Roger Pielke’s claim to fame is as a Climate SkepticTM.
But now he’s deploying his skepticism on a different subject – the crazy wacky delusional idea that men are not women.
Saying men are men is “a denial of the reality of transgender people.”
So climate change is a fraud but men claiming to be women is reality.
Iran was ousted from a United Nations women’s group on Wednesday for policies contrary to the rights of women and girls, a move proposed by the United States after Tehran’s crackdown on protests over the death of a young woman in custody.
The 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a U.S.-drafted resolution to “remove with immediate effect the Islamic Republic of Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) for the remainder of its 2022-2026 term.”
…
“This is a victory for Iranian revolutionaries who have been facing guns & bullets as they fight this gender apartheid state,” U.S.-based Iranian journalist and women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad posted on Twitter.
Iran’s clerical rulers have faced the biggest protests in years since September when 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman Mahsa Amini died in the custody of the morality police who enforce strict dress codes.
It were a delicate stratagem to put Iran’s morality police and Edinburgh University trans “activists” in a locked room to come up with a Plan for Women.
The confusion is everywhere.
All of that is wrong. Not a little, not half, not most of it, but all.
Of course trans people’s access to private spaces is restricted; so is mine, so is everyone’s. That’s what “private” means.
Access to some public spaces is also restricted. Many public spaces are for specific sets of people…like public toilets for instance. Most areas in hospitals; most areas in schools; backstage in restaurants, bars, shops, theaters; most areas in offices; many areas in airports; the fronts of planes. Public doesn’t mean unrestricted.
The view is not that people who call themselves the other sex don’t exist, it’s that people who call themselves the other sex are wrong. Being wrong about what you are is not at all the same as not existing. Being wrong about what you are is an extremely common situation, because we’re just not very good at avoiding the natural bias of believing ourselves more than we believe everyone else.
That’s it, that’s the whole tweet, and it’s wrong from start to finish.
And they’ve won.
For now.
Note the shouts of laughter as Mister Man says “azza trans woman“…
Only for now though.
So, of course, some students full of holy zeal went along to close the film down.
It depends on how you define “definition”…
The Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definition of “woman” to include anyone who “identifies as female” regardless of their sex at birth.
If you mean some people use the word to mean anyone who identifies as, then that’s what the CD has done. If you mean the actual, generally understood, longstanding, literal definition of the word, then the update is absurd and an insult to almost everyone.
Funny thing: the more “inclusive” you make your definitions, the less useful they are. The more you broaden them to take in the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the less they mean anything. If you “update” the definition of women to include men then it doesn’t mean women any more. What does it mean? Not clear.
The dictionary’s editors made the changes after studying patterns of how the word “woman” was being used across society, and concluded that the new definition is one that English learners “should be aware of”.
Should be aware of, yes, but should embrace, no.
This is political, of course, but then how could it not be?
Oh oh oh, what an outrage, a horror film called Adult Human Female has not been banned from the University of Edinburgh.
A screening of the film Adult Human Female is scheduled to occur in a lecture hall on the university’s George Square campus on Wednesday, hosted by the University of Edinburgh Academics for Academic Freedom group.
However the Edinburgh branch of the University and College Union (UCU) wrote to the university’s principal, Peter Mathieson, and called for the screening to be cancelled over concerns it contained content that was “a clear attack on trans people’s identities.”
What is an attack on a set of people’s identities? What does that mean? People have gotten so settled into the jargon that they don’t even notice the emptiness or absurdity or both of their claims.
Trans people claim to be the opposite sex. Informing them that people can’t change sex isn’t an attack on their “identities,” it’s a rejection of their fantasy-based claims. We’re allowed to reject fantasy-based claims. It’s part of adulthood to hear sometimes “No, that’s not true, it’s made up.” We are not required to believe trans people’s claims about themselves. It’s not an attack to withhold such belief. If anyone is attacking anything it’s more that trans activists and their frenzied supporters are attacking our right to recognize bullshit when we see it.
A spokesperson for the University of Edinburgh told The National that despite concerns expressed by the union, and by the university’s LGBT+ Pride society, the screening would go ahead.
…the UCU has now stated their complaint, along with others, was dismissed by the principal in a “cavalier manner”.
There should be more of that. There should be more cavalier dismissal of these explosions of rage at feminist analysis of the trans dogma.
Genevieve Gluck at Reduxx on another comrade:
A woman in Norway is facing criminal charges and a possible prison sentence of up to three years for stating that men can not be lesbians. Tonje Gjevjon, a lesbian artist, was notified on November 17 that she was under police investigation for hate speech over a statement she posted to Facebook.
