Activists taunt women:

Trans rights activists have put forward a biological man to be the women’s officer for Labour’s LGBT+ group.

That is insult for the sake of insult. They know it’s an insult and that’s why they’re doing it. Insulting women is now a core principle of “LGBT+” groups.

The Labour Party has agreed to scrap its annual women’s conference, warning of a “significant risk of a legal challenge” if self-identified women are allowed to attend.

Excuse me? They’ve “agreed” to get rid of the women’s conference to make things easier for themselves at the expense of mere women?

The Trans Rights Alliance has put forward Steph Richards, a transgender woman in possession of a gender recognition certificate, as its candidate for women’s officer.

In a post on X, Labour LGB said: “Many people say that trans ideology is a men’s rights movement.

“The ‘Trans Alliance’ (seeking to take over the once-great LGBT+ Labour) has set out to prove this. Also breaking party rules by putting a man forward to be women’s officer.”

Breaking party rules and deliberately taunting women.

Richards told website LabourList: “I am legally female, other than in regards to the Equality Act and the Act does not apply to the position within LGBT+ Labour so I am thoroughly within my legal right and my moral right to be able to stand for this position.”

Like hell he is. There is no “moral right” for a man to stand for a position that’s explicitly for a woman. Talk of a man being “legally female” is just gibberish.

Peak trivialization achieved.

The question facing Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas at a news conference on Tuesday was whether he would call for an investigation into possible failures surrounding the deadly floods, which include a lack of state and local spending on flood control measures and warning systems.

To answer, Mr. Abbott said asking about blame was “the word choice of losers,” and then invoked a beloved Texas tradition — football — as he deflected questions about accountability for a disaster that has left at least 111 people dead and more than 170 missing.

“Every square inch of our state cares about football,” Mr. Abbott said, referring to the Friday night lights of high school fields and the state’s college and pro teams. “Every football team makes mistakes,” he added.

Extending the metaphor further, the governor said losing teams assigned blame while championship teams responded to mistakes by saying: “We got this. We’re going to make sure that we go score again, that we win this game.”

Fucking hell. Lethal flooding is not a football game. It’s not like a football game. If you’re strolling in a national park and a bear comes rushing toward you you’re not facing an exciting sports challenge, you’re about the be the bear’s next meal. Distinctions of this type are really quite important.

Disaster preparedness is not like coaching football nor is it like playing football.

Mr. Abbott, a Republican, said the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature would be investigating the flash floods in Central Texas and discussing how to prevent their recurrence when state lawmakers meet for a special session later this month.

But he and other prominent Republicans have pushed back against critics who have called for investigations into unfilled staff positions at National Weather Service offices in Texas, or a lack of emergency warning systems along the Guadalupe River.

Well fine, let’s all just throw our hands in the air and trust in “God” to save us from fires and earthquakes and droughts and tornadoes. With all the money we save we can buy Trump another big airplane.

Brendan O’Neill mocks Owen “Babyface” Jones for trying to scold JK Rowling.

Jones is hopping mad. He’s even written a 1,300-word screed on what a rotter Rowling is, which I’m sure we can all agree is a perfectly normal response to a woman making a joke. His line of attack is that Rowling has been shamefully silent on the suffering of Palestinians. She claims to stand up for women, he says, yet she’s schtum on what is happening to women in Gaza.

His Rowlingphobic diatribe drips with haughty sexism. He bemoans her “useless obsessions”, by which he presumably means her valiant defence of the reality of sex and her financial backing of women and homosexuals who have been persecuted for their beliefs by either their bosses or the state. Sounds pretty useful to me, Owen.

He commands her: “End your silence.” Maybe he didn’t get the memo – men don’t get to tell women what to do anymore. Women are free to think and say whatever they please. Radical, I know!

Well, maybe men in general don’t get to tell women what to do, but of course OJ is an exception. Why? Because he’s so brilliant, so charismatic, so passionate yet wise.

Rowling’s bold defiance of the gender cult is a strike for the autonomy of all women. In contrast, the myopic Israelophobia of the whackjob Left fashions a ruthless hierarchy in which the pain of Palestinians counts for more than the pain of anyone else on earth.

What’s more, these faux-feminists zip their lips when women are being oppressed by Islamists. They cosplay as feminists at home, holding forth on the gender pay gap and whatnot. Yet they fall silent in the face of the Iranian regime’s mass murder of women who want more rights or the Taliban’s medieval subjugation of its female population.

Not to mention in the face of the Saudi regime, the Afghan regime, the Pakistani regime, and on and on. Fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” trumps solidarity with women every time.

