Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • Guest post: Hands tied

    Originally a comment by Arcadia on He calls himself “Roxanne”

    There are portions of the judgement that suggest the judges felt their hands were tied by the law as it is presently written, and that the only remedy will be changing the law.

    The law could be changed as soon as the next sitting week, but that’s mere theory, and unlikely to happen with our parliament as it is constituted now, and with our media as it is now.

    The main opposition party, the Liberal Party (I am sorry to be so confusing for you northern hemisphere types who think of “liberal” as meaning left of centre, but Australia’s Liberal Party is of the Right) has made an announcement saying that if they were to be elected next election, they would fix this. However, it is highly unlikely they will be elected next election, and Hansard shows that the original Gillard government amendments that are the present source of all this difficulty were passed on a bipartisan basis. So we’d still be relying on a party that passed this nonsense to undo it, and most have demonstrated when questioned that they don’t understand it.

    Further, if the Liberal Party were the heroes here, they’re not doing what’s required in the States they govern now: Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Some good things have been done in Queensland on “gender affirming care”, and in Northern Territory to get men out of women’s prisons, but that’s it. No reversals of Self ID, or even attempts at it, and no clear announcements that it’s perfectly okay, desirable and normal to have and fund female spaces and programs, or LGB spaces and programs.

    To say I’m skeptical that the Liberals will fix this is an understatement.

  • Scope Dope

    Choir members sue charity – always a nice beginning to a headline.

    Choristers who were dropped from the London Marathon in a transgender row are taking legal action over “discrimination”.

    The Singing Striders, a choir that is often booked to stand on the sidelines of races and raise the spirits of runners, had been invited to attend the 2026 marathon by Scope, a leading disability charity.

    The ensemble was subsequently dropped days before the event because Janet Murray, its founder, had been publicly critical of transgender ideology.

    Let’s do that with everything. Do some digging, find a random incident that you consider Not Quite the Thing, and get the perps banned or blocked or boycotted or any other version of “ostracized” you can think of. Hours of fun for the whole family! And so social justicey!

    Scope decided that her comments went against its “commitment to diversity and inclusion”, and told Ms Murray that the charity was “concerned about your views because we don’t agree with your views”.

    Well quite. I mean really. How dare people have views that we don’t agree with? What is the world coming to? Would it not perhaps be best to cancel everyone right now just to be on the safe side?

    The choir founder told The Telegraph: “I believe Scope unlawfully discriminated against me because of my lawfully held gender-critical beliefs.

    “It raises much wider questions about whether women who state basic biological realities, or advocate for female-only spaces and sport, are increasingly being treated as unacceptable by organisations that claim to value equality and inclusion.”

    We know all too well they are.

    Ms Murray, a writer and journalist, has expressed concerns about the inclusion of biological males in women’s sports and organisations such as Girlguiding.

    Her gender-critical views were the subject of two anonymous complaints to Scope, which then informed Ms Murray that she would not be welcome to sing at the charity’s allotted “cheer zone” spot along the London Marathon route.

    Because what? People in the area would know about these gender-critical views? Of course they wouldn’t. The point isn’t that Murray and/or her choir are somehow a toxin for people in the vicinity; the point is to show off. “Look at us insulting yet another women’s group because we are so enlightened!!! Be very impressed!!!!”

    The Singing Striders have performed for Scope at past marathons without incident. However, Scope defended its decision on the grounds that it is “committed to the equality and inclusion of trans and non-binary disabled people”.

    Shit job of defending. Complete absence of connection between the equality blah blah blah and kicking out a choir because its founder knows that men are not women.

    After an outcry over the decision, the charity reinvited the Singing Striders to the marathon, but the offer was declined.

    Lawyers acting for Ms Murray and the three other singers claim that actions taken against the group discriminated against Ms Murray’s belief in the immutability of biological sex.

    Oh dear, there’s an outcry; we’re sorry we insulted you and excluded you, please come back.

    No, fuckers, we’re suing your asses.

    Nail them.

  • “Discrimination” is not always a pejorative

    This raises a difficult question.

    What if someone is fired for “being trans” – is that an injustice?

    What does it mean to “be trans”?

    It means either believing you are the sex you are not, or claiming to believe you are the sex you are not.

    That’s a problem.

    For most kinds of jobs, employers don’t seek out either delusional people or systematically dishonest people. For many kinds of jobs, both lying and extreme confusion about reality are disqualifiers. Many kinds of jobs rely on people who don’t live in a fantasy world and don’t tell lies.

