There’s an open letter. Of course there is.

It’s a barely literate open letter, I must say.

An open letter to the BBC regarding an article published by Catherine Lowbridge

Dear BBC Upper Management and Editorial Staff,

The day this open letter is being written (26th October 2022), you published an article on the BBC News website by Caroline Lowbridge titled ‘We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women’¹.

Wait. Is it Catherine or Caroline?

You’d think they would at least get that straight before starting to type.

The article headline may use the word “some”, but the clear implication of the article and its headline is that transgender women as a minority group pose a threat to cisgender lesbians, and should therefor have their rights restricted in the UK.

Which rights? There is no “right” for men to try to bully lesbians into having sex with them. Which “rights” would have to be restricted to keep men from bullying lesbians for sex?

Do you mean the entirely fictitious “right” to lie about what you are and be believed? Not a right, pal.

The implications proposed by this article suggest that transgender women generally pose a risk to cisgender lesbians in great enough numbers that it is newsworthy, and something the general public should consider as a common occurence rather than a matter of incredibly rare, isolated experiences.

Define “incredibly.” Also, implications aren’t “proposed.”

Additionally, the article itself acknowledges that outside of this small sample size self selected study there is basically no evidence for the claim that this is happening in any sort of numbers that would justify generalising this as a widespread experience.

In other words “we claim that this happens only a little bit, therefore nobody should pay any attention to it at all.”

The article itself routinely implies that transgender women are not women, uncritically quoting people who call transgender women men without at any point clarifying that this is ignoring their legal status as women in the UK.

Even the law can’t actually make a man a woman. The law can declare a man a trans woman, but declarations don’t change anyone’s sex.

Also, there’s an ever-growing number of men who call themselves women who don’t fit the legal criteria, but we’re ordered to call them women regardless.

The fact that the people cited in this article largely do not acknowledge that transgender women are women, by refering to them as men, should make it clear that they are not representative of the wider community of cisgender lesbians.

When men bully women for sex, the women tend to see those men as men. It’s a hard habit to break, and many of us have no fucking intention of breaking it.

After that there’s a lot of JUST BECAUSE SHE HAS A DEEP VOICE AND IS TWICE AS BIG AS YOU DOESN’T MEAN SHE’S A MAN.

A transgender woman with a deep voice, a square jaw, and a penis that you do not want to have sex with is not a man. She is a woman that you don’t find attractive.

It’s sheer poetry.

The above cited woman also notes she would feel the same if the transgender woman in question had lower surgery. So, she would still feel that a transgender woman is a man, even if said woman had a vagina rather than a penis.

No, sport, because an inverted penis is not a vagina. She would still feel that the trans-identified guy is a guy.

There’s a lot more. It’s a very diffuse, wordy, pompous, boring letter. Trans dogma not good for the verbal skills, I guess.

Stonewall is losing friends.

In case your memory of it has faded that’s from the BBC report on the coercion of lesbians to have sex with men who call themselves lesbians.

Stonewall is the largest LGBT organisation in the UK and Europe. I asked the charity about these issues but it was unable to provide anyone for interview. However, in a statement, chief executive Nancy Kelley likened not wanting to date trans people to not wanting to date people of colour, fat people, or disabled people.

In other words ugly cruel bigotry. In other words Nancy Kelley of Stonewall is saying sexual orientation is ugly cruel bigotry. What do the L and the G stand for again?

She said: “Sexuality is personal and something which is unique to each of us. There is no ‘right’ way to be a lesbian, and only we can know who we’re attracted to.

“Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren’t attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.

“We know that prejudice is still common in the LGBT+ community, and it’s important that we can talk about that openly and honestly.”

In other words if you’re a lesbian and you don’t want to have sex with men, you’re a bad person and you should feel bad. Says Stonewall in the person of its CEO.

Oh yes?

Let’s look up Morgan Page cotton ceiling then.

Let’s read My Trans Youth Group Experience with Morgan Page.

Morgan Page was the creator of the Planned Parenthood Toronto workshop “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women” in 2012. And although I had never heard about this until after leaving the trans community, years later, those of us in Morgan’s youth group definitely identified as members of our chosen sex class, which is the cornerstone of the Cotton Ceiling movement: that sex-based attraction can be reclassified as gender-based attraction.