Make them dig up turnips!

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on Tuesday seemingly contradicted President Trump’s recent pledge to let immigrant farmworkers remain in the United States if their employers vouch for them. Instead, she put forth an insane scheme in which Medicaid recipients will replace deported farm laborers.

“There will be no amnesty,” Rollins said. “The mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way. And we move the workforce towards automation and 100 percent American participation, which, again, with 34 million … able-bodied adults on Medicaid, we should be able to do that fairly quickly.”

That’s the ticket. Take away their health insurance and then drive them into the cotton fields. We should get some good songs out of it.

Ah yes, because everything three-year-olds say is true and accurate and not at all shaped by lack of information.

Paul Krugman on machismo and climate change:

There is, it turns out, a strong link between the manosphere — the online movement promoting “masculinity,” misogyny and opposition to feminism — and anti-environmentalism. For example, in 2023 Jordan Peterson convened a high-profile conference to declare that concerns about climate change are a “conspiracy run by narcissistic poseurs.”

If you think about it, this makes sense — not intellectually but emotionally. Don’t concern about the environment and advocacy of “clean energy” sound kind of, well, feminine? Real men burn stuff and don’t worry if the process is dirty.

The very word “clean” is horribly girly. Who wants to be clean when you can be dirty instead?

And manosphere-type attitudes are clearly widespread in MAGA. One of the main arguments Trump officials and supporters have made for tariffs is that they will bring back “manly” jobs in manufacturing. (They won’t, but that’s another story.) The same notion underlies the doomed attempt to revive the coal industry.

But here’s the thing: MAGA and the manosphere may hate clean energy, but they won’t be able to stop the rise of renewables. All they can do, possibly, is stop the rise of renewables in the United States. Other nations, China in particular, are making huge investments in wind and solar power, because they understand what Trump and his allies refuse to acknowledge — that this is the only way forward.

Whatever. China itself is girly. Look at the name! All those prissy flowered tea cups and pink soup bowls! Yuck! Real men stick an axe into something and chew their way around it.

Does transitioning actually help? Does banning puberty blockers actually harm? Helen Lewis asks some questions.

Advocates of the open-science movement often talk about “zombie facts”—popular sound bites that persist in public debate, even when they have been repeatedly discredited. Many common political claims made in defense of puberty blockers and hormones for gender-dysphoric minors meet this definition. These zombie facts have been flatly contradicted not just by conservatives but also by prominent advocates and practitioners of the treatment—at least when they’re speaking candidly. Many liberals are unaware of this, however, because they are stuck in media bubbles in which well-meaning commentators make confident assertions for youth gender medicine—claims from which its elite advocates have long since retreated.

And also because deviating from the Approved View is such a straight road to pariahdom.

Many of the most fervent advocates of youth transition are also on record disparaging the idea that it should be debated at all. Strangio—who works for the country’s best-known free-speech organization—once tweeted that he would like to scuttle Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage, a skeptical treatment of youth gender medicine. Strangio declared, “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.” Marci Bowers, the former head of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the most prominent organization for gender-medicine providers, has likened skepticism of child gender medicine to Holocaust denial.

And it’s not just a matter of dying on hills, it’s also shooting at everyone who gets anywhere near your hill. Trans dogma is fiercely guarded by raging zealots who punish dissenters with every weapon they can find.

After England restricted the use of puberty blockers in 2020, the government asked an expert psychologist, Louis Appleby, to investigate whether the suicide rate for patients at the country’s youth gender clinic rose dramatically as a result. It did not: In fact, he did not find any increase in suicides at all, despite the lurid claims made online. “The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide,” Appleby reported. “One risk is that young people and their families will be terrified by predictions of suicide as inevitable without puberty blockers.”

Yes, it is, and that’s quite the risk.

In 2022, Alabama passed a law criminalizing the prescription of hormones and blockers to patients under 19. After the Biden administration sued to block the law, the state’s Republican attorney general subpoenaed documents showing that WPATH has known for some time that the evidence base for adolescent transition is thin. “All of us are painfully aware that there are many gaps in research to back up our recommendations,” Eli Coleman, the psychologist who chaired the team revising the standards of care, wrote to his colleagues in 2023. Yet the organization did not make this clear in public. Laura Edwards-Leeper—who helped bring the Dutch protocol to the U.S. but has since criticized in a Washington Post op-ed the unquestioningly gender-affirmative model—has said that the specter of red-state bans made her and her op-ed co-author reluctant to break ranks.

Brilliant. “Oh no, the evidence for our drastic recommendations is weak, therefore we must hide that evidence so that we can carry out our drastic recommendations.”

