Now we’re not allowed to talk about it. Genevieve Gluck at Reduxx:

An Australian woman was reported to police after making posts on social media about a male who identifies as transgender participating in the women’s football league. Kirralie Smith was visited by New South Wales Police after speaking to media about Riley Dennis, a trans activist who had been the subject of mass complaint last month after reportedly injuring female players.

Police visited Smith on March 30 and handed her an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) requiring that she does not discuss or approach Dennis – despite the fact that Smith lives over 200 miles from Dennis. The AVO acts as an interim order that will stand until a hearing later this month, at which point the court will decide whether it is justified.

So now the police are ordering women to shut up about men who are invading women’s sports and physically harming them.

It’s insane. Just fucking insane.

Included among the stipulations of the AVO lodged against Smith by Dennis are prohibitions against electronic harassment. As a result, her statements on social media have come under legal scrutiny and, in some cases, have been censored by an arm of the Australian government dedicated to combatting “cyber abuse.”

On February 20, Smith’s public Facebook page was removed at the request of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. Smith had set up the page in 2016 and used the platform to advocate for the rights of women and girls being harmed by gender identity policies. At the time of its deletion, Smith’s page had over 47,000 followers.

What about the eSafety, and real world safety, of women? What about the threat Riley Dennis poses to women? Why aren’t the police and Julie Inman Grant worried about that? Why are men allowed to steal women’s sports and bash the women who persist in continuing to play, while women are punished for talking about it?

The actions taken against Smith by eSafety Commissioner Grant are not the first instances of a government-endorsed push to digitally protect Dennis.

Last week, Reduxx was contacted by the eSafety Commissioner and advised to censor or delete an article naming Dennis as having been the subject of complaint after he was alleged to have injured female players during a match in March.

Riley Dennis is a current active threat to women. Why is Australian officialdom intent on protecting him and thus putting women at even greater risk?

The Times has more on Killips’s cheating.

A victory by a transgender cyclist in an elite women’s race has prompted renewed criticism of the UCI’s eligibility rules.

Austin Killips took the title of “Queen of the Mountains” after winning the Tour of the Gila in the United States, a five-stage race that is sanctioned by the UCI, cycling’s international governing body. It is the biggest cycle race won by a transgender rider so far.

Unlike swimming or athletics, the UCI permits trans women who have gone through male puberty to take part in elite women’s events if they have had reduced testosterone levels of 2.5 nanomoles per litre for the previous two years (men usually have ten to 35nmol/l, while a woman’s natural level is usually 0.5 to 2.4nmol/l).

It’s so stupid. Reduced testosterone doesn’t erase all the physical advantages, to put it mildly. This never should have been allowed, not for a second. It just underlines the fundamental indifference to female people that seems to be baked in.

Alison Sydor, a Canadian who was a cycling cross-country world champion and Olympic silver-medal winner, said on Twitter that the UCI’s transgender rules “are not fair to female athletes” and were “passed with no discussion [or] consultation with the people who have to live with these rules today”.

Naturally not; they’re female, so [yawwwwwwn]

[Killips] said on Instagram after winning the tour: “After a week of nonsense on the internet I’m especially thankful to everyone in the peloton and sport who continue to affirm that Twitter is not real life. I love my peers and competitors and am grateful for every opportunity I get to learn and grow as a person and athlete on course together.”

Pig. That “nonsense on the internet” is women objecting to the unfairness of this horrible man taking their prizes.

Another American cyclist, Hannah Arensman, said in a document submitted to a US court that she had retired from the sport after finishing in fourth place behind Killips in the US’s National Cyclocross Championships in November. Footage of the race shows Killips at one point pushing Arensman over as she attempts to overtake.

But that’s just “nonsense on the internet,” right?

Oliver Brown at The Telegraph on the latest outrage:

In what has been described as a “Lia Thomas moment” for cycling, Austin Killips, a 27-year-old transgender rider, has won first prize for women at the Tour of the Gila, the premier road race in New Mexico.

It marked the most significant result yet for Killips, a trans-identifying biological male from Chicago, who also won a medal in women’s cyclo-cross at the US National Championships and who is now tipped to challenge for a place at the Tour de France Femmes and at next summer’s Paris Olympics.

Another man steals another prize from women, and hopes to steal more.

This year’s running of the Tour of the Gila marked the first time in the event’s 36-year history that equal prize money had been offered, with a total purse of $35,350 (£28,145) in both the men’s and women’s races. Killips, who only took up cycling in 2019 before starting on hormone replacement therapy, earned almost £8,000 for finishing top of the women’s general classification, plus an £800 bonus as “Queen of the Mountains”.