The only context in which lesbians were ever discussed was in regards to “trans lesbians”. Most of the MTFs & male NBs there would lecture the few FTMs and female NBs about our “masculine/male privilege,” explaining to us that they experienced “transmisogyny” and therefore we needed to know when to be quiet and listen. These beliefs and attitudes were essential in the aforementioned relationships between FTMs and older MTFs in the group. I remember one time I was discussing how I didn’t pass somewhere and was treated like a woman and called “dyke”, but they insisted it was just transphobia, and that I could no longer experience misogyny now that I identified as male. The idea that I might be a lesbian or that I might have experienced lesbophobia never came up. Isn’t this the perfect group mindset to facilitate abuse? Is this really the right dynamic for teens trying to discuss their trans issues, family, school, and mental health problems?

Yes and yes, and it’s also the core reversal that is so infuriating about the whole thing – the insistence that men who call themselves women are the most marginalized and persecuted of all, while women are the sneering dominant aristocrats who kick the poor cowering trans women up and down the stairs. This is not correct. Men are bigger and stronger than women and women cannot be the dominant sex.

What I’m saying. They’re not going to do it. They probably literally can’t – in the sense that if they tried they would instantly lose the power to continue.

National plans to cut carbon fall far short of what’s needed to avert dangerous climate change, according to the UN Environment Programme.

Their Emissions Gap report says country pledges will fail to keep the global temperature under 1.5C this century.

The Unep analysis suggests the world is on course to warm around 2.7C with hugely destructive impacts.

But that’s in the future. We don’t do future.

The report finds that when added together, the plans cut greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 by around 7.5% compared to the previous pledges made five years ago.

This is nowhere near enough to keep the 1.5C temperature threshold within sight, say the scientists who compiled the study.

To keep 1.5C alive would require 55% cuts by the same 2030 date. That means the current plans would need to have seven times the level of ambition to remain under that limit.

“To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C, we have eight years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: eight years to make the plans, put in place the policies, implement them and ultimately deliver the cuts,” said Inger Andersen, executive director of Unep.

Do you see that happening? I don’t. If people won’t even stop sitting in their parked cars with the engines running for hours, what’s going to stop them getting on planes and cruise ships? What’s going to stop them commuting to work by car? What’s going to stop them moving to Phoenix or Miami?

Ash Sarkar is also furious.

Not comparable. Race is not basic to sex. Sex, on the other hand, is basic to sex. What sex you are and what sex the other is are basic to whether both of you want to have sex or not. What sex you are is basic to sexual attraction. Race is beside the point.

In ordinary life I’m sure Sarkar knows this, but she’s pretending not to so that she can crap on the LGB Alliance, because that’s the done thing.

Pink News is furious.

Dunno, but the PN fume makes me want to read it, so I went looking. This seems like the likely culprit:

Trans women bullying lesbians into sex

Is a lesbian transphobic if she does not want to have sex with trans women? Some lesbians say they are increasingly being pressured and coerced into accepting trans women as partners – then shunned and even threatened for speaking out. Several have spoken to the BBC, along with trans women who are concerned about the issue too.

Let’s start with the question. Izza lesbian transphobic if. Here’s the thing: sex has to be voluntary. That’s it, that’s the tweet. Nobody has to have sex with anybody. Men who are told no don’t get to pretend they are victims of the women who tell them no. Men who know a particular woman is a lesbian and demands sex anyway is doing all kinds of things wrong; the woman is doing nothing wrong in saying no. Men who claim to be women need to leave lesbians the fuck alone.

“I’ve had someone saying they would rather kill me than Hitler,” says 24-year-old Jennie*.

“They said they would strangle me with a belt if they were in a room with me and Hitler. That was so bizarrely violent, just because I won’t have sex with trans women.”

Bizarrely but typically. We see it all the time. It’s hovering in the background of the stupid Pink News tweet.

One of the lesbian women I spoke to, 24-year-old Amy*, told me she experienced verbal abuse from her own girlfriend, a bisexual woman who wanted them to have a threesome with a trans woman.

They broke up shortly after that.

“I remember she was extremely shocked and angry, and claimed my views were extremist propaganda and inciting violence towards the trans community, as well as comparing me to far-right groups,” she said.

Because she doesn’t want to have sex with a man, what with being a lesbian and all.

Another woman gave in to the pressure.

“I felt very bad for hating every moment, because the idea is we are attracted to gender rather than sex, and I did not feel that, and I felt bad for feeling like that,” she said.

Ashamed and embarrassed, she decided not to tell anyone.

“The language at the time was very much ‘trans women are women, they are always women, lesbians should date them’. And I was like, that’s the reason I rejected this person. Does that make me bad? Am I not going to be allowed to be in the LGBT community anymore? Am I going to face repercussions for that instead?’ So I didn’t actually tell anyone.”