The Alabama litigation also confirmed that WPATH had commissioned systematic reviews of the evidence for the Dutch protocol. However, close to publication, the Johns Hopkins University researcher involved was told that her findings needed to be “scrutinized and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care.” This is not how evidence-based medicine is supposed to work. You don’t start with a treatment and then ensure that only studies that support that treatment are published.

And especially you don’t do that when the “treatment” is as drastic and life-altering as trying to swap puberties.

The Alabama disclosures are not the only example of this reluctance to acknowledge contrary evidence. Last year, Olson-Kennedy said that she had not published her own broad study on mental-health outcomes for youth with gender dysphoria, because she worried about its results being “weaponized.”

Arrgghh!! We mustn’t publish anything that casts doubt on the safety of “trans health care” because people might stop using dangerous forms of bogus “health care”! Any findings that our treatments are harmful must be buried so that we can continue to do harm.

Not how this is supposed to work!

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Speaking of self-discipline and judegement.

Per this 1966 Statement, professors are obligated to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty”. We take this to mean that as academics, we also have a responsibility to the public to not misconstrue the scope of our expertise, nor comment in our capacity as academics on issues where we lack the requisite expertise.

Would that not also apply to supporting and promoting trans ideology? Is it possible to be an expert in lies and bullshit, in “care” that harms, and has no basis in reality? Do the signers of this letter themselves possess the knowledge base to know that this stuff actually works? And how could they know when the “practioners” themselves are in the dark? (See below.)

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth.

Then exactly the same charge should be levelled at those who instituted the current policies on “gender-affirming care for trans youth” in the first place. Hello; the existence of desistance, of detransitioners, the untreated comorbidities, the lifelong “gender journeys”, and the basic fact that nobody is “born into the wrong body,” should make any unbiased observer question if “gender affirming care” is on as solid a footing as it imagines itself to be.

If the phenomenon you’re claiming to be addressing is somewhere between “undefinable” and “nonexistent”, then how can you begin to treat it? Any success you might have is going to be purely accidental. Your patient’s suffering is real, but if you’re approaching it through a false framework or hypothesis, then you might as well join the astrologers and exorcists for all the “expertise” you might think you possess. But then astrologers don’t go around drugging, mutilating, and sterilizing children, which is what “gender affirming care for youth” results in. Gender medicine is more like exorcism. It too is centered on the unscientific, religiously motivated torture of mentally troubled people, supposedly possessed by entities that do not exist, whose actual ailments cannot be “cured” by the “experts” treating them. Undoing a harmful practice that has no sound theoretical footing or clear etiology doesn’t require any expertise in the bogus rationale used to prop it up. Just stopping it is a useful, valuable first step, because it ends further harm.

Your concern at someone contributing to a “report” is touching, but comes at the wrong end of all of this. How much of this train wreck was ever governed by anything “appropriate”, and why did you wait until now to become so goddamn self-righteous? Where was all that supposed knowledge when these “procedures” first started taking hold? Where is the definition of “gender identity” upon which any such treatment must be founded? Where were the studies? Where was the follow up? Where was the screening? Where was the caution and critical examination you would expect to see when such totalizing medical procedures are proposed? Where was the honesty in relaying what was possible – and what was not? What was being promised, and was it even possible? (Hint:, nobody in history has been the recipient of a functioning neo “vagina” or neo “penis”.) Where was the evidence of efficacy beyond hand-waving and wishful thinking?

And what of the abominable treatment meted out to anyone from outside the self-reinforcing bubble of the gender-industrial complex who dared to address any of these shockingly huge knowledge gaps, or address the laxity in standards and practices of “gender medicine”? They got more than strongly-worded open letters. Some people lost their jobs, just as you’re gunning for Byrne’s job.

It’s only dissenters who have no right to utter a peep on the subject.

Exactly. Critics are evil people who want to hurt and kill “trans kids.” Case closed, no appeals.

Originally a comment by maddog on Speaking of self-discipline and judgement.

[S]ince 1966, the AAUP has also agreed on a Statement on Professional Ethics. [5] Per this 1966 Statement, professors are obligated to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty”. We take this to mean that as academics, we also have a responsibility to the public to not misconstrue the scope of our expertise, nor comment in our capacity as academics on issues where we lack the requisite expertise. to not tell lies

FIFY

If you want to model the principles of academic ethics, the first principle is: be honest. Don’t lie. Without that first principle, none of the other precepts matter.

You don’t need any expertise, academic or otherwise, to know that there are two sexes, and that males are not female.

