Peaceful and joyful.
Except when we don’t.
Nah, it’s trying to silence and punish people who don’t believe in magic gender that’s unacceptable.
They were simply asking! That’s all! It’s none of their damn business but that’s all they were doing so everybody else is disgusting so nyah.
You’d think “gender critical” meant “violent sadism” or similar, instead of just meaning awareness that people can’t change sex.
Choss didn’t wait to appoint a new Head of the Royal Medical Household. Edzard Ernst has the details.
Last September, THE GUARDIAN published an article about the HEAD OF THE ROYAL MEDICAL HOUSEHOLD. I did not know much about this position, so I informed myself:
The royal household has its own team of medics, who are on call 24 hours a day. They are led by Prof Sir Huw Thomas (a consultant at King Edward VII’s hospital [the private hospital in Marylebone often used by members of the royal family, including the late Prince Philip] and St Mary’s hospital in Paddington, and professor of gastrointestinal genetics at Imperial College London), head of the medical household and physician to the Queen – a title dating back to 1557. Thomas has been part of the team of royal physicians for 16 years and became the Queen’s personal physician in 2014.
That is, they were led by Huw Thomas as of last September. Now, not. At some point in 2022, no doubt on or after the day Choss magically became king, he was replaced by Michael Dixon.
Yes, Michael Dixon! I am sure this will be of interest. Michael Dixon used to be a friend and an occasional collaborator of mine. He has featured prominently in my memoir as well as in my biography of Charles. In addition, he has been the subject of numerous blog posts, e.g.:
- Today, integrative medicine is about to make history, says Dr. Michael Dixon
- My (most forgettable) paper with Dr Michael Dixon
- Boosting immunity against coronavirus? Dr Michael Dixon’s infinite wisdom on the pandemic
- Dr Michael Dixon seems to support homeopathy as a treatment for cancer
- Should homeopathy be blacklisted in general practice? Dr Michael Dixon’s profoundly misleading comments
- Johrei healing and the amazing Dr Dixon (presidential candidate for the RCGP)
- Dr Dixon’s safe herbal medicine
- Remember the ‘Foundation for Integrated Health’? Here is a good summary of its infamous history
- Prince Charles becomes patron of the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’
- Uncharitable charities? The example of ‘YES TO LIFE’
- A treasure trove of fallacies, falsehoods and deceptions
I am sure that many of my readers would like to join me in wishing both Michael and Charles all the best in their new roles.
Let’s follow a link. How about Prince Charles becomes patron of the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’ from December 2019.
If you had thought that HRH Prince Charles, soon to be King, would calm down regarding his royal bee under his alternative bonnet, you evidently were mistaken. In June 2019, he became the patron of the ‘Faculty of Homeopathy‘ the professional organisation of UK doctor homeopaths. And a few days ago, it has been announced that he now has also become the patron of the ‘College of Medicine and Integrated Health’ (CMIH). The College chair, Michael Dixon, was quoted stating: ‘This is a great honour and will support us as an organisation committed to taking medicine beyond drugs and procedures. This generous royal endorsement will enable us to be ever more ambitious in our mission to achieve a more compassionate and sustainable health service.”
find it hard to be surprised by Charles’ latest move. After all, the CHIM is the direct successor of Charles’ ‘Foundation for Integrated Health‘ (FIH). When this bizarre organisation had to close in 2010 amid claims of fraud, money laundering and misuse of charity status (its chief executive later went to prison!), Dixon quickly organised the creation of the CMIH. Even though he was clearly involved, Charles was probably wise to keep his distance after the scandal. But now, almost a decade later, the dust has settled and he feels he can again patronise (= become a patron).
Among those arrested for being a potential nuisance to Charles Windsor were women’s safety volunteers.
Westminster City Council officials said they are “deeply concerned” by reports women’s safety volunteers were arrested hours before the Coronation.
The Met said at about 02:00 BST on Saturday three people were arrested in Soho on suspicion of conspiracy to commit public nuisance. Among items seized were a number of rape alarms, the force said. The Met said it “received intelligence” people “were planning to use rape alarms to disrupt the procession”.