Pink News is jumping up and down shouting “Yes! Yes! That makes you bad! You’re a terrible person!”

By the way does this happen to men?

Another reported a trans woman physically forcing her to have sex after they went on a date.

“[They] threatened to out me as a terf and risk my job if I refused to sleep with [them],” she wrote. “I was too young to argue and had been brainwashed by queer theory so [they were] a ‘woman’ even if every fibre of my being was screaming throughout so I agreed to go home with [them]. [They] used physical force when I changed my mind upon seeing [their] penis and raped me.”

Wait what? What’s with all the brackets? Why all the they and them and they were and their? Did the BBC actually “correct” he and his to they and their? Undermining their own article? Why would they do that? (The other explanation would be that they “corrected” she and her, but that would make even less sense.)

Trans YouTuber Rose of Dawn has discussed the issue on her channel in a video called “Is Not Dating Trans People ‘Transphobic’?”

His channel, that is. He’s a trans woman.

Rose made the video in response to a series of tweets by trans athlete Veronica Ivy, then known as Rachel McKinnon, who wrote about hypothetical scenarios where trans people are rejected, and argued that “genital preferences” are transphobic.

I asked Veronica Ivy if she would speak to me but she did not want to.

He. He did not want to. Of course he didn’t. He’s a vehement noisy angry bully who steals athletic medals from women.

The BBC includes a photo of McKinnon on his bike…but alone, not next to women, which would make it obvious how very much bigger he is.

Stonewall is the largest LGBT organisation in the UK and Europe. I asked the charity about these issues but it was unable to provide anyone for interview. However, in a statement, chief executive Nancy Kelley likened not wanting to date trans people to not wanting to date people of colour, fat people, or disabled people.

Of course she did. She couldn’t be the chief executive of Stonewall if she refused to tell whoppers like that. She explained:

“Nobody should ever be pressured into dating, or pressured into dating people they aren’t attracted to. But if you find that when dating, you are writing off entire groups of people, like people of colour, fat people, disabled people or trans people, then it’s worth considering how societal prejudices may have shaped your attractions.”

So if straight people write off the entire group of people who are the same sex, they should have a good hard think about how societal prejudices may have shaped their attractions?

Also, does Stonewall say this to gay men? Does Nancy Kelley tell gay men to think about how societal prejudices may have shaped their attractions? Does she tell Benjamin Cohen that? Owen Jones? Peter Tatchell?

Why would gender critical feminists in the UK be associated with the Republicans in any way? They’re two different countries. The Republican party is of little interest to most people in the UK, just as the Tory party is of little interest to most people here. We don’t decide what we think based on how “associated” our thinking may be with a political party in another country; that would be stupid and futile and time-consuming. Maybe there’s a political party in Uruguay that we shouldn’t be associated with? Or maybe Thailand? Kenya? Better check, right? No. Different countries are different countries. We have enough to do to keep track locally.

It’s very parochial of Julia Wong to think women in the UK have to check with the US before they’re allowed to think and say something.

Cornel West and Jeremy Tate in the Post last April:

Upon learning to read while enslaved, Frederick Douglass began his great journey of emancipation, as such journeys always begin, in the mind. Defying unjust laws, he read in secret, empowered by the wisdom of contemporaries and classics alike to think as a free man. Douglass risked mockery, abuse, beating and even death to study the likes of Socrates, Cato and Cicero.

Long after Douglass’s encounters with these ancient thinkers, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would be similarly galvanized by his reading in the classics as a young seminarian — he mentions Socrates three times in his 1963 “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”

Yet today, one of America’s greatest Black institutions, Howard University, is diminishing the light of wisdom and truth that inspired Douglass, King and countless other freedom fighters. Amid a move for educational “prioritization,” Howard University is dissolving its classics department. Tenured faculty will be dispersed to other departments, where their courses can still be taught. But the university has sent a disturbing message by abolishing the department.

Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture. Those who commit this terrible act treat Western civilization as either irrelevant and not worthy of prioritization or as harmful and worthy only of condemnation.

Sadly, in our culture’s conception, the crimes of the West have become so central that it’s hard to keep track of the best of the West. We must be vigilant and draw the distinction between Western civilization and philosophy on the one hand, and Western crimes on the other. The crimes spring from certain philosophies and certain aspects of the civilization, not all of them.