You hide behind the empty phrase “gender affirming care.” You really should be required — you know, to comply with your own code of ethics, i.e., to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty” — to lay out exactly what “gender affirming care” for minors consists of. It’s off-label use of drugs to halt the normal development of a child into an adult. That can have permanent consequences, depriving the patient of their one and only opportunity to achieve full maturation of body and brain It’s the pipeline into other medicalization of children with wrong sex hormones. For adolescent girls, it’s elective and unnecessary double mastectomy, removing healthy tissues for purely cosmetic reasons. For some, it means experimental surgery to mimic (poorly) the external genital organs of the opposite sex. The creation of neogenitalia through surgery often has complications, requiring further surgeries, further pain, further recovery time, all futile in effect. None of these measures will ever succeed in changing the sex of the patient.

Exercise a little honesty and integrity yourselves.

Ok then I’ll make my own party, and it will be much better than yours!!

Yeah but bro you’re not even from here. You can’t even vote here.

Musk dreams the impossible dream.

Shares in Tesla tanked by as much as 7.6% in premarket trading Monday after its CEO Elon Musk said he is forming a new American political party, provoking an irate response from US President Donald Trump.

If only we could chain them to each other for life.

“I’m saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely ‘off the rails,’ essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late Sunday

Clear symptom of someone who never reads anything, not even headlines. We don’t use scare quotes for commonplace figures of speech. We say “I don’t give a rat’s ass,” not “I don’t give ‘a rat’s ass'”. We all already know that “rat’s ass” is a figure of speech. Bonus: if you say it aloud to a person, don’t make air quotes with your pudgy fingers, either. Superfluous. Not needed. Excess to requirements. Maek you look dumm.

Jerry Coyne says what I say. Everyone should be saying it.

As of yesterday, the letter was signed by (according to my count) 211 people, 31 of whom who refused to give their names and appear as “anonymous”, 65 who say they are graduate students, and 57 who say they are undergraduates. (See the signers by clicking on this link.) While there is some overlap between these groups, it’s fair to say that about half the signers lack either the courage or the expertise to call out Byrne for “lack of expertise”. What kind of person would refuse to give their names when engaging in such a dogpile?

And note that the “expertise” of those judging Byrne’s expertise (probably without having read his book or the rest of his work) include students or professors in mathematics, mechanical engineering, women’s history, urban studies and planning, aerospace engineering, computer science, chemical engineering, bioengineering and a even “Anonymous (Staff)”. (I didn’t bother to look up some of the others whose fields weren’t specified.)

Emphasis added. “You got no expertise to say men are not women,” shouted the furious sophomore in Drama.

From Alex Byrne’s Opinion piece in the Washington Post on June 26:

The hostile response to the review by medical groups and practitioners underscores why it was necessary. Medicalized treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria needs to be dispassionately scrutinized like any other area of medicine, no matter which side of the aisle is cheering it on. But in the United States, it has not been.

I was familiar with the other authors — there are nine of us in all — and I was confident that we could produce a rigorous, well-argued document that could do some good. Collectively, we had all the bases covered, with experts in endocrinology, the methodology of evidence-based medicine, medical ethics, psychiatry, health policy and social science, and general medicine. I am a philosopher, not a physician. Philosophy overlaps with medical ethics and, when properly applied, increases understanding across the board. Philosophers prize clear language and love unravelling muddled arguments, and the writings of pediatric gender specialists serve up plenty of obscurity and confusion.

That. Exactly what I was saying about the dopy anonymous Open Letter that included the absurd “you’re not a real doctor so you don’t get to say anything” objection. The trans issue is very very far from being a technical medical matter to the exclusion of everything else. Its preferred language is muddy rather than clear and it’s arguments are so muddled they ferment the instant they appear.

Heather Cox Richardson yesterday

Immediately after the catastrophe became apparent, Texas officials began to blame cuts to the National Weather Service (NWS)—part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—for causing inaccurate forecasts. The “Department of Government Efficiency” cut about 600 staffers from the NWS. After the cuts, the understaffed agency warned that “severe shortages” of meteorologists would hurt weather forecasting.

All five living former directors of the NWS warned in May that the cuts “[leave] the nation’s official weather forecasting entity at a significant deficit…just as we head into the busiest time for severe storm predictions like tornadoes and hurricanes…. Our worst nightmare is that weather forecast offices will be so understaffed that there will be needless loss of life.”