…
“It’s just as impossible for men to become lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant,” Gjevjon wrote, “Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”
Gjevjon particularly singled-out the actions of prominent Norwegian trans activist, Christine Jentoft – a man who claims to be a lesbian mother, and who currently serves as a representative for the nation’s leading trans activist group, Foreningen FRI.
And who bullies women for not agreeing with him that he’s a woman.
Earlier this year, Jentoft filed criminal charges against Christina Ellingsen, a representative of Women’s Declaration International (WDI) Norway, for stating that men can neither be lesbians nor mothers. As reported by Reduxx in May, a police investigation was launched into Ellingsen’s alleged “transphobia,” and, like Gjevjon, she is facing up to three years in prison if found guilty.
Criminal charges ffs – for saying an obvious truth.
In addition to calling out Jentoft, Gjevjon also turned her attention towards Norwegian politicians who have supported the legislative adoption of “gender identity” at the expense of women’s rights. One such politician, Anette Trettebergstuen of the Labour Party, is the current Minister of Culture and Equality and the only openly lesbian politician Norway’s Parliament.
But the inferior kind of lesbian who isn’t a man.
Gjevjon first began expressing criticism of gender identity ideology, which she calls the “queer patriarchy,” in 2017 after English feminist author Julie Bindel had her invitation to speak at a university revoked over claims of “transphobia.”
Since becoming more vocal with her “gender critical” views, Gjevjon has been blacklisted by Norway’s artistic community – a scene she had previously been flourishing in.
How dare women say that men are not women? What is the world coming to?
One critic, a trans-identified male who uses the name Ingrid Frivold, went so far as to compare Gjevjon to a Holocaust denier in a message he sent to the Haugar Art Museum, saying: “for many trans people this feels as inflammatory as if David Irwing had been asked to speak at the opening of an exhibition about the Holocaust.”
Right. Men who pretend to be men are just like the Jews in Nazi Germany. Just exactly like.
“I was not prepared for the extent of how queer organizations, politicians and activists would demonize a lesbian artist who was not in step. Trans activists contact people I work with, portraying me as hateful and warning against being associated with me,” Gjevjon said.
It’s how they do their “activism.”
Originally a comment by latsot at Miscellany Room.
I forgot to mention that the book Transpositions, compiled by Sarah Phillimore and Al Peters (moley) is available on Amazon.
It’s a collection of people’s peaking stories. I have the Kindle version, but I’d recommend the paperback, it’s one of those books that’s good to flick through. Some of the stories are heartbreaking.
I went to the book launch event, which was some high quality TERFing. As you might have heard, Sarah advertised it on EventBrite who pulled the event for “Hateful, Dangerous, or Violent Content.” Then the venue contacted her to ask her not to mention the venue online because they were afraid of violence. In the end, there was no ‘protest’ at all, which was almost an anti-climax.
Sarah is suing EventBrite and has a crowdfunder.
Joan Smith on that ridiculous (and insulting) ruling:
“Sex is not limited to biological or birth sex,” according to one of [Scotland’s] most senior judges.
Yes, you did read that right. We are plunging ever deeper into la-la land, where sex is no longer determined by boring old things like biology or physical characteristics. It can be changed by a piece of paper, known as a gender recognition certificate (GRC), with unpredictable consequences for women-only services such as the new sexual violence service set up by JK Rowling in Edinburgh.
Usually the law has no truck with la-la land. It can’t afford to. We can’t afford it to.
The decision explodes the argument by Nicola Sturgeon’s government that its proposed changes to the 2004 Act, scheduled to be rushed through the Scottish Parliament next week, are merely administrative. By the end of this year, according to the current plan, anyone in Scotland will be able to acquire a GRC with next to no safeguards; they won’t even need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, while measures to exclude convicted sex offenders have been rejected.
La-la land but not the fun kind.
A court rules that men can be women.
A court has thrown out a challenge against the Scottish government’s definition of a woman in law.
Even governments can’t make lies true. Even courts can’t make a lie the truth. They can pass laws, they can issue rulings, but they can’t just waves their hands and make nonsense The Truth.
The For Women Scotland group complained about the way a bill aimed at gender balance on boards had included trans people under the definition of women.
Imagine if it were about British boards and a bill aimed at national balance, but England insisted that English people who identify as Scots are Scots despite having zero evidence of any Scottish ancestry. Would Scotland and its government and courts think that was okie doke?
Judge Lady Haldane said that the definition of sex was “not limited to biological or birth sex”.