The Western canon is, more than anything, a conversation among great thinkers over generations that grows richer the more we add our own voices and the excellence of voices from Africa, Asia, Latin America and everywhere else in the world. We should never cancel voices in this conversation, whether that voice is Homer or students at Howard University. For this is no ordinary discussion.

Don’t cancel the discussion, join it, expand it, add to it, improve it.

Owen Jones is so important that even Oxfam explains itself to him.

“Senior management agreed that it would be unethical to sell the product, and it was therefore pulled.”

I’m not sure I believe the story, but even if it is true, why would it be “unethical” to sell (or give away) the product?

It wouldn’t. It’s only because there’s this exaggerated wild-eyed panic about the Specialness of being trans that lets people get away with that kind of absurdity. Page is a woman, who now “identifies as” a man, but the fact that Page now claims to be a man doesn’t mean everything relating to Page has to be brought up to date. Are they going to tweak Juno so that it’s about a trans guy who gets pregnant and decides not to get an abortion because the fetus has fingernails? No, and they’re not going to withdraw it from circulation, either, so why is it “unethical” to sell or donate a game that was accurate at the time it was created?

That’s not Owen’s point though, of course; Owen’s point is to remind us how much he hates feminist women who don’t do what he tells us.

The Times reports that Oxfam refuses to clarify that threadbare Twitter “explanation” of its decision to erase women.

Oxfam has removed a children’s game celebrating “inspirational women” such as Marie Curie, Rosa Parks and Emmeline Pankhurst from its shops because transgender and non-binary staff complained that it did not “respect people of all genders”.

No Rosa Parks for you, bitches!

Wonder Women, a bingo game, features 48 women “who have made a mark on the world, from scientists and artists to writers, activists and beyond”.

Then it quotes Rob’s explanation on Twitter, which I think does not come across as official enough to be Oxfam’s only explanation, but it seems Oxfam doesn’t agree. We don’t even know who “Rob” is but pfffft, we should go away and play with our gender-respectful dolls.

The charity declined to clarify what was concerning about a children’s game celebrating the achievements of women also including Malala Yousafzai, Ada Lovelace, Jane Austen and Amelia Earhart.

It also refused to explain whether staff were upset by the inclusion of the authors JK Rowling and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, both of whom have been accused of transphobia for challenging trans rights campaigners’ views, or whether it was linked to the inclusion of the actor Elliot Page.

Because the game came out before Page did blah blah so it has the wrong name blah blah besides she’s not a woman after all anyway blah blah blah all of which is an excellent reason for dumping women in the nearest trash bin.

Oxfam’s decision prompted anger and dismay from some women who work for the charity, with at least one bookshop volunteer saying that she would resign in protest.

Ulrike Bullerby, 50, a mother of two with 25 years’ experience as a bookseller, said she had handed in her notice at the Oxfam shop where she had volunteered for ten years. She told The Times that the decision to ditch the game was “an affront” to all the women who fund-raise and donate to the charity.

And to all women. Good, well done Ulrike Bullerby.

Oxfam confirms yes it really is committed to erasing women whenever a trans lobby tells it to.

A man explains that yes indeed Oxfam removed a bingo game celebrating female achievement because of its commitment to respect people of all genders.

So. That’s clear. In Oxfam view, prodded by its “trans and non-binary colleagues,” it is no longer permissible to celebrate female achievement. It’s mandatory to erase women and exclude them from all publicity, journalism, promotion, boosting, scholarships, interviews, lists – everything.

And why? Why do Oxfam’s trans and enby colleagues think that celebrating women fails to respect “all genders”?

Rob didn’t explain. It would be good to know what the thinking actually is here. Surely even Team Trans Dogma can’t think that the word “women” itself “fails to respect all genders”? But how else can they justify withdrawing a product that celebrates women?

It’s all-out war on women, with not a shred of veiling left.

So some members of Congress were in on it, and actively helped plan it.

As the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack heats up, some of the planners of the pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington, D.C., have begun communicating with congressional investigators and sharing new information about what happened when the former president’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Two of these people have spoken to Rolling Stone extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent. 

I think we can guess who some of them were.

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified. 

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

…

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

It’s a race between climate change and the death of democracy.

This is police business because…………….what?

Raise your hands everybody who wants the police explaining you about AsxUal Idenninies.

You’re a tough crowd.

I have to wonder why the SMH saw fit to publish this childish drivel.