And which is more important? Women’s safety? Or the procession?
Met Police officers have arrested anti-monarchy protesters in central London ahead of the King’s Coronation. The leader of anti-monarchy group Republic has been arrested and the force said it had detained multiple people in the City of Westminster.
They are held on suspicion of breaching the peace, conspiracy to cause public nuisance and possessing articles to cause criminal damage, the force said. Republic said hundreds of their placards had also been seized.
“A significant police operation is under way in central London,” the force said on Twitter. Footage on social media showed officers using their powers under the new Public Order Act.
Chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, Graham Smith, was among those apprehended in St Martin’s Lane near Trafalgar Square. Pictures showed protesters in yellow “Not My King” T-shirts, including Mr Smith, having their details taken. In one video an officer said: “I’m not going to get into a conversation about that, they are under arrest, end of.”
Arrested for being anti-monarchist in public. It’s breathtaking.
The Met confirmed that four people were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance on St Martin’s Lane and that lock-on devices were seized.
What about the coronation itself? That’s a massive public nuisance, but we don’t see “The Met” arresting people on suspicion of planning to clog up central London for hours.
I honestly didn’t know it was illegal to be anti-monarchy in the UK.
Footage from the scene also showed about 15 protesters being handcuffed and taken away by a heavy police presence.
On Wednesday the Met said that it would have an “extremely low threshold” for protests during the coronation celebrations, and that demonstrators could expect “swift action”.
Why? What right do they have to do that? How are demonstrations illegal and deserving of “swift action” in the form of aggressive arrest? The Beeb shows a photo of a guy being carried off like a sack of potatoes.
The police carried out their threat to arrest people for protesting.
Dozens of people have been arrested during the King’s Coronation, including the leader of a prominent anti-monarchy group. London’s Metropolitan Police said 52 arrests were made for a range of reasons, and all remain in custody.
The arrest of anti-monarchy protesters earlier in the day has been labelled “alarming” by human rights groups. The Met said it “understands” public concern, but that officers had acted proportionally under the law.
“Protest is lawful and it can be disruptive,” Commander Karen Findlay, leading the day’s operation, said – pointing to numerous protests that had been policed without any arrests. Officers, she said, have a duty to intervene “when protest becomes criminal and may cause serious disruption. This depends on the context. The Coronation is a once in a generation event and that is a key consideration in our assessment.”
Well it shouldn’t be. The coronation is a public display of monarchism, and the police have no business imposing monarchism on people who object to it. Police enforcing monarchism underlines what a bad idea monarchism is.
Police said the 52 arrests were made for offences including affray, public order offences, breach of the peace and conspiracy to cause a public nuisance. A breakdown provided later revealed that 32 – or about 60% – were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.
The coronation is a public nuisance! Arrest the people who planned that!
Ugh, it’s so toadying and belly-crawling and repellent.
Women write to the Times to take issue with Martin Samuel’s clueless “be inclusive of cheating men in women’s sports” column.
I am a grassroots runner who has had to compete against males who identify as females for the past eight years. I have lost places in races, prizes and records as a result. As a man, Martin will never be affected by this problem. It is therefore offensive that he deems fairness essential for elite athletes and, in effect, all male athletes, but not for female “fun” runners: we should put the “need for inclusion” above our “competitive priorities”. At what level of competition does Martin deem a female runner worthy of fairness?
Helen Smith, Frodsham, Cheshire
That’s the thing. It’s not ever going to be a problem for men, so how do men manage not to see what a bad look it is to tell women to suck it up? It’s like white people saying racism doesn’t matter, or bosses saying workers don’t need unions.
The vast majority of women like me, for whom sport is hugely important, will never be elite. We compete in amateur events, many now open to all who self-identify as women. It is impossible to compete in amateur cycling now in the UK if you seek a genuinely female-only event. That is devastating. Women and girls are self-excluding as a result.
Tessa McInnes, Leamington Spa
Inclusion isn’t inclusive. Ironic, ain’t it.
Scroll down to the headline Transgender runner row loses sight of what race is all about to read the column I’m talking about.