Sure, it’s all elective. So is species – if you say you’re a rabbit you’re a rabbit. Rabbits can take their place on boards just as wolves and cheetahs can. Things may get a bit bloody when the boards meet, but that’s the price of trans-species rights.
She said it could also include people with a gender recognition certificate after changing their legally recognised gender. The judge also stated that sex and gender reassignment were separate and distinct characteristics but were not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In her decision, Lady Haldane wrote: “I conclude that in this context, which is the meaning of sex for the purposes of the 2010 Act, ‘sex’ is not limited to biological or birth sex, but includes those in possession of a GRC obtained in accordance with the 2004 Act stating their acquired gender, and thus their sex.”
People’s sex is not about physical reality, it’s about the law and government and saying words. There is no physical reality, there are only words.
This is good news: we can cancel climate doom just by saying so!
And in come the sneery “wtf is her problem” think-pieces on JK Rowling’s astounding baffling incomprehensible move to open a women’s space in Edinburgh. Why would she do such a thing??? A smug young guy called Ryan Coogan wonders for the Independent:
…up until about a year ago, I held out hope that Rowling was somehow misunderstood or that I just “read her out of context”, as her defenders keep insisting. But I’ve given her the benefit of the doubt, and I’ve seen the context, and if anything it just makes things worse as time goes on. It’s a shame, because she gave me a lot of great memories as a kid, but for me at least, a point has been reached where her stance on trans people makes her pretty much irredeemable.
Yes, the “stance” that men are not women makes women irredeemable. Ok boy but then they won’t be making you sandwiches any more.
I think Rowling’s latest venture more or less solidifies her heel turn: Beira’s Place, a women-only service for victims of sexual abuse that will be located in Edinburgh. The service is described as being “set up by women, for women”. Its website reads: “There are a number of services in Lothian, and indeed across Scotland, that provide support to male survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. However, there are few, if any, that are strictly women only.”
And this matters because women who are survivors of abuse at the hands of men may need and/or want services that are women only. Smug young Ryan is so busy showing off his Approved View of the matter than he can’t be bothered to try to think about what that would be like.
Imagine smug young Ryan has a very bad experience with a huge dog – imagine he’s knocked down, bitten in several places, has bled heavily, lost consciousness, nearly died. Imagine he needs therapy once his physical injuries have healed. Imagine he shows up for therapy and his therapist has a huge dog in the room. Would we accuse Ryan of being a horrible evil irredeemable person for not wanting to be around a huge dog?
But women are expected to just suck it the fuck up – by callous young shits like Ryan. Women are subject to abuse in the broadsheets by smug young shits like Ryan if we don’t obey his orders to pretend men are women.
For context, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre has been run by a trans woman – Mridul Wadhwa – since May 2021. Other rape crisis centres throughout Scotland welcome trans women. While Beira’s Place could very easily have been a way for Rowling to counteract the accusations that she is discriminatory towards the trans community, to me, it seems instead to be a shallow attempt to shield herself from further criticism by doing something which is nominally good, but in reality actually further segregates and disenfranchises vulnerable people.
Here’s smug young Ryan saying women who have been abused are not vulnerable, while men like Mridul Wadhwa who force themselves on women are.
But by closing its doors to the trans community, in my view, it instead becomes a huge step backwards for equality and a monument to hate, instead of the valuable service it could have been. I’m sure I’ll get some pushback for saying this about a service designed to help women (which in either scenario, I have no doubt it will). But it’s like opening a whites-only orphanage…
No, it’s not, smug young Ryan.
What possesses the Indy to publish shit like this?
TransLucent has me blocked of course but I’m sampling its tweets anyway. Have a nice sample of the intellectual quality:
A peach, isn’t it? Murdo Fraser notes that many women find the neologism “cisgender” offensive and demeaning, and genius answers that it’s in the dictionary. Guess what!! Lots of offensive and demeaning words are in the dictionary! The fact that they’re in the dictionary doesn’t make them not offensive and demeaning. The dictionary isn’t a private exclusive club that rejects words that don’t wear the right clothes; that’s not the purpose or job of the dictionary. Also there is no “the dictionary”; there are lots of dictionaries. Which dictionary is this one? Also is it really a dictionary? Are you sure? It doesn’t sound like a dictionary. The quoted passage doesn’t even define the word it purports to be defining. A real dictionary wouldn’t use the passage in quotation marks as an illustration, not least because it does nothing to illustrate or clarify the meaning, but also because it uses trendy jargon instead of ordinary language, which isn’t the kind of thing real dictionaries do.