    The whole point of “trans” is that it is in fact based on an extreme and grotesque lie about human beings, and that its advocates absolutely, ardently, determinedly repeat that lie and try to force everyone else to repeat it too.

    It’s a horrible mix, delusion and lying, and it’s absolute poison for most kinds of work. Willoughby himself is quite a good advertisement of that.

  • Part 2

    More from that Telegraph article.

    I stopped at:

    “Nobody, ever, ever said to me as director of news, ‘you need to get points in the Stonewall league table’,” she said. But she acknowledged that “there was a sea in which we all swam… an atmosphere. We need to be kind to transitioning people. It’s a social phenomenon. And I think this ‘be kind’ thing was at the heart of it.”

    Onward.

    Ms Unsworth claimed that one reason why the trans issue “wasn’t gripped” during her time at the helm of BBC News was that the core facts of the issue were themselves disputed.

    She claimed: “Impartiality only operates when you can look at evidence and facts and point to them as the basis of your reporting on this. And the facts at this point were incredibly disputed.”

    Disputed by fools.

    Come on. No one with the brains of a gnat really thinks the fact that men are not women is “incredibly disputed” in the sense that serious people are seriously disputing that men are not women. It’s not a genuine controversy, it’s an invented one that’s been puffed up by zealots.

    Ms Unsworth added that the turning point had been last April, when the Supreme Court made clear that a woman – for the purposes of the Equality Act – meant a biological woman.

    She claimed that the ruling in For Women Scotland vs The Scottish Ministers provided journalists with the “basis of challenge” against those who insisted that men could decide to be women.

    Again – come on. Legions of women have been doing that for more than ten years – Julie Bindel, Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, JKR, and on and on, as have men such as Graham Linehan and Colin Wright.

    She pointed out that “until the Supreme Court ruling on it, Keir Starmer himself was saying trans women are women”.

    Yes but that’s because he was being a trendy coward, not because the question was really open.

    There’s a lot of that around.

  • and the bullying

    Big article at the Telegraph on the capture of the BBC. I’m short on time today so I’ll just leave a couple of bookmarks.

    A former BBC News boss has claimed she was driven out of the top job by trans activists.

    Fran Unsworth, the director of BBC News from 2018 to 2022, said she had been bullied out of the role by gender ideologues employed by the corporation.

    Speaking for the first time since leaving the BBC, Ms Unsworth said: “I would actually say it drove me out, just dealing with the progressive editorial issues and the bullying around them all. It was incredibly difficult.”

    Been there done that. Freethought Blogs was and is not the BBC, but the miasma is the same.

    In an interview with her former colleague Rob Burley, published by UnHerd, Ms Unsworth said BBC News had become “increasingly unmanageable” during her tenure.

    “It was bullying,” she said. “But it wasn’t just the trans issue. There was lots and lots of bullying going on about all sorts of things: people didn’t want to hear from certain points of view; they’d ‘no platform’ them; all that safe-spaces shit.”

    And the “incredibly vulnerable” shit – the wildly exaggerated doom-mongering about what a tragic fate it is to be a man who pretends to be a woman, combined with the joyous indifference to the fate of women pushed out of their own institutions and politics and spaces.

    Ms Unsworth suggested that programme editors had avoided critical reporting on trans issues for fear of being attacked by their own colleagues.

    She claimed that news reporters came under an “awful lot of pressure” from “other parts of the BBC if they felt that the editorial direction of the story was not supporting their particular point of view on it”.

    Yep. Again: been there, seen that.

    However, problems with the BBC’s coverage of trans issues continued after Ms Unsworth’s departure.

    Last year, The Telegraph published a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, the corporation’s editorial standards adviser, in which he claimed its trans coverage had been subject to “effective censorship” by specialist LGBT reporters.

    But there is no LGBT. It’s a mirage. T is not LGB; T is the monster substituted for the real baby.

    While Ms Unsworth rejected claims that Stonewall had directly influenced editorial output, she said the charity’s gender-affirmative ideology had become pervasive and was creating problems for reporters.

    “Nobody, ever, ever said to me as director of news, ‘you need to get points in the Stonewall league table’,” she said. But she acknowledged that “there was a sea in which we all swam… an atmosphere. We need to be kind to transitioning people. It’s a social phenomenon. And I think this ‘be kind’ thing was at the heart of it.”