Before the movie begins, I duck off to the bathrooms. Down a dim corridor I find the signs: F and M. The same old binary. There’s no other choice. For the umpteenth time, I sigh. Which of two bad options to choose today? I’m neither man nor woman, but I must pretend to be one or the other if I’m to empty my bursting bladder. Outside the entrance, I hesitate, weighing up the dilemma.

But of course he is either man or woman. His name is Yves Reese so apparently a man but who knows, maybe he gave himself a go on, guess name. But either way he’s one or the other.

And of course it’s “the same old binary.” Also the doors are tall enough but not too tall, and the seats are designed for human bodies not snakes or ostriches or ants. No, sunshine, the movie theater hasn’t been redesigned to accommodate precious you and your gem-encrusted idenniny.

Since I cropped my hair and started binding my breasts, I’ve been attracting hostile stares from women perturbed by my presence in this feminine space.

Ah there it is, ok now we know.

What to do? I just want to pee and then watch a movie, not have my identity scrutinised by strangers. And no matter which option I choose, I’ll be misgendering myself.

But yourself also wants to pee so yourself will forgive yourself if you just shut up and go in the women’s and empty your bladder without all this self-involved blather.

Out in the world, non-binary people are erased, wiped off the domain of the possible. We know ourselves to be neither men nor women, but the world refuses to acknowledge that people like us can even exist. Our self-knowledge is dismissed. Through the architecture of everyday life, we are made inconceivable. There’s literally no space for us.

You don’t know yourselves to be neither men nor women. You may think you do, but you’re wrong. You’re a gender non-conforming woman, now go get on with your life by thinking about something not yourself.

H/t GW

Why?

Priti Patel says don’t record crimes by men who claim to be trans as crimes by women in the statistics (for blindingly obvious reasons), and a woman cop who is co chair of the LGBT+ network for cops says well in that case don’t record women as victims? Wtf???

Where does she get the “so” and the “then”? So and then imply logic, or a chain of causation, or something along those lines. But what could such a chain be? Men who claim to be trans are not women, so they should not be recorded as women in the statistics when they commit crimes. That’s obvious. The point of the statistics is to record the truth of who does what to whom. They need to be accurate to do that job. If you make them not accurate by recording the wrong sex on the basis of men’s fantasies, what possible use are they? So men who commit crimes should be recorded as men in the stats, no matter how they say they “identify.”

The same applies to recording women who are victims of crime (as women are all too often) in the stats. You don’t want to mess up the stats by recording fictions. You want to know how many women really are victims of crime…so why would you stop recording them as such because you’re also not recording that men are women in the stats?

Besides sheer idiotic spite, that is. But surely a woman cop wouldn’t stoop to that kind of spite? Surely?

Updating to add: she did explain her thinking. It’s as bad as it appeared.

But the issue is recording men as perpetrators. That’s what Patel is talking about. Obviously men shouldn’t be reported as female victims either, but the issue here is the perps.

And it’s not “erasing” people as people to record their sex accurately. They’re still people and they’re not erased. Police statistics are not about personal whimsical identities, they’re about the basic realities.

This fucking fool shouldn’t be a cop at all.

So Atwood posted a video.

Not a good choice of video. A big chunk of it is about Maya Forstater and of course gets a lot wrong. (Of course because they always do.) Maya sets her straight.

As many women are pointing out it’s Do it to Julia. That’s no good.

Ok get over it already.

As a violent mob pushed past barricades protecting the U.S. Capitol, then dragged, beat and bludgeoned police officers before roaming the halls with abandon on Jan. 6, former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice watched and wept. The emotions, she said, were similar to those she felt on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I thought: ‘I study countries that do this. I didn’t think it would happen in my own country,’ ” Rice, a Republican who teaches political science at Stanford University, said Wednesday on ABC’s “The View.”

In her own country and with the tacit consent of her own political party. It wasn’t a national insurrection, it was a specific, partisan, one-sided, right-wing insurrection. Most of the country is appalled and disgusted by it, and wants to prevent it from ever happening again. We’re funny that way.

The assault on democratic processes that day, as protesters sought to interrupt the certification of the presidential election, “was wrong,” Rice acknowledged — but she qualified that it’s time for lawmakers to “move on.”

It is? Why? Have they done enough to make sure it will never happen again? Have they done enough to ensure it won’t happen again in three years? No and no, so why is it time for them to move on? Why is it time for any of us to move on?

The former White House official’s comments were a response in agreement to remarks Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) gave on Tuesday. McConnell told reporters it was time for lawmakers “to be talking about the future and not the past,” referring to the discussion about false claims of election fraud pushed by Trump and his allies, which ultimately led supporters to storm the Capitol on Jan. 6. McConnell said the issue should no longer be of concern.