Glenique Frank ran the London Marathon as a woman, placing 6,160th in a female field of 20,123. Pretty much no one would have known about this had the BBC not singled her out for interview. It then emerged that Glenique had run the New York City Marathon recently as Glen, a man. She is transgender and had been permitted to self-identify. This troubled Mara Yamauchi, a former British Olympian. “Nearly 14,000 women finished in a worse position because of him,” she said. “It’s wrong and unfair.”
Wrong and unfair how? Because “Glenique” ran in the women’s race. He’s not a woman. It’s very simple and easy to grasp.
Certainly, if Frank were denying a place or commercial earnings to professional female athletes, it would be. UK Athletics has issued a blanket ban, excluding those who have gone through male puberty from female events. And that is understandable.
No, it’s not understandable. That makes it sound as if excluding men from women’s athletics were a bad thing to do but understandable because blah blah. Excluding men from women’s anything is not a bad thing to do. Women don’t need anybody’s fucking understanding.
Yet surely there comes a point where competitive priorities are overtaken by the need for inclusion; and if there is ever an event that can accommodate both, it is the London Marathon.
No. No, there isn’t. No, there is no point where wanting to have fair competition is “overtaken” by the “need” for women to include men in women’s sports. Have your own damn inclusion but leave women alone. You need inclusion? Go include someone in your kitchen or bathroom or bedroom, but don’t do this smug vicarious “women have to be inclusive of men so that I can feel generous” thing. It’s revolting.
There may be a woman greatly troubled by finishing 6,161st because Frank participated, but maybe we could balance that with what we know of transgender suicide rates, and instances of anxiety and depression, and recognise the importance of not feeling isolated.
Or, we could not do that. We could go on letting women have women’s marathons because of what we know of women being human beings too just like trans people. We could say no to smug men who kick back and tell women to be inclusive because self-abnegation is what women are for.
“Some people say that if males are on the podium it matters, but not if they finish lower down,” Yamauchi said. “What this effectively says is that women and girls who are not that good at sport don’t deserve fairness.”
No, what it says is that trying to create a sport that is welcoming for all may be bigger than barring a community so that the 6,160th finisher gets her due.
A community? Men who want to race in women’s marathons are a community now?
Here’s a shocker. If they’re a community, so are women. If trans people are a community, so are women. Why does the community of women have to give up women’s rights for the sake of a different community? Why do women always have to be told to be kind be generous be self-sacrificing be sweet be welcoming to all? Why do women have to welcome men in their sports at all ever?
Jenny Lindsay knows exactly when her “cancellation” began. It was June 2019 when the poet and performer tweeted her shock at the violent words of a columnist for an arts magazine, who had written: “Take out the Terf trash. Make them afraid. Get in their faces.”
How “extraordinary that such views are given an airing” in any publication, Lindsay wrote, adding “for clarity” that the columnist, a trans woman called Cathy Brennan, was advocating attacks on women, “Terf” being the acronym for trans-exclusionary radical feminist.
Lindsay’s response seemed reasonable, even understated, given that days later Brennan was under police investigation for lunging at Julie Bindel, the campaigner against violence against women, after an event in Edinburgh.
But the comrades were banding against Lindsay just the same.
Lindsay is the kind of woman Joanna Cherry referred to last week when the MP condemned the “new form of McCarthyism” around gender ideology, which some believe is poisoning the arts and education in Scotland.
In Cherry’s case, her in-conversation event at the Stand Comedy Club was cancelled because staff “expressed their concerns” about her views, which in Cherry’s simple description amount to “biological sex is an immutable fact”. If cancellation could happen to a public figure such as herself, she said, “just think how much more likely it is to happen to women who have less power”.
Imagine having concerns about the statement “biological sex is a fact.” Do they think it’s a fiction? Across the board? There is no biological sex?
Magi Gibson, another poet and performer, describes herself as a lifelong promoter of “dangerous women” who for decades has worked with some of the most marginalised people in society. Now she is tainted with “bigotry” and “transphobia”, and venues have been urged not to book her.
Gibson said: “I was doing an event at the Scottish Poetry Library and they were told my presence made the place ‘unsafe’. I was 67 at the time with severe osteoporosis and a broken spine. How ridiculous is that?”