    Oh hell yes it was. But why? Why the desperate eagerness to “be kind” to people pushing such a ridiculous and women-harming ideology?

    To be continued.

  • and the bullying around them all

    Big article at Unherd on the capture of the BBC. I’m short on time today so I’ll just leave a couple of bookmarks.

    A former BBC News boss has claimed she was driven out of the top job by trans activists.

    Fran Unsworth, the director of BBC News from 2018 to 2022, said she had been bullied out of the role by gender ideologues employed by the corporation.

    Speaking for the first time since leaving the BBC, Ms Unsworth said: “I would actually say it drove me out, just dealing with the progressive editorial issues and the bullying around them all. It was incredibly difficult.”

    Been there done that. Freethought Blogs was and is not the BBC, but the miasma is the same.

    In an interview with her former colleague Rob Burley, published by UnHerd, Ms Unsworth said BBC News had become “increasingly unmanageable” during her tenure.

    “It was bullying,” she said. “But it wasn’t just the trans issue. There was lots and lots of bullying going on about all sorts of things: people didn’t want to hear from certain points of view; they’d ‘no platform’ them; all that safe-spaces shit.”

    And the “incredibly vulnerable” shit – the wildly exaggerated doom-mongering about what a tragic fate it is to be a man who pretends to be a woman, combined with the joyous indifference to the fate of women pushed out of their own institutions and politics and spaces.

    Ms Unsworth suggested that programme editors had avoided critical reporting on trans issues for fear of being attacked by their own colleagues.

    She claimed that news reporters came under an “awful lot of pressure” from “other parts of the BBC if they felt that the editorial direction of the story was not supporting their particular point of view on it”.

    Yep. Again: been there, seen that.

    However, problems with the BBC’s coverage of trans issues continued after Ms Unsworth’s departure.

    Last year, The Telegraph published a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, the corporation’s editorial standards adviser, in which he claimed its trans coverage had been subject to “effective censorship” by specialist LGBT reporters.

    But there is no LGBT. It’s a mirage. T is not LGB; T is the monster substituted for the real baby.

    While Ms Unsworth rejected claims that Stonewall had directly influenced editorial output, she said the charity’s gender-affirmative ideology had become pervasive and was creating problems for reporters.

    “Nobody, ever, ever said to me as director of news, ‘you need to get points in the Stonewall league table’,” she said. But she acknowledged that “there was a sea in which we all swam… an atmosphere. We need to be kind to transitioning people. It’s a social phenomenon. And I think this ‘be kind’ thing was at the heart of it.”

    Oh hell yes it was. But why? Why the desperate eagerness to “be kind” to people pushing such a ridiculous and women-harming ideology?

    To be continued.

  • Trump prepared

    Of course he did.

    Trump prepared for this summit in a way that few if any presidents have done before previous summits—which is to say, he barely prepared at all. Usually, the National Security Council holds interagency meetings—first among midlevel experts, then with Cabinet secretaries and the president himself—to hammer out positions on various major issues. Advance meetings are then held with counterparts from the other country to work out an agenda and to agree on as many issues as possible before the heads of state sit down to talk.

    By contrast, Trump held no such meetings, not formally anyway. The list of officials and executives that he brought with him to Beijing included no China specialists, not even the few who hold key positions in the departments of State and Defense.

    As usual, Trump thought that he could wing it and that his presumed friendship with Xi would pave the way for vast progress and profits, which he could brag about back home to boost the economy, maybe end the war in Iran, and in any case restore his popularity before this fall’s midterms.

    Why does he think he can wing it? Because he thinks he’s very clever. Why does he think that? Because he’s very notclever.

    And yet, it keeps working for him.

    It’s like a jigsaw puzzle, or a lock. There’s something about the US that makes it sufficiently receptive to the bullshit of a trump to put him in charge of everything. It’s weird.

  • What they wish to be called

    Seriously?

    I won’t stand for any misgendering, says Holyrood presiding officer

    The newly elected Kenny Gibson says when it comes to preferred pronouns, MSPs should respect what people wish to be called.

    There’s no such thing as “preferred pronouns” meaning inaccurate third person singular pronouns to refer to people who think they can change sex. No, legislators of all people should not promote the lie that sex is a matter of assertion as opposed to physical reality.

    As for “respect what people wish to be called” – what if they wish to be called King Charles, or Betty Boop, or Asterix, or Pope Barbara, or Doctor Strangelove?