Equal prize money for men and women but hahahahaha we’re counting men as women if they tell us to so actually all the money goes to men hahahahaha sucks to be you, bitches.

Killips’ name first came to wider attention in March, after being cited by former cyclo-cross champion Hannah Arensman in a Supreme Court filing explaining why she was retiring from the sport at 24. Arensman had lost out on a podium place to Killips in the national finals in December, later accusing her transgender opponent of repeatedly shoving her during the race – a claim Killips denied.

He denied it despite the existence of video clips showing him doing it.

“I have decided to end my cycling career,” Arensman said. “My sister and family sobbed as they watched a man finish in front of me, having witnessed several physical interactions with him during the race. I feel for young girls learning to compete, who no longer have a fair chance at being the new record-holders and champions in cycling because men want to compete in our division.”

Amid the Killips controversy, Thompson, who came third at the women’s Tour de France in 1986 and 1989, argued that the pattern was becoming more common. “These women are young, and there’s a lot of bullying,” she said. “They get cancelled, they get silenced, their jobs are threatened. They get put on the TERF [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] list. If they say anything, they are eviscerated. And so, instead of fighting this, they just walk away.”

…

With results rapidly improving, Killips is allowed to compete as a consequence of the UCI’s liberal [anti-woman] transgender policy, which stands starkly at odds with World Athletics’ approach of banning all post-puberty males from the female category.

Flagrant injustice.

Dear _____, it has come to our attention that there is a show going on next month in your basement showcasing three women. Why is this being allowed in your venue? Why did you not seek our permission before inviting these witches to say words? Who do you think you are? Who do they think they are?

The Inquisitor General will be paying you a visit shortly. Have all your papers ready.

It’s like mission creep on steroids, or to put it another way, it’s like doing the opposite of your mission while pretending to be still doing the mission. It’s flashing a surface version of the existing mission while in reality throwing the mission out of a window at the top of the Burj Khalifa.

The WI’s new incloosion policy is what I mean.

I wonder who came up with it, and forced it on the entire organization. I wonder how much dissent and fury there was. I wonder how many women left. I wonder why the people who did this thought it was necessary. I wonder why guilt and shame didn’t stop them.

Why have a women’s institute at all if you’re going to turn it into a people’s institute? Why go on calling it a women’s institute when you’ve issued a policy statement saying it isn’t? Why try to have it both ways? Why go on calling it the WI when it isn’t for W any more?

Revisiting the EDI Policy…

The WI was founded on democratic ideals over 100 years ago and this commitment
to equality is still central to our ethos today. The WI – the UK’s largest women’s
membership organisation – is an inclusive, welcoming, supportive and progressive
organisation for all women who live as women, including transgender women.

First sentence. Democratic ideals are not the same thing as commitment to equality. Being founded on democratic ideals isn’t the same thing as having a commitment to equality. Policy statements should be clear and precise, not woolly and obscure.

But above all I want to know what they mean by “live as women.” It’s irritating me, not knowing. I for one don’t “live as a woman” so I guess I wouldn’t be eligible for the WI. I am a woman, but apparently that’s not good enough?

But since I don’t know what “live as a woman” means I guess I could be wrong; I guess it’s possible that I do live as woman without knowing it.

I wonder if it means checkable externals? A list of things like what you wear, how you talk, how you spend your time? Or does it mean you have announced that you are a woman, and bullied a minimum of twenty people into saying yes indeed you are a woman?

I don’t know. I don’t know what the WI means. I wonder if the WI knows what it means.

Yes sure it’s fine for staff to refuse to work if Those People are on the premises.

So, like this?

The Women’s Institute has a new Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy as of this month.

NFWI Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy

1. Introduction
   The WI was founded on democratic ideals over 100 years ago and this commitment
   to equality is still central to our ethos today. The WI – the UK’s largest women’s
   membership organisation – is an inclusive, welcoming, supportive and progressive
   organisation for all women who live as women, including transgender women.

So there you go. It’s explicitly spelled out. Women are people who “live as women” and that includes men. It also excludes a fuck of a lot of women.

WI membership is open to all women who live as women, including transgender
women. The WI welcomes and celebrates a diverse cross-section of women, offering
a space where they can be themselves surrounded by other supportive women. We
do not ask members any personal questions as part of the joining process and are
committed to ensuring all members are treated fairly and equally whatever their
background or individual circumstances

Or sex. The WI is for women and it’s committed to pretending men are women and to protecting men from rude women who might ask rude questions about what men are doing in the WI.