Yes but women have those hidden powers you know.
S. V. Dáte reminds us that Trump tried to enact a coup and journalists should not obscure that fact.
Donald Trump is the only president who used the threat of violence and then actual violence in an attempt to remain in power — the very definition of a coup. It was the singular unique act of his tenure, truly historic. In 232 years of elections, no other president had done anything remotely close to what Trump did.
…
Yet, somehow, this key bit of context almost never makes it into news coverage of Trump’s 2024 campaign. Instead, he is treated like any other candidate — with the focus on things like how he will fend off Ron DeSantis, what nickname he’ll come up with for Nikki Haley, and what strategy he’ll use to win back suburban women voters. We’re already seeing the puff profiles about his campaign staff that make those stories possible.
Journalism has a tendency to normalize the abnormal…I guess because it’s so anxious to avoid being seen as “partisan”? Trump tried to overthrow the government, yes, but also he’s running for president, so gotta be impartial. Mentioning his treason would look so terribly not impartial.
Dáte says much the same.
How we got to a point where a man who attempted an actual coup is treated like any other candidate for office cannot really be fathomed without an understanding of how political journalism has come to be practiced.
Reporters who cover entertainment — sports, say, or movies — have long understood that their livelihoods depend on their subjects liking them. Not respecting them as professionals who have jobs to do, but actually liking them. Because celebrities can choose to speak to you, and make your career a success, or can freeze you out, making your job damned-near impossible. Exclusive interviews and quotes and photos are gold in this world. Getting them means promotions and higher-paying jobs with more glamorous outlets.
So it is, nowadays, in political journalism as well. Not government journalism, which often requires expertise in a particular subject area — banking or health care, for example — but which at the very least involves knowing the rules and processes of the governmental body in question. Political journalism today, in contrast, is really only about who is winning and, perhaps more important, who is likely to win.
It’s like the Super Bowl, or the Oscars. Why is that? Who cares about the Super Bowl or the Oscars? Why do they get such heavy publicity and reporting and air time?
I guess because it’s simple? It’s just who won and who lost. We know where we are. More complicated than that is, well, more complicated.
Subject area expertise is almost nonexistent. Instead, it’s all about how Candidate X will message voters better than Candidate Y. Covering this is obviously easier if you have good connections with “senior advisers” and “top strategists” to both X and Y, so you can file reports based on “people familiar with” X and Y’s “thinking.”
It is no coincidence that this type of reporting has come to be called “horse race” journalism. Except unlike in sports where the results — who wins, who loses, who will get high-round draft picks to start rebuilding next year — in the end carry no real consequence, the failure of political journalism can be catastrophic.
Can be, and has been, and is being. We seem to be stuck with it. It’s great for the Trumps of the world.
Originally a comment by Mike Haubrich on It just happens to disagree with the mainstream narrative.
The thing that drives me mad is that all the “alt cures” for things like allergies, and in iknklast’s case asthma, are to bolster the immune system. The ignorance of what asthma and allergies actually are astounds me, do they really not know that these are the products of an immune system that is overreacting to stimuli? I would watch as my mother would suffer attacks strong enough to put her in the hospital in oxygen tents, until she was prescribed prednisone, thinking that would be my fate since I had many of the same food allergies she did. (I was prescribed a series of shots at age ten that deboosted those allergies and I don’t suffer from them anymore. I still remember the first bite of chocolate that I ate without realizing I would get hives.)
I was at a farmer’s market in Phoenix and asked why a jar of honey was $15. The seller explained that it was pure and raw, and that it cured all sorts of ills caused by the poisons in commercial food products. Including allergies. How about that? Honey as the Elixir for $8 more than honey in the grocery poisoner’s store. Those cancer doctors are lying about needing expensive drugs that keep you dependent on them and make you sicker!