    Holyrood’s newly elected presiding officer will crack down on MSPs who misgender their new trans and non-binary colleagues.

    In an interview with The Times, Kenny Gibson, who opposed Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reform legislation in 2022, said he would take incidents as they come.

    But he made it clear that he would not tolerate politicians deliberately or maliciously refusing to use the chosen pronouns of the newly elected Green MSPs Iris Duane and Q Manivannan.

    Blah blah blah – so now cranky teenagers get to make the rules for what legislators can say? We don’t get to “choose” the pronouns other people refer to us by which, and legislators should not promote the lie that people can swap sex, let alone be forced to do so.

    “You have to respect what that person wants to be called,” Gibson said. “And if someone doesn’t do that, then you have to call that out in the chamber and you have to take the appropriate action.”

    No you don’t have to respect what any person wants to be called if that want is ridiculous or childish or worse. It depends. In ordinary life sure, we call people what they want to be called, but when things become not ordinary, we may have damn good reason not to. Trump wants to be called a brilliant gorgeous rock star of a man and we do not have to call him that.

    “If there’s a clear issue of it looks like it’s being deliberate, then you have to act on that because you can’t have someone, a member of the parliament, feeling undervalued or disrespected.”

    Think about how female members of the parliament feel.

  • Of course he’s not a woman

    But but but

    But but but how can he be anything but a “biological male” when it’s only “biological males” who call themselves trans women? Women don’t call themselves trans women; only men do that.

    A purported political or social movement whose only goal is to force everyone to agree that men can be women and women can be men is sheer frivolity but with seriously bad outcomes. It needs to stop.

  • Guest post: But this is exactly the issue

    Originally a comment by Freemage on Peak stupid.

    Even if we take as writ the claimed feelings of transwomen, that means nothing in terms of how the law should look upon them. Many religious believers sincerely think their sky-daddy is the best (and only!) sky-daddy. But while they are free to profess this, and try to get others to agree with them, they cannot use the law to force this belief (or at least, the rote repetition of the belief) on others.

    This has to be doubly so in the case of trans, because the belief itself clearly cannot be examined..Just because someone sincerely believes they have a woman’s mind, how can they actually know this? One defense usually posited by trans believers in face of skepticism is that critics can’t possibly know what’s in the mind of the transwoman. But this is exactly the issue. Transwomen also have no ability to compare their internal mental structure to that of biological women. They may like things that are generally associated with femininity, but the whole crux of feminism is that femininity as a concept is a social creation, so while a transwoman might be falling into the roles and tastes their culture says women should do and like, they are not, in fact, capable of knowing if those things are what women actually like and want to do.

    Final bonus note: She does give the game away here when she adds “soul” after mind. This is a religious belief, and should be treated as such.

  • Skip the triumph

    Let’s not do this.

    The Trump administration has asked the FAA to evaluate the risks of building the president’s “triumphal arch” less than two miles from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, one of the busiest in the nation.

    According to documents obtained by CNN, the Department of Interior has requested a formal aeronautical study from the Federal Aviation Administration for the proposed 250-foot arch, which would be built in a patch of grass at the end of Memorial Bridge, across from the Lincoln Memorial.

    And would be very ugly and intrusive.

    The request, submitted by the National Parks Service, a division of the Interior Department, notes that the total height of the structure will be 279 feet when the site elevation beneath the arch itself is considered.

    FAA regulations require structures that exceed 200 feet and positioned at a site that potentially interferes with airspace be subject to a review. 

    It’s at a site that would interfere with airspace. Let’s skip it.

    Pilots must already navigate various hazards as they descend or ascent through the “north approach” flight path that requires them to swing to avoid close encounters with the Pentagon, the Washington Monument and other DC landmarks.

    The addition of President Donald Trump’s arch will further complicate flying through the corridor, which has been the site of high-profile and much scrutinized accidents, including last year’s midair collision between an American Airlines plane and a Black Hawk helicopter and a 1982 crash into the 14th Street Bridge upon takeoff.

    It’s already a hotspot so let’s just NOT DO IT, ok?

    Trump has already stamped his horrible taste all over DC, let’s just skip one that could cause plane crashes, yeah?

  • Peak stupid

    Julia Gillard explaining how men are women if they really really think so.

    She’s asked if she can say what a woman is. Instead of saying yes of course I can she taaalllkks verrrry slowwwwly about how terrible it is that people keep asking this question. She calls it a gotcha moment – how original. She says, verrry slowwwly indeed, that we have to come at this from first principles. She burbles about rich diversity. She says it’s powerful. Finally at 1:39 [that’s a long time to say nothing relevant!] she gets to the myth.

    There are a number of people who genuinely believe they are trapped in the wrong body, and they want to be recognized as the gender that their mind, their mind and soul have always told them that they are.

    Ok. First of all, how do you know they genuinely believe that? It’s not knowable. Other people’s minds are a black box. This appalling ideology is based on an assumption that is negated by everything we know about people, minds, knowledge, rhetoric, politics and all the rest of it.

    Second, and all too obviously, so the fuck what? People can “genuinely” believe all kinds of bullshit – just look at how many people think Donald Trump is a great guy.

    Guess what: we could all claim we genuinely believe we are Julia Gillard. Would she make duplicate keys to her house for all of us?

    It’s just staggering that this childish horseshit is allowed to cancel women’s rights.

  • Yes, there are hundreds

    So I ask “are there aboriginal organizations in australia?” and whaddya know, yes there are.

    Yes, there are hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organizations across Australia. They operate in almost every sector—including health, law, land management, and education—and are often structured as Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), meaning they are run by and for Indigenous Australians to support self-determination.

    Well whaddya know. By and for Indigenous Australians to support self-determination. But female Australians are not allowed to have self-determination. Furthermore, if they object to this odd exception, they get fines which increase every time they object.

  • He calls himself “Roxanne”

    Australia court doubles payout for trans woman in landmark discrimination case

    A Sydney court has doubled the discrimination payout for an Australian trans woman who was kicked off a female-only app.

    It comes almost two years after Roxanne Tickle successfully sued Sall Grover, founder of the Giggle for Girls app, for blocking her account on the grounds of gender identity.

    Grover lodged an appeal against that verdict, but on Friday, the Federal Court dismissed it and further found that Tickle was directly – rather than indirectly – discriminated against by Grover.

    Tickle was also awarded compensation of AU$20,000 ($14,000; £11,000), double the original amount.

    Unfuckingbelievable.

    So in Australia women cannot have anything that is just for women? And the legal system is cool with that, and eager to tighten the screws on women who resist?

    Under the country’s Sex Discrimination Act, it is illegal for providers of goods or services to discriminate against another person on the ground of a person’s gender identity.

    But it’s not on the ground of the person’s god damn genner idenniny it’s on the ground of the person’s sex. Genner idenniny is just a claim, a pretend, a label, a choice, a fantasy, a stupid idea in the head of a man, a make-believe, a joke, a taunt, a sadistic game, a fuck you to every woman on the planet.

    In Friday’s Federal Court judgement, the full court found that Grover had engaged in unlawful direct discrimination, saying she had treated Tickle “who is a transgender woman, less favourably than a person designated female at birth seeking access to the Giggle App”.

    Are there any aboriginal groups in Australia? If so have any of them been forced to let newcomers join because to keep them out would be treating the newcomers less favorably than a person designated aboriginal at birth? Please advise.

    Grover founded the Giggle for Girls app in 2020 in response to online abuse by men during her time as a screenwriter in Hollywood.

    So now it’s Australia that’s abusing her. Thanks a lot.

  • Damn it to hell

  • Go to sleep a princess, wake up a frog

    Mmmmmno.

    Frankenstein is transphobic, claims non-binary director

    Frankenstein is not tranphobic for the same reason Hamlet is not transphobic. There was no trans to be phobic about when the works in question were created.

    Frankenstein is transphobic because it is about “a constructed body”, a non-binary filmmaker has claimed.

    Jane Schoenbrun, an American director who describes herself as trans and queer, said the Frankenstein adaptations, based on Mary Shelley’s 1818 gothic novel, are an example of older horror films featuring a “trans monster”.

    “This image of the trans monster kept coming up, whether that be Norman Bates or Buffalo Bill or Frankenstein as a constructed body, and there was this lineage of trans people having really complicated feelings about those movies,” Schoenbrun told The Hollywood Reporter.

    That’s a less stupid claim – typical news media trick to make the story sound more provocative than it is.

    “In one sense, those are the places where they saw representations that felt familiar or comforting in some way to their own experiences – but also, those movies are super f—ing transphobic and problematic,” the filmmaker added.