Being a WI member means:
• Upholding the core values and ideals of the WI which are fellowship, truth,
tolerance, and justice.

Truth?

They’ve certainly fallen down on that one.

We also have a duty of care to all WI members, who have the right to feel safe and
protected within our organisational structure.

Except women, of course. Women don’t have the right to feel safe and protected within the organisational structure of the WI.

The WI is an inclusive, supportive, and progressive organisation for all women who live as women, including transgender women. Transgender women are those [who are] assigned male at birth but live as women, and are welcome to join the WI and participate in WI activities in the same way as any other woman.

But transgender women aren’t “any other woman”; they are men.

What does “live as women” even mean?

The WI provides women with educational opportunities and the platform to campaign on issues that matter to them and their communities whilst always celebrating what it means to be a woman. Therefore, including transgender women furthers our objectives and enriches our membership to ensure we are a place for all women to celebrate who they are and influence positive change in their communities.

“Therefore”? I’m not seeing the logic.

The WI is focused on supporting women through every stage of their lives. Therefore, our members will include women who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or who have recently given birth, and it is important these women are supported. For example, this may mean ensuring women feel able to bring their baby to WI meetings and providing a quiet space where members can breastfeed or express milk where possible. Talking to members about this is the best way to ensure their needs are met.

Such women will surely welcome men joining them in the quiet space to watch them breastfeed or express milk, as long as those men are “living as women.”

I hope millions of women leave the WI over the next few weeks.

Stephen Daisley at the Spectator notes that trans ideology is more religion than it is political activism.

The censoring of Adult Human Female dramatises a tension between how progressives see themselves and the material reality of their ideology. By progressive, I don’t mean left-wing or radical in the traditional sense, but a political inclination that crosses party lines and places inordinate emphasis on identity, language, subjectivity and emotional fragility.

Especially emotional fragility. Trans people – especially trans women, i.e. men – are framed as crystal-like in their fragility. Maudlin anguish flows everywhere at the possibility that a trans woman might have to hear the word “No.”

These impulses are sometimes conflated with wokeness but I prefer the term ‘coercive progressivism’, because it leans into the tension I am talking about. While progressives believe themselves to be in the vanguard of modernity, advancing equity and autonomy, both their ideology and their methods are reactionary and authoritarian. They represent the loudest and most influential moral crusade Britain has seen since the days of Mary Whitehouse and her campaign to ‘Clean up TV’. 

The new progressive orthodoxy on gender is really an old orthodoxy repackaged. Womanhood is reduced from material fact to emotional feeling — plus dresses and hair and make-up. Men who identify into womanhood not only get to rewrite the boundaries of that sex-determined class but are sometimes said to be ‘more of a woman’ than women who reject gender ideology. Female sex-based rights are undermined by redefining ‘sex’ to mean a legal fiction that is conflated with sex. Women’s legal advancements are a threat to men and children once again, with gender dysphoria replacing marriage and family as the victim. 

The methods used to advance this ideology are familiar: revealed truth, historical revisionism, institutional power, regulation of speech and conscience, and the shaming of heretics. Coercive progressivism is a forwards-facing reversion and nowhere more so than in the politics of sex and gender.

I would add to that list of methods extreme frantic histrionic rage and grief, hatred and contempt for women, and relentless lying.

Having confronted the sins and hypocrisies of organised religion, and partly dismantled the culture it shaped, we are now erecting a new culture shaped by faith. The new moral code has its own catechism, saints and unquestionable priests. Its gospel is taught in schools and its doctrines enforced by law and social convention. It preaches the supernatural as inerrant truth, assails empirical inquiry as blasphemy, demands deference to unfalsifiable claims, and, of course, has a major problem with women who don’t behave themselves. 

…
The new moralists use different language – demanding affirmation rather than virtue, damning hatred instead of obscenity – but the impulses and the effects are not dissimilar. Where the Society for the Suppression of Vice seized ‘obscene’ books, the Society for the Suppression of Terfs tries to prevent ‘hate’ books being published in the first place. Where the National Legion of Decency got American Catholics to pledge to boycott ‘all indecent and immoral motion pictures’ and the cinemas that screened them, the National Legion of #Kindness blocks the entrances to theatres showing hateful and phobic flicks. Mary Whitehouse never died, she just got younger and coloured her hair pink. 