People like Kirsch are what drives cities like Regina to stop fluoridating their water, leading to a startling increase in cavities among children within a brief time. When I first found the “Savage Minds” podcast I enjoyed the interviews, but soon got tired of Julian’s diversions into rants against neoliberals and how Joe Biden is “worse than Trump,” and how the the attempts to stop the spread of Covid during the height of the pandemic were actually the government taking control (as opposed to?) So, while she’s had some good guests lately, i just find I can’t listen to the podcast any more.
Science as a concept of formalized method of discovery of causes of natural phenomena is taking a beating, and most of the worst offenders are the ones who claim we need to be “trusting the science.” But guess what, when you claim that science backs transgender identities, don’t be surprised when you try to explain the science behind vaccines, or global warming, or any other of the sciences that really do need to be followed in our current environment.
Pharma doesn’t do itself any favors when previously open and available generic patents for low-cost drugs are bought up by venture capitalists who make those drugs unaffordable. Or when they rush drugs to market that prove to be addictive. Or claim that puberty blockers are safe and reversible, but just give kids a chance to pause and think about which puberty they want to go through.
These sweeping powers should concern all democrats. The police are supposed to treat citizens impartially, regardless of their belief. But they have a poor track record, and not just when it comes to republicans.
Take, for example, the egregious way the police have clamped down on the free speech of those who express the “gender critical” belief, protected in equalities law, that sex is binary, immutable and relevant in society. The police should be scrupulously neutral on this. Yet in recent years they have adopted the controversial position of campaigners who believe that gender identity can replace sex altogether – that being a woman is not a biological reality but instead about conforming to feminine stereotypes or a matter of inner identity, and that it is somehow “hateful” to deviate from this view.
That has led them to warn off citizens from making lawful political statements. Former policeman Harry Miller was visited by a police officer as a result of his tweets – mostly “opaque, profane or unsophisticated”, according to a judge, but well within his rights to post. There are plenty of other examples: one woman recorded herself being berated by a police community support officer for having a sticker “trans ideology erases women” in her window. A feminist activist was arrested and detained in custody for 12 hours by Gwent police on suspicion of displaying “threatening or abusive writing” after reports she had put up stickers including slogans such as “no men in women’s prisons” and “humans never change sex”. Police raided her home and, extraordinarily, confiscated a gender critical book, presumably as evidence of “wrongthink”. There are also cases of the police taking to social media to berate people for their gender critical perspectives, such as when Sussex police reprimanded someone on Twitter for saying that a convicted paedophile who identifies as a woman is biologically male, declaring: “Sussex Police do not tolerate any hateful comments towards their gender identity.”
Rape, on the other hand, they tolerate – rape of actual women that is.
The courts ruled in 2021 that both the specific police action against Miller and the College of Policing guidance used to justify it were unlawful.
This guidance tells police forces to record as non-crime hate incidents anything – including social media posts – reported to the police that is perceived by the person reporting to be motivated by hostility, including “unfriendliness”.
It’s not the business of the police to force us to be friendly.
The College of Policing guidance still hasn’t been properly revised. The Home Office released a statutory code of conduct on non-crime hate incidents earlier this year; it makes clear that the police cannot simply rely on the perception of the complainant before recording an incident and includes an example illustrating the police obligation to protect gender-critical free speech. The College of Policing reacted with its own new draft guidance that waters down the Home Office code and takes out the gender-critical example altogether, replacing it with one that includes the police removing undefined “anti-transgender” posters.
Women, meh; trans women, omigod protect them from everything including “unfriendliness” at all costs!!
You have two choices: cheer on the monarchy, or shut up. There is no third option. The anti-monarchy campaign group Republic found out.
Its chief executive and several other protesters were bundled into a police van yesterday after being arrested at a peaceful protest in Trafalgar Square. It followed a letter from the Home Office last week that informed them of new police powers to curb protest and harsher criminal penalties for protesters. “I would be grateful if you could forward this letter to members likely to be affected,” it ominously suggested.
These arrests by the Met took place in the context of new laws ushered in by increasingly authoritarian home secretaries. Priti Patel introduced new measures to give ministers wide powers to define the conditions under which the police can impede protest. Suella Braverman has gone further still: her freshly enacted Public Order Act says the police have the right to impose conditions if anyone is hindered “to more than a minor degree”, to stop and search anyone without suspicion, and imposes what the UN has called “disproportionate” criminal sanctions on peaceful protesters.
…“We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration,” the Met tweeted last week, seemingly unaware that “undermining” royal festivities is not (yet) unlawful.
Rape goes unprosecuted but “undermining” the expensive and pointless display of royal royalityism will be dealt with “robustly.”
These sweeping powers should concern all democrats. The police are supposed to treat citizens impartially, regardless of their belief. But they have a poor track record, and not just when it comes to republicans.
Take, for example, the egregious way the police have clamped down on the free speech of those who express the “gender critical” belief, protected in equalities law, that sex is binary, immutable and relevant in society. The police should be scrupulously neutral on this. Yet in recent years they have adopted the controversial position of campaigners who believe that gender identity can replace sex altogether – that being a woman is not a biological reality but instead about conforming to feminine stereotypes or a matter of inner identity, and that it is somehow “hateful” to deviate from this view.
The two are quite similar, really. Charles imagines he’s special, and men who claim to be trans imagine they are women. For some reason the police are punishing people for refusing to endorse these fantasies.
Shannon Fentiman is a Labor member in the Queensland Legislative Assembly and the current Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Women, and the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence. She wrote in a public Facebook post three hours ago above a doctored photo of her wearing the “woman adult human female” badge:
Someone did this to my office recently.
I know the sticker doesn’t look like it says much, and most people will be lucky enough to be unaffected by what it says.
But for some people in our community, these stickers represent much more – they represent a movement which discriminates against them and denies their existence.
I want to be very clear – I don’t stand for these sort of views, our community doesn’t stand for these views, and Queenslanders don’t stand for these views.
I’m proud to be working with trans and gender diverse Queenslanders to ensure their lived identity matches their legal identity by reforming our birth certificate laws.
I’m proud that we’re modernising anti-discrimination laws to further protect our LGBTQIA+ community.
I’m proud to be Queensland’s Minister for Women, fighting for the rights of all Queensland women.
The work we’re doing will keep going, regardless of any stickers on my office or hateful comments on my social media.
She’s Queensland’s Minister for Women but she doesn’t know what women are. She’s Queensland’s Minister for Women but she insists that men can be women too, just by saying so. She’s Queensland’s Minister for Women but she goes out of her way to tell us that “adult human female” is not the definition of woman, and that feminist women who remind her it is are hateful and evil.
Yeah let’s get rid of vaccines, and antibiotics, and anesthetics, and medications, and clean water, and sewage processing, and clothes, and food, and oxygen. They’re all a conspiracy.
Steve Kirsch is a tech entrepreneur who made hundreds of millions of dollars after founding an early search engine and helping invent the optical computer mouse.
Recently, he stood before a gathering of more than 250 lawyers in Atlanta while wearing a custom black T-shirt designed like a dictionary entry for the phrase “misinformation superspreader.”
It’s like this, man. He’s a truth-teller, man, but the suits won’t listen, man, they’re too hooked on their mainstream narrative to listen, man.
“Our definition is it’s someone who’s basically pointing out the truth and it just happens to disagree with the mainstream narrative we’re known as misinformation spreaders, because what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to control the narrative,” Kirsch told NPR.
By “they,” Kirsch means a network of pharmaceutical companies, governments, doctors and journalists that he argues are covering up a pandemic-driven plot to poison the world for profit.
That would be the Sacklers and opioids. It would not be vaccinations.
In recent years, Kirsch has become an increasingly vocal and generous funder of the anti-vaccine movement. He helped organize and fund the conference to map out strategies for anti-vaccine and COVID-19-focused litigation as the pandemic winds down.
As with the trans ideology, this mystifies me. Why do people do this? Are they nostalgic for polio and whooping cough and tuberculosis?
Jeffrey Morris has tried to engage with Kirsch for years. In his spare time, the professor of biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania has gone line by line through some of Kirsch’s claims, providing answers, context and explanations. They once had a long conversation over Zoom.