In short…Steph is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
There’s something called TransLucent, which used to be called Steph’s Place, which was a website that did (crude) public relations for trans people, mostly (of course) the male ones. The Steph’s Place About Us page is…well let’s just say it’s hard to tell it’s not a parody. Anyway now it has a more spiritchuwal name, and an apology tweet.
The writing is even worse than the writing at good old Steph’s Place. We get some of the drift, I think – they claimed to have an article about being trans as a biological condition, and now say they’re not publishing this important article because um er um. What’s not clear is whether the article says no no or yes yes. All we have is “about.” About in what sense? Doesn’t say. Being trans is or is not a biological condition; details at eleventyseventy.
For dessert let’s read Steph’s bio from the eponymous Place:
Steph: (pronouns – she/her) – Steph is the old one who thinks young. She is a post-op trans woman having an “F” Passport and Driving Licence. She loves writing, women’s fashion and everything trans – detesting injustice, male violence, patriarchy, war, corruption, sexism, discrimination, homophobia and just about everything else that is ‘wrong’ in society today. She tends to be our spokesperson and was platformed in a one-hour live radio broadcast about trans rights at midday on Friday 24th June 2022 with Adam Fleming on BBC Radio Four. Steph later learnt that some 600,000 people had ‘tuned in’ and a further 36,000 listened to the podcast within the next two days! A link to the podcast is HERE:
Steph likes to think she is a ‘listener and tends to ‘get on’ with most people. She has spent almost her entire life working with and alongside women (often in pregnancy) and is often not that comfortable around men, in part because she was sexually abused by a non-family member as a child. Steph tends to do most of the blogs and also enjoys investigative journalism. She has written for magazines on various topics but normally on parenting, lifestyle and trans subject matter. She also often speaks to journalists and members of the Government.
Also, not mentioned in bio, Steph can’t write his way out of a paper bag.
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on He was made to feel uncomfortable.
Anyway, we don’t know what was actually said at that party, and it’s entirely possible that something transphobic or otherwise shitty was said. But I am not inclined to take that assertion at face value, especially given the lack of specifics.
I wonder what this “transphobia” consisted of. They never say.
Failure to affirm the lie demanded of those around him? Disagreement on what constitutes a “transphobic issue?” More likely a case of perceived lèse-majesté than anything actually “phobic.” Refusal to bow down and kiss the ring. Their feelings of discomfort are always entirely justified and sacrosanct. But what of the feelings of everyone else? They count for nothing. Only The Trans Feelings are legitimate and honourable, and woe betide anyone who dares cause Offence. Everyone else is seen as but a supporting player or mere prop in the Never Ending Me Me Me Story. It seems to come as quite a shock when other people express contrary opinions that suggest an unwillingness to play the assigned role of Beatifically Validating Bystander #3. In the words of Magdalen Berns, “I’d rather be rude than a fucking liar.” Well, I think the tide is slowly turning. Expect more rudeness.
The hyperbolic threat inflation of the language used to describe the constant micro, nanno and non-aggression to which TiMs claim to be subjected is just going to blow up in their faces. When misgendering is genocidal ideation, and you use the nuclear option at the raising of an eyebrow, what do you have left to describe and respond to actual threats and bigotry? The combination of bullying and crying wolf, along with the debasement and devaluation of the vocabulary that used to be reserved to describe actual, serious incidents will only reduce sympathy and concern outside of the emotional support bubble willing to jump at your every word.
At some point you might need the help and support of many of the people you’ve been busily demonizing. Like women. After what you’ve done to them, why would they want to help you? It didn’t have to be that way, but it’s the way it is almost entirely because of you. And you will use the same emotional blackmail, threats and cajoling you’ve always used if the cynical appeals to the self-abnegation inculcated in traditional female socialization fail to give you what you demand. Again. Because there will always be more demands. Because of the ultimate untruth, futility, and unattainability of the “womanhood” you claim for yourself and the recognition of which you try to extract from everyone else. The forced compliance of the whole world will never be enough for the endlessly gnawing, insatiable, emptyness inside you will that you never be able to fill. You might think this hole is woman-shaped, that you can patch it up with play acting, but you can’t and you won’t. It’s just you. You’d better get used to it. Words may affirm, but Reality will only ever deny you, as you are demanding something you can never have, something you can never be.
Victoria Smith on women the contaminants:
Should universities — hallowed places of learning, temples of the mind — allow themselves to be contaminated by the presence of females? What if their passive, bovine intellects were to slow the lively exchange of ideas? What if their inferior morals should poison the purity of free enquiry? What if, God forbid, they were to menstruate all over the books?
It sounds satirical but that is in fact how women have been seen since forever, and still are, more than is generally admitted. Menstrual huts may be Way Over There somewhere but the thinking behind them isn’t entirely distant. Terf=cunt=slut=filth.