He’s right.

Another day another burn the witch!! cancel the woman!!

Let’s read the Times article.

An event featuring a prominent MP who has been outspoken in the bitter debate about trans rights has been cancelled by the Edinburgh Fringe’s biggest comedy club.

Joanna Cherry was due to take part in an “In conversation with . . . ” discussion at The Stand’s New Town Theatre during the summer.

But she has been “no platformed” after staff at the venue, including management and box office personnel, said they would not be comfortable working at the show.

Otherwise known as the heckler’s veto. Normally hecklers are in the audience as opposed to on the staff, but the effect is the same.

Last week, the screening of Adult Human Female, a women’s rights documentary, was cancelled for a second time at Edinburgh University. The film, which asserts that women are defined solely by their biological sex, was disrupted by hundreds of pro-trans protesters.

Heckler’s veto in advance.

I see Joanna Cherry calls it that herself, but I hadn’t read that far down the page when I said it. I’m so tired of all these hecklers vetoing feminism.

The Telegraph:

The NHS Tavistock gender clinic has been threatened with court action by the information regulator after failing to reveal its relationship with Mermaids.

The Trust claimed in response to Freedom of Information requests from a parent that it “does not hold” emails or minutes of meetings between staff and the controversial charity, which has been accused of putting pressure on staff to transition children.

The matter was referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) which has now ruled that “on the balance of probabilities”, the Trust does have relevant emails.

Well that’s a good look. It seems the Tavistock is not just refusing to hand over requested information, but also lying about it. Gender ideology is not good for the morals.

The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust has until the end of this week to conduct fresh searches and provide a new response or the ICO could write to the High Court and the issue “may be dealt with as a contempt of court”. If found guilty of contempt the Trust could face a fine.

And, one would hope, yet more damage to its reputation.

The trans clinic is due to close after concerns were raised about its treatment and an independent review found that it was “not a safe and viable option”.

It has since emerged that staff from the controversial clinic will be involved in setting up and training staff at the new regional centres which will replace it. The Tavistock was originally ordered to close this spring but is still operating.

Jeezus. “We’re shutting you down because you are fanatics bent on destroying children’s futures; please train your replacements.”

Mermaids’ influence on the Tavistock was cited by some whistleblowers as one of the reasons why it lost its way, with claims that activists put pressure on clinicians to affirm children’s belief that they were trans and to prescribe potentially life-altering drugs.

If only Mermaids had instead named itself Goblins or Child-eating Dragons.

The FOI request asked for details of emails sent between Ms Green and Trust staff and records, notes, or minutes of any meetings with the charity boss between 2014 and 2018.

The Tavistock originally refused to provide the information under a section of the law which allows them to deny “requests which have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress”.

But when the ICO asked them to justify that refusal, the Trust withdrew it and said instead that following “an extensive search of emails … the Trust does not hold the requested information”.

Jeeeeeeeeeeeezus. How do they get away with this crap??

“We don’t want to give you these emails, you won’t like them.”

“You have to.”

“We can’t find them!”

Very convincing.

It is not the first time issues with the Tavistock’s FOI responses have been raised, and in 2021 the Board of Directors was told that all requests relating to the gender identity clinics for both adults and children were being “hampered”.

Communications staff had to clear all requests and they had “not approved GIC responses with waiting list data due to poor performance and the potential reputational impact”, meeting minutes show.

A spokesman for the Trust said: “We have noted the ICO’s recent decision and are proactively working toward supplying the relevant data before the deadline.”

Why weren’t they “proactively working toward” doing that already? What do they mean “proactively”? What do they mean “working toward”?

Man steals first prize in women’s cycling race.

Austin Killips (Amy D Foundation) won the fifth and final stage of the Tour of the Gila women’s race on Sunday, sealing the overall victory in the process.

Of course he did: because he’s a man.

Marcela Prieto (Pato Bike BMC), who won the opening stage and wore the leader’s jersey until Killips moved into the lead after the stage 3 time trial, settled for runner-up honors on the final stage. 

She had to, because Killips was allowed to compete in a women’s race.

Women speak.

Men assault.

Originally a comment by ibbica on Risky.

Wow talk about navel-gazing…

“Transgender people” need more studies because… men, sorry, “prostate-havers” dosing themselves with hormones haven’t been studied enough, but oh by the way shut up don’t you dare suggest that might be a bad idea.

