taken part in deadly attacks on civilians, he said. “By not allowing Ukrainian drones to destroy part of the Russian military (!) fleet via Starlink interference, Elon Musk allowed this fleet to fire Kalibr missiles at Ukrainian cities,” he said. “Why do some people so desperately want to defend war criminals and their desire to commit murder? And do they now realize that they are committing evil and encouraging evil?” he added.

Bajillionaires have too much power around here.

Pink News of course is thrilled at the attention from Northumbria Police.

Police are treating transphobic graffiti sprayed in various locations in Northumberland as a hate crime. 

…

An image shared on X, previously known as Twitter, show the words: “U can’t change sex”, written on the bridge, with the reply “Just watch me, mate” penned underneath. A second picture shows graffiti which refers to “woke” as “fascists in disguise”. 

Is it “phobic” to say you can’t change sex?

Is it phobic to say that as a general statement rather than a personal one to a particular wannabe sex-changer?

Graffiti as such is a form of vandalism, but is it a worse form because it expresses the truth that humans can’t change sex?

One local person wrote on social media: “It was a pretty good day until I walked over the High Level Bridge this evening and was sickened by relentless graffiti encouraging ‘woke’ people to jump.”

There are no photos of such graffiti though. There are photos of “u can’t change sex” but not of telling people to jump. You’d think there would be, since telling people to jump is far worse than saying people can’t change sex.

After that Pink News goes on and on and on for 20 paragraphs or so about rising hate crimes against That Community but says not a word about women. The solidarity is all in one direction. Women must support, but don’t we dare expect any support in return.

Northumbria Police are freaking out over…graffiti.

I have to wonder if Northumbria Police ever say a word on social media about misogynist graffiti. I don’t know, and I don’t have anywhere near the patience to scroll through their tweets in an attempt to find out, but my guess is that they haven’t. This isn’t a wild guess, but one based on this pattern. What pattern? This one. The one of freaking out about gender-protestantism as if it were a crime to know that men are men. The one of rushing to cuddle and soothe men who claim to be women while never rushing to cuddle and soothe women. The wildly disproportionate concern for men who pretend to be women coupled with the massive indifference about women.

How can women find out more about support from Northumbria Police? Any hints?

It’s bizarre and alarming to see a whole generation of people (well, a big chunk of that generation) insisting on the magical idea that We Can Be Whatever We Choose To Be. No we can’t. Of course we can’t. We can’t be anything other than humans, for instance – we can’t be rocks or planets or buildings or flowers or lizards – there’s an infinite number of things we can’t be. (We can’t be a lizard, or two lizards, or…) It’s worrying to see so many people so bewitched by a stupid ideology that they think we can be whatever we decide to be – that they think it and say it aloud, in public.

No, we don’t. That’s not even close to true. We have the power to define ourselves in some quite limited ways, but that’s it.

Grandiosity is not healthy for human beings.

That poster is still doing the rounds.

Well…ok but…how shall I put this…anyone can say that. It’s just saying. There’s no particular reason anyone should believe it. We can all draw up statements that start with “I am”; they won’t all necessarily be true.

Maybe the credulity here has bled over from trans ideology, where a certain kind of self-declaration from a certain kind of person is treated as both sacred and mandatory-to-believe. “People are who they say they are,” we’re told constantly – unless of course the people in question are those horrible feminist women who ask questions like “Why should I believe you?”

What if feminists started wearing that “I am a safe person” badge? Would the misogynist activists believe us? Of course not. So…why should we believe anyone who wears the badge? Why should anyone?

Hilarious. (Sorry, just another rando on Twitter, but the thinking is so absurd I can’t resist.)

How do you see a [man] with a headband, a short “pixie” haircut, makeup, lipstick, purse, skirt, and feminine voice, and think this is a man with a headband, a short “pixie” haircut, makeup, lipstick, purse, skirt, and feminine voice? The usual way, bro.

It’s so funny that he thinks adding up all the silly markers will somehow clinch the deal. It’s hilarious that he thinks quantity makes a difference when the quality is not so very convincing. No, dude; zero plus zero is zero. A man in lipstick and a “pixie” haircut (didn’t people stop talking about “pixie” haircuts around half a century ago?) and a headband and makeup and skirt with a purse and feminine voice is still a man. [Also the “feminine voice” probably isn’t.] Adding them up doesn’t change anything. I can put on cat ears and draw whiskers on my face and carry a can of cat food and I still won’t convince anyone I’m a cat.

Oh did he indeed.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee ominously predicted that if Donald Trump is prevented from winning or running in the 2024 election, it will be the last election “decided by ballots rather than bullets.”

And by “ominously predicted” they mean “threatened.”

Mr Huckabee seemed to be reiterating a common accusation from Republicans, Mr Trump first among them, who have claimed that President Biden is essentially waging a political war against the former president as the Justice Department — and state courts — have indicted him over various charges. There is no evidence to support the claims of election interference or political retribution.

And – listen up Mr Huckabee – there is abundant evidence that Trump did interfere with the last election, including that phone call that we’ve all listened to and including that speech on the White House lawn that we’ve all watched and listened to and that failure to act when his private army stormed Congress. The election interference came from inside the house.

Following Mr Trump’s indictment in the Georgia election probe, Texas Sen Ted Cruz said, “This is disgraceful. Our country’s over 200 years old. We’ve never once indicted a former president, or a candidate or a leading candidate for president and this is Joe Biden and this is the Democratsweaponizing the justice system because they’re afraid of the voters.”

Again, backward. (So much DARVO.) We’ve never once had such a flagrantly criminal and treasonous sack of shit former president. Not even Harding, not even Nixon.The issue is not holding Trump accountable, the issue is Trump being a flagrant open in your face criminal and wannabe overthrower of the government.

UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls Reem Alsalem responds to a response [pdf]:

On 18th of May 2023, the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) published
a statement on its website entitled “There is no place for anti-trans agendas in the UN”, which
as of today, was signed by 844 organizations and individuals. I was informed by the two
executive directors of AWID, Inna Michaeli and Faye Macheke Co-Executive Directors a week
later (the 24th of May 2023) that the letter had been published. A day later, I acknowledged
receipt and informed AWID that I would be responding to the letter at an appropriate time
and space. I am choosing to do so today.

In the letter, AWID and its co-signatories stated that I had “weaponized “protection of
women’s rights” to advocate for positions that misrepresent and regress from international
norms and standards.

I will not dwell on these false and dangerous allegations, as I have done so elsewhere in great
detail, including in response to a similar letter from Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI), which can
be found here. The letter by AWID did however contain one novelty, which I found very
concerning, namely its allegation that I reportedly continue to “perpetuate narratives
upholding outdated and non-scientific understandings of binary biological sex.” There is
nothing outdated or unscientific about the binary nature of sex, and I would encourage
signatories of this letter to seek out biologists for a conversation around this issue.

When men start having babies then they can tell us how outdated and non-scientific our understanding of biological sex is.

The content and symbolism of this letter evoked strong reactions from amongst different
feminist and women organizers, who recognized the gravity of its aim which was to castigate
me as a rapporteur and present me as someone who was anti-trans; who damaged the
integrity of her mandate and who reportedly acted in violation of established human rights
protections and principles. In doing so, the letter also has the intention of punishing and
silencing me, a fate that many women, girls, and their allies across the world continue to
experience when they speak on the issues of sex, gender, and gender identity.

Across the world every day.

What is also gravely concerning to me is that some organizations are trying to undermine the
long-standing and continued record of support that I have had for the right of all women and
girls to be free from violence, as expressed also in my most recent report and statements
since my engagement on Scotland’s self-ID bill. In doing so, they have also tried to deprive
women and girls that are victims of violence of the voice and support of the mandate, as it
carries out vital work in so many different thematic areas that are relevant to the mandate in
order to advance the protection and response agenda.

Actions such as these constitute a conscious attempt to undermine my work as an
independent mandate holder, and to undermine my credibility and reputation. These, in my
view, constitute undue interference in my work as a rapporteur.

I was and continue to be gravely concerned at the way in which organizations that claim to
be human rights centered and feminist, and from which a number are accredited with the
human rights council, still continue to position themselves as the custodians of the feminist
movement, villainizing those who do not agree with their views, and attempt to ban
discussions on issues that many women and girls, in all their diversity, as well as their societies
clearly care about.

All for the sake of men who pretend to be women. (Women who pretend to be men are not excluded, but we all know they don’t do a fraction of the shouting and bullying and punishing that the men do.)

Read the whole thing.

But…

A man who dressed as a woman to sexually assault another man has been found guilty by a jury.

Wayne Rogers, 47, wore a wig and fake breasts when he targeted a 20-year-old who had been out drinking in Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire, in September.

But how do they know he’s not trans? Or non-binary? How do they know the wig and breasts were not sincere womaning by a sincere trans woman living her best life?

“He is a sexual predator that picks on drunk men and deceives them by being dressed as a woman,” prosecutor Mark Trafford KC said.

How can they know he’s not a trans woman? Maybe he’s too bashful to say he’s a trans woman, but that doesn’t make him any less a trans woman, or any less a woman. People who dress as women are women.

Rogers was arrested on 4 November. Police found two blonde wigs and a pair of fake breasts under the defendant’s bed.

So? Since when are women not allowed to wear wigs or falsies?

Are the police terfs now?