In a report compiled by lawyers and academics at Garden Court Chambers and the University of Essex, it’s been found that certain groups have been making a nuisance of themselves by organising on the basis of — urgh! — being female. This is bad not just because a female-centric event might cause distress to attendees expecting something more pleasantly penis-focused. “The hosting of an unwanted event,” the report notes, “would contaminate student life for hundreds if not thousands of people.”
Hundreds, if not thousands! This is because “the distress would be felt in the contamination of a part of the University which holds a particular emotional value to certain staff and students”. Such people might have to face the trauma of going somewhere, knowing that female people once stood there centring femaleness, minus the purifying presence of someone male.
In other words the writers of the report meant it figuratively – the “contamination”would be emotional as opposed to literal and physical – but they also blithely or maliciously ignored the long history, which is not over yet, of women being treated as literal contaminants. They deliberately invoked emotions of disgust, which are emotions that inspire people to do very bad things. Remember the yellow star? That was a kind of plague-warning, a portable quarantine system – an invoker of disgust and loathing. The writers of the report were playing with a similar kind of fire. It’s unbelievably sinister and shocking.
They may be reminded of Leviticus 15:20: “Everything [a woman] lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean.” Or perhaps Saint Clement of Alexandria: “For women, the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.”
It does, yeah. It does, and it was meant to.
This trend towards contamination is not confined to higher education. On the contrary, a recent article by Jennifer Horgan in the Irish Examiner decries the flourishing of “dirty” feminism. By this, she means a feminism that prioritises the class of people once known as “the Devil’s gateway”. In its place, she advises, is needed “true feminism, the non-dirty kind”, which naturally includes the class of people who aren’t so impure and defective.
In arguing this, I suspect Horgan genuinely believes she is just “being inclusive”. To her and others, it may seem coincidental that the language of dirt, contamination and stigma just so happens to be directed at women who seek out spaces in which to centre female bodies and lives. Shame at femaleness can be so deeply ingrained that fighting against those who embrace it can become its own moral crusade. It does not surprise me that for many women, an anti-female feminism feels purer and neater than the messy, leaky, corporeally-bound alternative.
It’s a funny thing, because we’re all products of those messy leaky bodies, but we’re not grateful to them. We want to be the children of stars or diamonds or similar. Something clean, hard, pure, that simply peels off a bit of clean hard pure substance and presto, there’s your new human.
I have never known a time when people have been so open about how little they think of my half of the human race. When I was born, it was no longer possible — apart, perhaps, from in the most extremist religious circles — to express open revulsion for anyone born female. Now it is happening in plain sight.
That’s progress, yeah?
Oh is that so.
It’s not about “banning trans people.” It’s about women running a facility for women. That’s all. It’s none of Willoughby’s business. He should stop trying to bully women into joining his cult.
Lots of things are adjectives. It doesn’t follow that all adjectives mean the same thing. Yes, it is ok for rape crisis centers to say no men.
A police investigation has been launched after a feminist campaigner was allegedly verbally abused and “almost punched” after a women’s rights discussion at Edinburgh University.
Julie Bindel, a campaigner against violence towards women, had claimed she was attacked in George Square after delivering a speech at an event which had been branded “transphobic” by trans campaigners as it focused on the future of women’s sex-based rights.
Women talking about their rights is transphobic. Ok…………..
It was revealed on Twitter that the person who had lunged at Ms Bindel was a trans-woman called Cathy Brennan. The freelance film critic has said: “I will not be discussing it personally with anyone I do not know.”
December 12 2022 aka today:
Says the guy who physically attacked Julie Bindel.
You know…as I look at this photo something occurs to me, not entirely new but a bit more forcefully than usual.
What? What is it that occurs to me?
Fear.
The fact that the photo sparks fear. I looked at it a little longer than I usually look at such photos and then noticed a feeling and then realized what it was. If I were cornered by that guy and berated over pronouns or terfs or his genner idennniny I would feel fear. He’s big, he looks like a bruiser, he looks angry. I’ve been cornered by guys like that when they were angry, as I think probably all women have. This is just built in. We feel fear if we see a bear charging in our direction, and we (we women) feel fear if we see that face looming over us in anger. We recognize it and we flinch.
This is what makes the whole fragility poor poor me won’t somebody please think of the trans ladies campaign so maddeningly perverse and backwards and callous. Dylan with his tampons doesn’t trigger that reaction, but Tampons Dylan doesn’t represent all men who claim to be women. He doesn’t represent the bears.