Can’t find transgender patients for studies because… they refuse to admit what they’re claiming to be isn’t what they are but oh by the way no you’re the deluded one they obviously Know what they are, duh.

Transgender patients are underrepresented in studies… I mean, they make up a whopping 1% of the population, and it’s the most oppressed 1%, but don’t ask which 1% because they’re actually the other sex wait I mean no difference between them and the uncool people who simply recognize their sex instead of divesting themselves of physical reality and picking their sex but we know they have worse clinical outcomes because Oppression so shut up already.

Or something.

You know who have been, and still are, underrepresented in medical research? Hint: it’s a group making up about 50% of the human population, easily found and readily identified for studies, who typically tell the entire truth about their physical characteristics and ailments, but often intentionally avoided because their hormones cycle predictably (!) or because they’re Not Typical Humans (!).

(…Ok yes, I know YOU knew that, but THEY are clearly oblivious to it.)

And speaking of respect and deference and magic titles and awe and majesty –

Once I stopped laughing I conceded that in one way she’s quite right. It’s a polite fiction that Choss Windsor is “The King” for the simple reason that it’s a polite fiction that anyone is “The King” or “The Queen.” Of course it is; what else would it be? It’s a hereditary monarchy, i.e. it’s an artificial social arrangement by which one particular person descended from one particular person and so on back to William or Alfred or Baby Jesus gets to be top dog and have lots of money and a Royal Train.

In another way it’s a ludicrous thing to say. There are facts about the ancestry of King Choss; what facts are there that make Dylan a woman? There are ancient social conventions about the meaning of the ancestry of King Choss; what ancient social conventions are there that make Dylan a woman? There are none! There are only some very very very new conventions which are hotly contested and extremely stupid.

And no, it’s not “kind & polite” to address people the way they ask to be addressed no matter what. It depends. Other things being equal that is of course the norm, but when other things aren’t equal it isn’t.

It seems today’s Hyde Park Let Women Speak was very large and festive.

I like that Truth Will Always Matter TWAM banner.

Good grief. How about “No.”

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles

Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

People watching the Coronation will be invited to join a “chorus of millions” to swear allegiance to the King and his heirs, organisers say. The public pledge is one of several striking changes to the ancient ceremony revealed on Saturday.

In a coronation full of firsts, female clergy will play a prominent role, and the King himself will pray out loud. The Christian service will also see religious leaders from other faiths have an active part for the first time.

They couldn’t make it sound more repulsive if they tried. Monarchy on the one hand and god-bothering on the other – no thank you.

The public will be given an active role in the ceremony for the first time, with people around the world set to be asked to cry out and swear allegiance to the King.

An active role, which is to swear allegiance to this one man because of who his mother was. Much active, very participate.

The order of service will read: “All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.”

Not going to happen. I pay no allegiance to Choss, true or semi-true or pretend.

A spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop’s office, said: “The homage of the people is particularly exciting because that’s brand new. That’s something that we can share in because of technological advances, so not just the people in the Abbey, but people who are online, on television, who are listening, and who are gathered in parks, at big screens and churches.

“Our hope is at that point, when the Archbishop invites people to join in, that people wherever they are, if they’re watching at home on their own, watching the telly, will say it out loud – this sense of a great cry around the nation and around the world of support for the King.”

Why does he need all this support? He’s the one with all the money and the multiple giant houses on giant tracts of land and a whole train all his own. How about he supports us instead?

As part of the service Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Sikh peers will present the King with pieces of the coronation regalia, including bracelets, the robe, the ring, and the glove.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a practising Hindu, will read from the biblical book of Colossians.

That made me burst out laughing. It’s so take your favorite toy to school day. Rishi will read from the Bible and Fred will read from the Upanishads and Muriel will read from Atlas Shrugged.

After the religious service has ended, the King will receive a greeting by Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim and Buddhist leaders.

No atheists of course. No skeptics, no humanists, no secularists – just faith-heads of all flavors. So novel, so exciting, so progress!

You don’t say.

Transgender women face prostate cancer risk, says first-of-its-kind study from UCSF

Of course they do: because they are men.

Transgender women have a small but meaningful risk of prostate cancer, but traditional screening tools may not work well for them, especially if they’re taking estrogen for gender-affirming care, according to a national study led by UCSF researchers.

Or rather, especially if they’re mucking up their bodies by taking estrogen to foster a delusion that they’re women. “Gender-affirming care” is a misnomer, and medical researchers shouldn’t be using it. “Gender affirmation” isn’t medical.