“And it was an interesting discussion, you know, because he admitted that he was not a scientist and didn’t think like one. And so I was trying to connect with him and help him understand the leaps he was making in his arguments to get him to think more carefully. Because I could tell he was someone with a lot of energy and passion on the issue,” said Morris, who has watched Kirsch pull millions of views on some of his COVID vaccine content.
Which is a bad thing if he’s not willing to do the work. He’s not a scientist and he doesn’t think like one so he should stay out of it, because medicine is an applied science, not a branch of story-telling.
As government cover ups became a regular talking point for Kirsch, the researchers abandoned his early treatment project. Two years and $2 million later, he’s hoping to organize a sustained legal insurgency against public health agencies, drug manufacturers, hospitals and schools.
He’s hoping to cause a lot of extra disease and death.
How do people like him live with themselves?
The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch is popular today.
Is Amnesty UK out of step with Amnesty Ireland?
Ok I won’t let anyone tell me different. You should have a word with Amnesty Ireland.
Emboldened since the women-led protests that broke out last fall, which turned into nationwide demonstrations against the Islamic Republic, growing numbers of Iranian women have started going around without head scarves and wearing Western-style clothes.
The government told a cafe owner named Mohammad to force his women customers to wear hijab, but he just put a sign on the wall saying wearhijab and left it at that.
In Iran, Mohammad said, forcing women to wear the hijab is a lost cause.
“In all honesty, we didn’t get upset when they shut down our cafe,” said Mohammad, who asked to be identified only by his first name to avoid further legal repercussions. “In fact, we felt good about it, because this is really good P.R. for us and our business.”
Good PR plus a little vacation! Win win!
His nonchalance suggested the depth and speed of change in Iran, where the theocratic government considers the dress code a matter of existential importance.
How pathetic is that? A government that considers forcing women to wear bags over their heads a matter of existential importance – it’s laughable in one way, but completely understandable in another. Women are these terrifying stealth weapons who can trick a man into wasting his resources on some other man’s child, so they must be controlled and bullied and above all concealed.
When officers came to shut down Mohammad’s cafe, he said, he pointed at a table where two women were sitting, one unveiled and the other wearing the conservative, full-length and all-black veil known as the chador.
“I told him, ‘Eventually you have to accept this. I’m not a sociologist, but I’m pretty sure what you’re doing has almost no effect,’” Mohammad said.
It’s a matter of principle.
Kate heaps opprobrium on the coronation, and very good opprobrium it is, too.
…at the very top of those organizations, there are these special people who are appointed at special ceremonies, with all sorts of weird robes and weird things, not entirely dissimilar to what happens at a coronation – and we call them bishops. And we sit twenty four of them in the House of Lords, and they have genuine power over the legislation that affects all of us in our everyday lives.
A 2021 study of military youth has revealed that not only were minors with severe mental illness allowed to embark upon experimental medical sex changes, but also that prescriptions for anti-psychotic drugs actually increased after hormonal interventions were initiated, reports Fox News.
The study, published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, examined the Department of Defense (DoD) medical records of 3,754 trans-identified adolescents and 6,603 siblings who did not identify as transgender. The findings reveal no improvement in mental health after commencing hormone interventions and an increase in prescriptions for psychotropic medication.
Ok but at least they’ve ruined their bodies, so…
Many proponents of adolescent sex changes argue that the high rates of coexisting mental health issues observed in youth who identify as transgender are the result of the pain of being trapped in the wrong body. The solution, they believe, is to alter the body, then all preexisting mental health issues will disappear.
An alternative theory is that when distressed youth with serious mental health issues come across the concept of gender online or at school, they latch onto the idea that they could be transgender and see a medical sex change as the answer to all their woes.
Plus the idea that being transgender will get them an avalanche of attention and flattery and claims of love and compassion. One minute you’re a lonely nerd, the next you’re the center of attention.
Originally a comment by Mike Haubrich on On top of the roller coaster.
I just bought the idea that trans people were “born that way” as in intersex, but that there were men with AGP who used that in order to play out their fantasies with everyone playing along. Then Josh sent a link to me that explained it clearly and I went “OH! those bastards!”
I had so many friends (now distant acquaintances, or not friends at all) who were very nitpicky and skeptical about everything they dd and thought who would make sure they would check all angles before accepting the truth of anything who were very supportive of trans issues. And I had some internal conflict when they attacked you, Ophelia, not because I doubted your skepticism, but because I had to face the fact that these friends of mine were not being honest about their skepticism. And when there is conflict between people I respect over an issue that can be resolved with critical thinking, but those on one side of the issue start yelling “BIGOT BIGOT HATE BIGOT SHUT UP!” instead of defending their case, then it’s very hard to accept that they are applying critical thought.
One of the difficult issues with peaking is that most of us have a natural empathy towards the kids we remember being bullied for not meeting the standards of their sex in either masculinity or femininity. It’s a very confusing topic, and our instincts to defend those kids is directed towards whatever the doctors say will fix them. So, that’s why I think may liberals have been taken in by it.
While I would be stopped dead in my tracks by someone telling me that puberty blockers are safe, and want to research it before I would accept it, there are so many institutions spreading this lie that we are conditioned to accept it. There was a science writer who commented in one of Shermer’s threads yesterday that he would trust the hundreds of doctors who were prescribing over a single famous skeptic’s word. This was a science writer, Their job depends on reviewing the science articles. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that as awful as puberty is, it is necessary for development, but hey, “if some doctors think they’re good then I accept the argument from authority.”
Supporters do that because they believe the suicide lie and don’t want “Blood on their hands.” Because they remember the kids with the bloody noses who were called names, and surrounded by bullies with no one to help them. Or, perhaps they were the kids with the bloody noses who thought about killing themselves because they weren’t normal. Perhaps they were the bullies and this is how they deal with their guilt. I think it fits along all of these lines, and then they shut their minds off and accept that anyone who doesn’t buy into the magical transformation of transgender is mean and bigoted towards those kids.
It was a nurse who was an escort volunteer with me at Planned Parenthood who first explained how great it is that there are drugs that can pause puberty for gender confused kids. I was floored, but before asking her how that could possibly be a good idea I wanted to check into what they were doing to kids. I had already peaked, but this seemed completely over the top. How can anyone be mature enough to make a distinction about gender if their development at the crucial stage of adolescence was arrested? I didn’t think that Piaget was that far off or that there was new science that had disproved his theories on the stages of development.
Anyway, I would think that skeptics would take a step back and look at all of this and say “I think there is something a bit off about this. I should look into it.” It’s very weird that they can turn on friends on a dime as soon as we express doubt. I don’t like to name names, but man, there are some people who really surprised me by assuming that I’m a hateful bastard after knowing me for years. It’s like all these people walked through a brainwave interrupter on this subject. I lost some “friends” over the fact that I didn’t hate Monsanto enough to declare all GMO’s poison, but that’s quite a different thing. This is astonishing.
Oh, and I think it’s hilarious when a transgenderist tells me I’m confusing sex and gender but doesn’t expand on it.
Originally a comment by Lady Mondegreen on Top of the roller coaster.
there are, of course, zero trans people who think, “people are or can be the other sex”
I have in fact seen trans-identified people claiming just that. But it’s a motte-and-bailey: argue trans activists and their allies into a corner and then OF COURSE, nobody is claiming that trans people really are the other sex! They know very well they’re not!–
–and then we’re lectured endlessly about intersex conditions, which supposedly support the TRA claim that Sex Is Not Binary. We’re told that sex is assigned at birth–yes, sometimes the word used is “gender”, but there’s also “assigned male at birth” and “assigned female at birth.” (AMAB and AFAB.) Sophie LaBelle’s comic about a little trans girl who talks like a twenty year old college activist is titled “Assigned Male.”
I have a screenshot of the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, tweeting that
“Biological sex” is not a fixed scientific concept but an ideological one….We are assigned sex at birth….Our bodies are bodies, not male bodies or female bodies
And in the Washington Post, just a few days ago, Jennifer Finney Boylan assured us that:
All the science tells us, in the end, is that a biological male — or female — is not any one thing, but a collection of possibilities.
But nobody is saying “people are or can be the other sex.” Nobody. Zero. Nope. Nada.