    Maybe that’s because trying to escape your own body is not a healthy impulse, so stories about it make it sound like an unfortunate choice.

  • Guest post: Daily life in Israel is simply not like that

    Originally a comment by Stewart on The row over.

    I’m afraid my conscience won’t permit me not to react to the suggestion that Israel has anything like South Africa’s apartheid (I am not a Zionist and my nearly thirty years lived experience of Israel between 1976 and 2005 were not something I ever wished upon myself).

    Israel has Arabs and Muslims in high positions, including an Arab Christian judge (George Karra), who sentenced a former – Jewish, obviously – President of the State (Moshe Katsav) to prison. That kind of thing (of which there is plenty, though not all as dramatic as the example above) leaves comparisons to South Africa in tatters.

    Yes, both sides have their racists and religious fanatics and yes, those on the (Jewish) Israeli side have been clawing away with alarming success at gaining more political and legal power, especially in the last decade or so, but for any comparison with South Africa to hold water there must be actual laws that say “Arabs/Muslims may not” do something or that only Jewish Israelis have certain rights or privileges. Daily life in Israel is simply not like that and anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time there cannot take the apartheid accusation seriously.

    The two societies may not mix much but it’s certainly not illegal, nor are marriages between Muslims and Jews, though the Interior Ministry will only recognise those that took place elsewhere (no such thing as a civil, non-religious, marriage can take place inside the country, so mixed-religion marriages are not possible there). I remember when the suburb of Neve Yaacov on the outskirts of Jerusalem was new (my father lived there for a while) that it was unpopular with some because there were also Arab families living there. My guess, in general, would be that Jewish Israelis have a far greater fear of entering Arab-only areas than the reverse.

  • A different entity altogether

    James Dreyfus at Spiked:

    The sad reality is that there are those among us who appear to believe that one’s sexuality or identity is the most interesting and important component to doing a job. That certainly seems to be the case with the LGBTQIA+ crowd, who think that having an actual gay person in charge would be the most groundbreaking event since Eddie Izzard said, ‘Call me Suzy’.

    The fact is that neither Labour’s Streeting nor the Greens’ Polanski would ever ‘identify’ as gay. Both would likely talk in terms of being LGBTQIA+. Which is quite a different entity altogether.

    And also a much sillier one, as I keep saying, because no one can be all those items.

    Homosexuality is so unremarkable now that I’m surprised more politicians haven’t latched on to the Hollywood craze and declared themselves ‘nonbinary’. This, apparently, carries far more cachet, and – most excitingly – a smashing new wardrobe filled with assorted dungarees.

    Which brings me onto the reaction to this Dual of The Divas between Streeting and Polanski. Of course, the bona fide members of the all-or-nothing LGBTQIA+ mob were outraged at the suggestion that Streeting could take the crown. Some septum-pierced, grammarless hack said he was ‘Getting out ahead of this right now’, before declaring: ‘We simply do not claim Wes Streeting as the first gay PM. A man who has thrown trans people under the bus, who backs attacks on LGBTQ migrants, on POC [people of colour], on [the] working class… is not emblematic of our movement and is certainly no trailblazer.’

    …

    Trouble is, there seems to be rather a lot of these people about. Polanski is being touted as the champion of LGBTQIA+ politics, but it does not seem to me that this particular individual will concern himself with the first three letters of this increasingly foolish acronym, whose rights are in direct opposition to the TQIA+. Most gay people who want nothing to do with gender ideology call themselves LGB. That is because we do not want to see women’s hard-won rights demolished, we do not want to see lesbian-only spaces invaded by men, and we most certainly do not want to see gender theory in action – especially when it comes to influencing other people’s children.

    Say not the struggle naught availeth.

  • All sewing abilities welcome

    Corporate Memphis enough yet?

    It’s part of a wider study on trans understandings of transition.

    Isn’t that WONDERFUL?

  • The guidance essentially reversed

    Bad Kennedy is getting his wish.

    Before Nov. 19, 2025, the CDC’s website was unequivocal on the topic: “Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder,” it read. After Nov. 19, the guidance essentially reversed. “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism,” it now says. “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”

    That claim, reflecting the longstanding vaccine-skeptical views of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), is false. But new research published in the journal Science suggests that it’s affecting what Americans believe about vaccines.  

    Well it would be, wouldn’t it. There’s no vaccine to protect against bullshit.