The research, published Saturday in the journal JAMA, is the first in the U.S. to look at prostate cancer in transgender women. It underscores the need to improve overall health care for transgender people, who are underrepresented in medical research and who experience worse outcomes than cisgender patients for all kinds of health issues.

Perhaps because they’re recklessly tampering with their bodies?

Transgender people, who are thought to make up less than 1% of the population, have mostly been left out of large studies of all kinds of health issues. When the UCSF team decided to look at prostate cancer in transgender women, the first problem they ran into was finding patients. Generally, “transgender” isn’t noted in patients’ medical records, so scientists had to look for secondary clues like estrogen prescriptions or a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Not noted in patients’ medical records! Gee, you think that might be a bad idea?

Statement from the Edinburgh Principal:

I would like to express my extreme disappointment that last night, for the second time in six months, we were left with no alternative but to stop the screening of ‘Adult Human Female’ because of safety concerns for attendees. 

No alternative? Please. The alternative was to force the protesters to get out of the way so that people could go in to see ‘Adult Human Female.’ That’s it, that’s the alternative.

We refuse to be intimidated by the unreasonable behaviour of those who sought to prevent lawful discussion of challenging topics on our campus yesterday. 

But they don’t. They don’t refuse to be intimidated. They let the bullies do whatever they wanted, and then they canceled the screening. That’s not refusing to be intimidated, it’s being intimidated.

It is unfortunate and disappointing that last night attendees were again prevented from being able to gather and discuss these issues on our campus. We worked with organisers of the event and leads of organisations representing those who wished to participate in peaceful protest at the screening of the film, putting increased measures and extra security in place to mitigate risks, whilst ensuring that all were in a position to express their views, including respecting others with differing perspectives.

Despite these significant additional measures, a small handful of disruptive protesters restricted access to the venue preventing the organisers from holding the event, and leading to increased tensions and safety concerns.

Then get them out. Get the small handful of disruptive protesters out. That’s it, that’s the solution. Just stop it.

In Edinburgh the University actually helped the protesters prevent women from getting in, before piously announcing it was forced to cancel the screening because of the protests the university itself assisted.

Please, tell us more about how marginalized and persecuted our trans sisters and brothers are.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Look back in horror.

Okay, I’ll see your “look back in horror” and raise you “looking on in horror right now. Just off the top of my head here’s what being “uncritical” of gender has resulted in:

Violent male sex offenders being imprisoned with women in what were and should be female only prisons. The women have no say in this and are forced to submit.

Men being admitted into what were and should be female only rape and domestic violence services. The women have no say in this and are forced to submit.

Men being housed in what were and should be female only hospital wards. The women have no say in this and are forced to submit.

Men and boys competing on what were and should be female only sports teams. The women and girls have no say in this and are forced to submit.

Men invading women’s toilet and changing facilities. The women have no say in this and are forced to submit.

The mutilation and sterilization of children whose minds are insufficiently developed to comprehend the import and gravity of the disastrously life-altering path they’ve been encouraged to take.

The erosion of women’s health care through the erasure of the words “woman” and “women” in the name of “inclusion.” There is no comparable erasure of “man” and “men” in health communications which are equivalent to the campaigns from which all references to women have been excised.

The bullying, intimidation, villification and assault of any and all women who dare to oppose any of the above, or who even questions the validity and coherence of trans ideology.

Trans identified males are not women. Never have been, never will be. Don’t go on about how “marginalized” and “victimized” they are, or how they are at much greater risk of being victims of violence or murder than anyone without some hard statistics to back these claims up. The ability of this oh-so-powerless group of helpless snowflakes to force women to submit to their presence in what had once been and should be female only spaces proves that these protestations of victimhood are lies. Just own up to the fact that you’re defending entitled men. Powerful entitled men. Trans activism has been wildly successful in its recruitment of a startlingly broad range of public and private institutions to advance and enforce their completely unreasonable and dangerous demands. (See the above list from off the top of my head, compiled without leaving this page, and without breaking a mental sweat.) And who has paid the price for this imposition of the will of a tiny minority of men? Women and girls. That’s the real horror. Actual harm, actual violence, actual dismissals, silencings and deplatforming. You don’t have to wait for the hypothetical perspective of some imagined, delusional, “inclusive” future to find faux horrors to boggle your mind as you look back. Open your fucking eyes and look at the horrors noted above. Horrors you are promoting. So yeah, I’m “critical” of gender. Why aren’t you?