He’d be saying exactly the same thing if it were Democrats who had attempted to overthrow an election and seize power by slaughtering half the Congress, right?

Rice, who served as secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration from 2005 to 2009, said she agreed with McConnell. She added that it’s time for lawmakers to “move on in a lot of ways” and focus on issues affecting U.S. citizens.

Oooh, oooh, you know something that affects US citizens? A right-wing coup that installs a dictator and does away with all our rights, that’s what. Making Donald Trump that dictator, that’s what. Joining the glorious company of Putin and Bolsonaro and Lukashenko, that’s what.

“I’m one who believes that the American people are now concerned about what we call ‘kitchen table issues’ — the price of gasoline, inflation, what’s happening to kids in school,” Rice said.

Also the empty shelf space where Oreos should be, and that pothole on Reagan Boulevard, and the fact that it’s raining. Real problems that affect real people. An insurrection to install a deranged corrupt dictator is just egghead abstract pie in the sky stuff.

Oh did they indeed.

No inspirational women allowed.

Oxfam has bowed to the transgender lobby by withdrawing a children’s bingo game celebrating ‘inspirational women’ from sale in its stores and online.

Inspirational men are no problem, of course, but women…ick.

The game, which sold for £14.99, uses pictures of 48 famous women rather than numbers on cards that are matched with tokens showing the same female figures, including Jane Austen, US civil rights pioneer Rosa Parks, climate-change activist Greta Thunberg and Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai.

And JK Rowling. Enough said.

But in an email last week, the charity told staff: ‘We have taken the decision to withdraw the product Wonder Women Bingo as it has been brought to our attention that it is not in line with Oxfam’s values.’

So Oxfam’s values include disappearing and stifling inspirational women? Why’s that?

Oxfam, which campaigns to end poverty and improve women’s rights, told The Mail on Sunday last night it had cleared the game from its shelves after transgender staff complained about it.

It added: ‘We took the decision to remove the game from sale following concerns raised by trans and non-binary colleagues who told us it didn’t live up to our commitment to respect people of all genders.’

Well no, not all “genders.” They certainly have zero respect for women in light of this move.

Women criticised the decision, including Labour MP Rosie Duffield MP, who decided not to attend her party conference last month after receiving threats from trans activists for insisting that ‘only women have a cervix’.

‘I am disappointed Oxfam considers taking a political view of gender identity politics more important than raising as much money as possible for those most in need,’ she said. ‘The track record of some charities with regards to women’s rights has been far from good, and discriminating against some women due to their beliefs will do nothing to repair that.’

Nor will removing a game intended to teach children about women who get shit done.

Julie Bindel suggested the game may have been ditched because it includes Rowling and fellow author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, who have challenged the transgender belief that there is no difference between trans and biological women.

In short there’s a filter in place now for everything to do with women, that filters out all women who question the stupid reality-denying new dogma that men are women if they say they are, while leaving men to carry on as normal, no matter what they think and say about trans dogma. Men are to be unmolested, women are to be punished and threatened and erased from public life. That’s fair, right?

The Times on Stonewall:

Today The Times reports on the newest foray into corporate boardrooms under the misleading guise of breaking the gender glass ceiling. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which regulates the financial industry, has drawn up diversity guidelines. These would require every company listed on FTSE indices to declare the percentage of women serving as board members. The new rules, however, do not require that companies declare their board members’ legal or biological sex but their gender identity, regardless of when in their career they adopted it. Using this new definition, the FCA is now recommending that 40 per cent of boards should be women.

But they could all be men. Companies could comply with such recommendations without actually promoting a single woman.

The Equality Law 2010 recognises only legal sex, not gender identity, and there is no right to self-declare your sex under UK law. The FCA guidelines therefore risk setting firms up for a clash with employees with protected characteristics under existing equalities law, who may argue their own rights have been infringed. Using self-identification rather than legal and biological sex as the basis for compiling gender diversity data could, for example, give a misleading picture of a company’s performance under this metric.

Not to mention that it could give companies a veil behind which to continue not promoting women.

The reality is that Stonewall lobbied intensively to change the law but was ultimately halted by an outcry from critics warning of the dangers to women of allowing self-identification to trump biological sex. It is now looking increasingly as if it is getting its way regardless by persuading employers to adopt its agenda. 

And who loses? Women. Of course.

Women not impressed by ActiVists trying to school Margaret Atwood: