Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on How can Manchin.

…like everyone else, he is unable to imagine a life different than the one we live.

Well, if we just wait a little, we won’t have to imagine at all: it will be here.

I tell people the economy is man-made, the ecology is not. The ecology is more complex by orders of magnitude than the economy, and we understand it far less. Which one should we be thinking about changing?

Very well put. Our global economy is a pale, weak imitation of the exchange of energy, information, and elements that happens in nature, which we have been inerfering with and disrupting to our shame, and at our peril. Yes, a company going out of business is nothing compared to species going extinct. The former is like a car running out of gas; the latter more like multiple organ failure.

Economist Dani Rodrik’s political trilemma is illustrative of the choices we are faced with. According to Rodrik, democracy, national sovereignty, and global economic integration each have conflicts between them, and while you can combine any two of these three you can’t have all three simultaneously and in full.

What about a stable, functioning biosphere? Without one of those, the other three items aren’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

From what I’ve read on renewable energy, the U.S. can replace up to 80% of its current fossil fuel use via solar and wind and biomass fuels, while other measures like improving dwelling energy efficiency and building more densely can help with the rest.

The more I read, the more that 80% figure sounds like a fantasy. The amount of fossil fuels that would be expended to “replace” that 80% would be enormous, vitiating the supposed “cleanliness” of these energy sources. Certainly increasing efficiency is good, but actual reductions in energy use are what’s required.

Yes, it will cost a lot of money but as the kids these days put it, I’m happy to pay it forward.

Problem is the true cost of the “improvements” proposed is not monetary. If money were the only problem, we’d be laughing. Solar panels and batteries are technologies that depend upon mining rare earth metals, which results in massive ecological damage to wherever they are extracted; the ores then rely on extremely toxic refinement and processing, which is dangerous to whatever locality these steps are taken. Both of these steps need huge amounts of (fossil fuel) energy for the machinery and processes involved. On top of that are the inputs required for transport, installation, maintenance, as well as replacement and disposal at the end of these items’ service lives. Almost all of this chain is toxic and destructive. Yet it is called “green.” The monetary cost is trivial in comparison. There’s plenty of room for profit, too. For too many, that’s the important part. All that toxicity and habitat destruction are “externalities” that can be written off, ignored and forgotten. Until they come back and bite our heads off.

Here’s a simple proposition: when the economic system comes into conflict with the ecological one, it is the economic one that must give way.

You’d think this would be foundational to any and all economic theories and practices. The fact that it is not shows you that economics is not dealing with reality.

This is what no one wants to hear, so we continue to think up simple solutions to complex problems, simple solutions that promise to leave everything essentially as it is, no lifestyle changes necessary.

If we do not solve our end of these problems ourselves, they will be solved for us, with a comprehensiveness and ferocity which will be terrible to behold, let alone experience first hand. We have yet to see the totality of Nature’s “market corrections.” If we are very lucky, we never will.

The simple truth is, we can’t solve this problem while there are 7 billion people in the world. Every solution we come up with will “hurt the poor” …

Democracies seem to be not very good at selling bad news. Who will be first to declare that economic growth is bad? How do you get elected calling for wartime levels of sacrifice in a war where the enemy is the electorate’s lifestyle? What party looking for votes is going to promote a “No Children” Policy? Nobody is going to run on a platform that clearly outlines the actual problems we face, or solutions that will actually work. Those solutions would require degrees of self-sacrifice, self-denial, and surrender of accustomed comforts and privileges that nobody has ever had to deal with willingly. As things get worse, protecting natural refugia that will be needed as loci of healing, regeneration and restoration will be harder and harder as humans become more desperate (and as some continue the cycle of despoilation which has been, up to now, so profitable for them). Earth is going to have the final say, but nobody is courting its vote, or pandering to the non-human inhabitants of any country.

What we need to do requires actual change, sacrifice and, in Western countries at least, a sharp reduction in our standard of living. Yet a non-trivial percentage of the populations of over-developed countries don’t believe there is any crisis at all. We’re having trouble convincing some people to get free shots and wear masks during a pandemic. How the fuck do we save the world? Unfortunately, I can’t see solutions that don’t involve draconian enforcement.

If this is true…

So lesbians can’t be in LGBT Labour, because of being lesbian. If they want to be in LGBT Labour they have to promise they’re not lesbian, and get two men to vouch for them.

SERIOUSLY?

And does this rule apply, mutatis mutandis, to gay men? Hello? Are we still connected?

Originally a comment by iknklast on How can Manchin.

It’s fine to be optimistic, but since we’ve already passed several tipping points, it is probably unfounded. We can’t solve all our problems with solar panels and wind farms because emissions control will not solve our problems. Global warming isn’t the problem, it’s the fever that tells us there is an underlying problem. We can fix emissions all we like and still careen to ecological disaster at a breakneck pace. And, even if I thought we would reduce our emissions, we needed to do it a long time ago, say, about the 1980s…earlier would have been better, but there was still time to fix things by the end of the 1980s. By the beginning of this century, we were already in too deep, but we could slow down global warming. At this point? Maybe we can slow it down or keep it to a lesser warming, maybe we can’t.

Here’s a simple proposition: when the economic system comes into conflict with the ecological one, it is the economic one that must give way. If it does not, we are like crash dummies heading toward the wall. That will mean some serious long-term thinking, and some serious action that goes beyond rhetoric. This is what no one wants to hear, so we continue to think up simple solutions to complex problems, simple solutions that promise to leave everything essentially as it is, no lifestyle changes necessary.

The simple truth is, we can’t solve this problem while there are 7 billion people in the world. Every solution we come up with will “hurt the poor” (even those that won’t, or will even help, like mass transit). As Jesus said, the poor will be with us always, providing a convenient excuse for middle class drivers of luxury automobiles that don’t want to do more than change their fuel source.

They just don’t see it. They just don’t see that it’s her idenniny, and thus unassailable.

Among those quoted by CBC was Janet Smylie, a health academic of Métis heritage at the University of Toronto, who wrote a chapter in a 2017 book on Indigenous parenting edited by Bourassa.

Smylie told the broadcaster she had done her own research into Bourassa’s ancestry. “It makes you feel a bit sick,” she said. “To have an impostor who is speaking on behalf of Métis and Indigenous people to the country about literally what it means to be Métis … that’s very disturbing and upsetting and harmful.”

But it’s her iden

Ok I’ll drop the sarcasm now and ask straight up: if this is unacceptable then why is it not merely acceptable to claim to be a woman when you’re a man, but so approved and embraced and proselytized that we’re punished for not believing the claim?

The differences between human populations are pretty trivial compared to the differences between women and men. There’s one overarching difference without which none of us would exist to have differences: the different role in making more of us.

The differences between people of indigenous ancestry and people of settler ancestry are superficial. The differences between women and men are basic. So why is it that we’re being harangued and bullied and punished into pretending to believe that men are women if they say they are, while people who make false claims to being indigenous are seen as shocking frauds? Why are women who pretend to be black or indigenous punished while men who pretend to be women are stunning and brave? Why is one an impostor and the other a star?

An investigation challenged her claims.

A Canadian official and academic specialising in Indigenous health issues has been placed on administrative leave from her university after an investigation challenged her claims of Indigenous ancestry.

Carrie Bourassa, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, has described herself as having Métis, Anishinaabe and Tlingit heritage. In 2019 she appeared at a TEDx talk wearing a blue embroidered shawl and holding a feather, where she identified herself as “Morning Star Bear”.

However, an investigation by CBC television alleged that Bourassa was entirely of European descent.

But how would the CBC know better than Bourassa? How does the CBC know she doesn’t identify as of indigenous descent? We know that identifying as is all it takes to determine what one is, so what’s the problem? Why has the University of Saskatchewan placed her on leave?

She recently stepped down from her roles as scientific director for Indigenous peoples health at the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). Bourassa had been described by the CIHR as “a Métis woman, a highly regarded Indigenous researcher” who “has been a selfless leader and a tireless champion for all Indigenous peoples in this country”.

And saying makes it true, so what is this story even about?

The CBC investigation has drawn comparisons with the case of Rachel Dolezal, an American academic and activist who was accused of passing herself off as black. A Métis professor who worked with Bourassa told CBC she was “the modern-day Grey Owl” – a reference to Archibald Stansfeld Belaney, the British-born conservationist and writer who passed himself off as a Native American in the early 20th century.

How does anyone know Belaney too didn’t identify as a Native American? If people identify as something then they are that thing. That’s the new rule; hasn’t the CBC heard?

CBC reported that people who worked with Bourassa had expressed disquiet about her account of her ancestry, and some examined her genealogical records, which reportedly showed that her ancestors were of Russian, Polish and Czechoslovakian descent.

Yes but that has nothing to do with her identity. Identity is like the soul, and transcends literal items like genealogical records.

In an email to CBC, Bourassa said she had been adopted as Métis by a friend of her grandfather and had subsequently been adopted into other communities. She accused the broadcaster of running a “smear campaign” against her, adding she was “shocked and dismayed at the recent attack on my identity”.

There you go. She knows what her identity is, so who the hell do all these broadcaster and administrators think they are, challenging her?

I wrote about Biden’s visit to the pope for The Freethinker.

It’s appalling that it’s become some kind of normalized tradition that US presidents are supposed to drop in on the pope, even if they’re not Catholic. Trump did it and he’s not Catholic or Protestant or atheist or anything else, he’s just empty, but still he toddled along. Obama did it, and he even let the pope return the favor.

Not appropriate.

Helen Joyce NAILS it. No we can’t have dialogue, no we can’t get together for a good searching conversation that will lead to a truce, no we can’t split the difference, we just have to win, that’s all.

Whence all this drivel about the authentic self?

Also throw in Hume. Specifically, the Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part IV, Section VI: Of Personal Identity.

1. There are some philosophers, who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our SELF; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a farther proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be deriv’d from any fact, of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing, of which we can be certain, if we doubt of this. 

2. Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience, which is pleaded for them, nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explain’d. For from what impression cou’d this idea be deriv’d? This question ’tis impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet ’tis a question, which must necessarily be answer’d, if we wou’d have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are suppos’d to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, thro’ the whole course of our lives; since self is suppos’d to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is deriv’d; and consequently there is no such idea.

3. But farther, what must become of all our particular perceptions upon this hypothesis? All these are different, and distinguishable, and separable from each other, and may be separately consider’d, and may exist separately, and have no need of any thing to support their existence. After what manner, therefore, do they belong to self; and how are they connected with it? For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions remov’d by death, and cou’d I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my body, I shou’d be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity. If any one, upon serious and unprejudic’d reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continu’d, which he calls himself; tho’ I am certain there is no such principle in me.

4. But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes cannot turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions. Our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change; nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment. The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, re-pass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different; whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind; nor have we the most distant notion of the place, where these scenes are represented, or of the materials, of which it is compos’d.

It’s called the bundle theory of the self. It’s had a rather large influence.

The Guardian media editor on the BBC and That article:

The BBC has rejected complaints that it published a transphobic article and has instead given a commitment to covering different viewpoints in the name of impartiality.

The corporation has faced protests outside some of its regional newsrooms, petitions from trans campaign groups and disquiet among many LGBTQ+ staff members over a piece published online last week entitled “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”.

On Monday the BBC said it stood by the article about the experience of some lesbians, adding it had been subject to a rigorous editing process, and that it met its editorial guidelines.

…

One BBC source said the broadcaster has received 4,819 complaints about the article but a further 5,520 people wrote in to note their approval of the piece.

Ha! I was one, and I bet some of you were also.

The Guardian understands the article had been the subject of debate for some time before it was published and was subject to extensive back-and-forth editing. Bosses were acutely aware of the likely reaction to it on social media – and among the BBC’s own staff, who are often deeply split on the issue of trans rights.

Please stop talking about “trans rights” without spelling out what you mean by the phrase. We controversial gender critics don’t want to take any human rights away from trans people, but we don’t consider it a “right” for men to claim to be women and then take everything set aside for women for themselves.

I too keep wondering how Manchin can justify putting his personal political survival ahead of the planet.

Late in the evening on Friday 15 October an alert appeared on my phone that seemed at last to portend the end of the world. Two weeks before the UN climate summit in Glasgow – a make-or-break moment for American leadership and international ambition – Senator Joe Manchin had decided to gut our country’s best, and perhaps last, attempt to save itself. With three decades left to decarbonize the global economy, and a window of Democratic control unlikely to recur for years, Manchin’s benefactors in the coal and gas industry had managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, killing the Clean Electricity Performance Program that would finally have brought their lucrative global arson spree under control.

…

My rage might consume me if I couldn’t set it down here: not only is Joe Manchin devastating the constituents he claims to work for, consigning them to a future of constant, devastating floods. Not only is he shilling for an industry that has ravaged his home state, snaring West Virginians in a resource trap. Not only is he making a choice that could single-handedly warm the planet by several tenths of a degree, precipitating millions of avoidable deaths and dimming the prospects of my entire generation.

The truly maddening thing is that he refuses to look his decision in the face, hiding instead behind the debunked and convenient lies furnished by his donors, who maintain that they can burn coal into mid-century without risking a catastrophe.

And the even more maddening thing is that he’s doing all this for his own petty self-interest. 7 billion people v one guy, and not even a guy with several more decades ahead of him (he’s 74). 7 billion people plus all the other life forms.

If fit for gander then fit for goose, yeah?

The International Handball Federation has responded to widespread accusations of sexism by changing its rules around women’s uniforms to allow bike shorts and tank tops instead of bikini bottoms and crop tops.

The sport’s global governing body has been the subject of international pressure since July, when the European Handball Federation made headlines for imposing a €1,500 fine on the Norwegian women’s beach handball team for wearing shorts like their male counterparts during the Euro 21 tournament in Bulgaria. At the time, the EHF described the shorts as “improper clothing”.

Yes because it’s “improper” for female athletes not to show off their tits and groins while competing.

At some point over the past month the IHF has quietly altered its regulations for beach handball, which now stipulate that “female athletes must wear short tight pants with a close fit”. Male athletes can still wear regular shorts as long as 10cm above the knee “if not too baggy”.

Jesus. Women are required to wear SHORT TIGHT PANTS WITH A CLOSE FIT while men can wear just regular shorts. How do they justify this in their own minds?

[Norway’s] minister for culture and sport, Abid Raja, described the ruling as being “completely ridiculous” and women’s sports associations across Europe also called for the resignation of the presidents of both the IHF and the EHF.

…

Even now, there are differences in terms of requirements for women to wear uniforms that are “body fit” and “tight” when there is no corresponding rule for men.

“Look, bitches, we want to ogle your bums and cracks, OKAY?”

Female athletes have spoken out against uniform double standards numerous times. Women are required to wear more revealing outfits in several sports, including track and field, beach volleyball and tennis.

Gymnastics and figure skating.

The children stamp out another artistic endeavor.

A forthcoming production of Into the Woods at The Old Vic was cancelled after staff expressed discomfort at Terry Gilliam’s involvement, reports claim.

The former Monty Python star had been due to direct a new production of Stephen Sondheim’s musical at the London theatre in April alongside Leah Hausman.

On Thursday (28 October), it was announced that the production would no longer be taking place, with no reason for the cancellation given.

However, The Stage now reports that The Old Vic pulled the production following unrest from members of staff who felt that Gilliam’s comments to the press regarding the #MeToo movement, trans rights and racism were at odds with the theatre’s ethos.

Well ideological purity is an obvious must for co-directing a play.

Sondheim is said to have initially approved the production after being impressed by Gilliam’s ideas for the production.

Oh well who cares what he thinks.

The Times picks up the Girl Guides-Ace story:

Girlguiding has been criticised for promoting asexuality awareness, causing some parents to threaten to withdraw their daughters from the group.

The organisation, which provides activities and regular meetings for girls aged five to 18, posted a tweet in support of Ace Week, an awareness event for asexuality, acknowledging all members and volunteers who identify as such.

But there is such a thing as “Ace Week” according to whom? Asexuality is a thing that requires an awareness week how, and according to whom? People “identify as such” according to whom? Is there a week for every kind of No Thank You there is? One for people who don’t like pickles? One for cinnamon, one for swimming, one for math, one for politics, one for lacrosse, one for zippers – you can see how quickly we would run out of weeks, can’t you.

It’s not at all clear that there even is such a thing as “asexuality” as a permanent condition aka an “identity.” There is more or less libido but – wait for it – it’s a spectrum not a binary. Isn’t it? And anyway even if there are some people who have Permanent Absolute Zero libido, how is that “an identity”? Why would it need “a week”?

Angela Salt, chief executive of Girlguiding, said: “A year ago we did a consultation with members asking how inclusive we were as an organisation. Our membership — made up of girls, parents, carers, volunteers and staff — told us that we haven’t got it right, and we needed to do more to become truly inclusive.”

“Inclusive” of what? Or whom? What does yattering about “asxuality” have to do with being more “inclusive”? By all means be more inclusive of girls from poor families, immigrant families, brown families, lesbian and gay families – but what does “asexuality” have to do with any of that? Not a single damn thing.

“In response, we launched our new diversity and inclusion strategic plan to make Girlguiding a place where everyone feels welcomed, like they belong and free to be themselves, whoever they are and wherever they are from.”

She must be joking. Tweeting about “Asexuality Week” will scare people off, not make them feel welcomed. Does she seriously think there are masses of girls out there feeling unwelcome at Girl Guides because those girls are “ace”?

When and why did the authorities hand the word “inclusive” over to Stonewall?

Now to cheer us up after the agony of a commenter who won’t reply to replies, dogs in Canada on their bus to school.

Housekeeping note.

I don’t have official rules. I think the tacit ones are obvious enough, in general. I guess however I need to state one rule, or not so much as a rule as a strong preference which, if flouted enough times, may lead to deletion of comments.

That rule or preference goes like this: we’re having a conversation here. That too is obvious enough, surely? We go back and forth. We exchange views. I like it that way, and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.

So thanks very much but I don’t want drive-by corrections by someone who never ever replies to replies to the corrections. If you won’t engage then I don’t want your corrections. That’s why I deleted Skeletor’s most recent correction. Conversation or don’t bother.

I don’t think that’s too harsh. I’ve told Skeletor more than once that I don’t like the drive-by no-replies unilateral approach, so please stop ignoring responses, but I’ve been ignored. Enough.

Originally a comment by Sastra on Your instructions.

Beth Clarkson #1 wrote:

Why are people so traumatized by misgendering?

I can grant that the transgender are indeed traumatized, but not that this is the natural outcome of Dysphoria, or of “feeling like your insides don’t match your outsides.” What might normally be expected when referred to as a “she” instead of “he” is a sense of sadness, or mild frustration. What occurs instead seems to be something akin to a panic attack, or perhaps the sort of outrage someone might feel encountering a bully kicking their grandmother.

That’s culture, I think. It’s a socially-induced reaction following a template of expectations, and in extreme forms close to what’s been called “social media induced psychosis” — “ a connection … between the gradual development and exacerbation of psychotic symptoms, including delusions, anxiety, confusion and intensified use of computer communications.” It started percolating on corners of the internet like Tumblr and Deviant Art. Now it’s gone mainstream, through the schools, a kind of feedback loop between those who react to being misgendered (or the thought of being misgendered) and those who respond with concern (or the facsimile of concern.)

The more traumatized you are, the more obvious it is that you really, really are trans. Preferred pronouns may not be as validating as the unpreferred kind.

Haven’t we talked about this? Isn’t there some murmuring in certain quarters that Stonewall isn’t the boss of us? Aren’t there questions being asked about who made Stonewall God in charge of how Incloosiv everyone is?

Stonewall to judge NHS on LG inclusion:

NHS trusts will be judged by the controversial charity Stonewall on their LGBT “inclusion” in a £220,000 taxpayer-funded project.

The Telegraph has learnt that some 40 NHS trusts will be “benchmarked” on diversity after NHS England awarded the contract, titled NHS Rainbow Badges, to five LGBT groups.

Trusts will be given a bronze, silver or gold award depending on their ”inclusive cultures” and “trans status monitoring”, with assessors hired on a higher starting salary than nurses and paramedics.

Ah that’s an interesting detail. People who will be running around hospitals checking on how incloosiv they are will be paid more than the people who do the hard dangerous work.

Medics taking part are urged in official guidance to “pledge” via social media or a blog post “about how you will be an effective LGBT+ ally”, in order to “earn” a Pride flag pinned badge.

…

It comes as hospitals are to be given new guidance by the equalities regulator on preserving single-sex wards, after The Telegraph revealed some trusts said sex offenders who identified as women could be placed on female-only wards, and branded dissenters transphobic.

Stonewall says trans patients should be “admitted to wards and use facilities which match their gender” and says it is “completely inappropriate” to suggest trans patients pose a risk simply because they are trans.

But it’s not simply because they’re trans, as of course Stonewall knows. It’s because they’re men. Men can pose a risk to women.

As part of the new scheme, two “NHS Rainbow Badge Assessors” and a project manager have been hired, on between £28,900 and £30,000 per year, more than the starting salary for most nurses and paramedics.

It is understood the awards could expand to allow more NHS bodies to sign up, with health chiefs viewing this as a pilot project led by the equality charities Stonewall, LGBT Foundation, Switchboard, Consortium and Glaad.

An NHS spokesman said: “We know that some people are put off seeking care because of their sexuality, so this project is intended to help everyone feel able to come forward for help from the NHS.”

So now women will be put off seeking care because of their vulnerability to men. Brilliant.

The perils of being too friendly.

Biologist claims “yet again” that a man is not a woman. Scandalous!

Sums it up with great clarity.

2 / Either – – It’s OK if lesbians get assaulted. – OR: There is a priest class of human who uniquely amongst humans could never and would never abuse anyone (i.e. that those women are lying).

3/ – OR: The assaults did and do happen, but overall it is better to keep quiet for the sake of protecting a marginalised community. We’ve seen this before.

4/ When women and children reported abuse in the Catholic church, many felt that ‘christians don’t do that’, it was more important to not give the church a bad name etc. When rape was reported in the SWP those loyal to the party protected the party by blaming the victims.

5/ When abuse was first reported in Rotherham it was minimised, partly so as to not imply that Asian men would do that. People reporting a abuse by a Radio 1 DJ were also not initially believed etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

6/ Well here is the thing: abuse can happen in all communities. For each community it probably WAS really painful to look the truth in the face, but look we must. Each time the cycle repeats we all say ‘oh how terrible, we must believe women’.

7/ then each new time there is either a silence or, as we have here, a backlash against the victims who speak out. Of course not all men. Not all catholics, not all trotskyists, not all Asian men in Rotherham, not all radio 1 DJs, and not all trans women. Of course. But some.

8/ This is NOTHING to do with anyone’s right to exist or human rights. Catholic rights are human rights, trotskyist rights are human rights, DJs rights are human rights, trans rights are human rights. Abusing women is not a human right. It is abuse.

9 / What happened to #MeToo? to #BelieveHer? Or does that not apply to lesbians? Does feminism not have to include lesbians because they are fair collateral damage? Or is a group of people so untouchable that they can never be accused of abuse or ill-doing?

10/ I can’t stomach the thought that anyone would throw these victims under the bus like the girls in Rotherham were, like the girls in the hospices were, like the children in the church were. #IStandWithLesbians.

Exactly.

A chat with Richard Dawkins:

His considerable reputation as an evolutionary biologist, atheist and intellectual was forged in the hot cauldron of public debate. With forceful clarity and occasional rattiness, he has for decades gone about slaughtering sacred cows like a bloodthirsty butcher. So if Dawkins is now afraid to speak his mind, I’m not sure where that leaves the rest of us. “I self-censor,” he admits. “More so in recent years.” Why? “It’s not a thing I’ve done throughout my life, I’ve always spoken my mind openly. But we’re now in a time when if you do speak your mind openly, you are at risk of being picked up and condemned.”

Well, we’re in a time where Twitter exists, as Dawkins knows. His speaking his mind openly doesn’t always come across well on Twitter. It can at times border on taunting, like when he kept referring to “clock boy.” (In case you’ve forgotten, a boy from a Muslim family made a clock of sorts for a school project and somebody thought “bomb!!” and things went crazy.) He did some borders-on-taunting of feminist women, starting with “Dear Muslima.” Things got heated. He never really seemed to get the point that his taunts (“speaking his mind openly”) at feminist women would trigger avalanches of abuse aimed at those women, because he’s a Name and has that power.

Dawkins is worried that the illiberalism of the left is helping to fuel right-wing populism, driving continued support to Donald Trump and the like. “Every time a lecturer is cancelled from an American university, that’s another God knows how many votes for Trump,” he says. He finds it particularly bothersome when his “own team” attacks him. “I’m much more hurt by attacks from the left,” he says. “When I get hate mail from my own people, that hurts in a way that getting it from creationists doesn’t.” It must have hit home then when Dawkins had his 1996 Humanist of the Year award withdrawn by the American Humanist Association (AHA) earlier this year.

The AHA bestows this prestigious annual award to an admired humanist: recipients have included Margaret Atwood and Salman Rushdie. It lists them all on its website, but if you scroll down to 1996, Dawkins’s name has been scrubbed. He’s gone. Why? Because of a tweet. Back in April, Dawkins caused offence when he wondered why identifying across racial barriers is so much more difficult than across sexual barriers. He wrote: “In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP [The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People], was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

Unacceptable. Taunting feminist women, acceptable; questioning gender idenniny, unacceptable.

He recalls reading the historian Jan Morris’s 1974 book Conundrum on transitioning to become a woman. “She felt herself to be a woman trapped in a man’s body,” Dawkins says. “I think that’s a real phenomenon. I have sympathy. But when trans people insist that you say she is a woman, you redefine something. If you define a woman as a human with an XX karyotype, then she’s not a woman. If you define a woman as someone who identifies as a woman, feels they are a woman and has maybe had an operation, then by that definition she is a woman. From a scientific point of view, she’s not a woman. From a personal point of view, she is.”

To put it another way, you can change your gender but you can’t change your sex.

As a matter of “personal politeness” then, he’s happy to use whatever pronouns people ask him to use. “But I don’t like the idea that people can pillory someone like Jordan Peterson for refusing to be compelled to change his language,” he says. In this Dawkins senses something he doesn’t like: a quasi-religious faith that cannot be opposed. Or as he puts it: “Denying reality and it’s a heresy to do anything other than that.”

Quite.

Updating to add discussions here last April of the AHA rebuke of Dawkins and the [cough] strangeness of drawing the line there and not at clockboy or Dear Muslima.

April 19th

April 20th

GP by Sastra April 20th

April 20th

April 21st