But former NWS officials maintain the forecasts were as accurate as possible and noted the storm escalated abruptly. They told Christopher Flavelle of the New York Times that the problem appeared to be that NWS had lost the staffers who would typically communicate with local authorities to spread the word of dangerous conditions. Molly Taft at Wired confirmed that NWS published flash flood warnings but safety officials didn’t send out public warnings until hours later.

A distinction without a meaningful difference. It’s no good having flawless forecasts if you keep them a secret. It’s like that moment in Dr Strangelove – Vy didn’t you tell ze vorrld?!

Yeah no.

Vile colleagues part 3: Dear Professor Byrne

It was alleged in May that you were among the anonymous authors of the HHS report on pediatric trans care. The report, among other things, issues the alarming recommendation that trans youth should not have access to gender-affirming care, despite the leading pediatric medical body in the country supporting the efficacy and life-saving potential of these treatments. [1]

In light of your recent confirmation [2] of these allegations, we as your colleagues at MIT, in philosophy, and in higher-education feel it necessary to speak out.

They’re not actually his colleagues. Most of them are grad students. Some are colleagues, but not most.

[S]ince 1966, the AAUP has also agreed on a Statement on Professional Ethics. [5] Per this 1966 Statement, professors are obligated to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty”. We take this to mean that as academics, we also have a responsibility to the public to not misconstrue the scope of our expertise, nor comment in our capacity as academics on issues where we lack the requisite expertise. It is, of course, compatible with professional academic ethics to express one’s views publicly, even when one is not an expert, i.e., one might lobby for a particular candidate or write an op-ed in a newspaper.  But contributing to a document as an expert in an area in which one is not an expert is contrary to professional standards.

What is expertise when it comes to trans ideology?

To the extent that it’s a psychiatric issue I can believe there are some experts (along with a lot of pseudo experts), but to the extent that it’s a political or ideological issue, philosophers are well qualified to wade in. These days it’s a lot more political/ideological than medical. Remember, anyone who says xir is trans is trans, end of discussion, don’t you dare ask questions. That means there can’t possibly be a “you are a mere amateur” barrier to discussion of the politics and ideology.

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Familiarity with theories of gender made from the armchair does not equip one to make expert judgments about the quality of medical studies, nor about the lived experiences and needs of trans youth and their families.

And do they say the same thing to trans youth and their families? And to all the cheerleaders of trans youth and their families? No, of course they don’t. It’s only dissenters who have no right to utter a peep on the subject.

In contributing to a medical report that will have significant negative impacts on the lives of trans youth across this country, we believe that you have failed to uphold your responsibility as an academic to provide expert testimony only on matters included in your domain of expertise. 

He’s a philosopher. Their expertise is in probing ideas and truth-claims to make sure they’re not blobs of cotton candy.

Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration. The past few months have witnessed the Trump administration engage in the kidnapping of international graduate students from the streets, the deportation of innocent people to dangerous foreign prisons without due process, the cutting of lifesaving aid to millions across the world, and the undermining of the independence of colleges and universities across the country. We find these actions appalling, unethical, and undemocratic.

Of course none of that has anything whatever to do with you but by god we’re going to pretend it does.

For these reasons, we believe it is deeply myopic for any academic to collaborate with the Trump administration in this moment, regardless of one’s particular views about gender. However misguided one may think “gender ideology” is, it is simply unconscionable to for that reason, make common cause with an administration so engaged.

The Trump administration knows that fire burns, therefore it is simply unconscionable for anyone to agree that fire burns.

So there you go. It’s an embarrassingly stupid document, signed mostly by grad students. Give it a Bronx cheer and be done with it.

Vile colleagues part 2.

“While you claim to support the right of trans people to live freely, in practice your behavior does not support this right. Since 2020 you have published a number of academic articles, as well as one book, arguing against trans inclusivity.”

Excuse me excuse me – what does the second sentence have to do with the first? The right to live freely is not a synonym for inclusivity, and vice versa.

Philosophers of all people are required to be very precise about this kind of thing. That’s their job. Living freely is one thing, and “inclusivity” aka being included is another. They don’t even overlap. In some ways they’re in tension with each other. Being included tends to require giving up some freedom. If you freely shout insults all the time you’re not likely to be included much. So are these colleagues of Byrne’s even thinking here? Or are they just summoning the usual string of clichés and platitudes?

Yeah it’s that last one.

Furthermore I’m betting he didn’t “argue against trans inclusivity” at all…unless by “inclusivity” they mean not included in the human family, not-ostracized, that kind of thing, but rather included in definitions.

Is that what they mean? Is that what they all mean? That definitions are the same kind of thing as friendship groups? That it’s mean and cruel and cold to excloood people from their chosen self-definitions, no matter how wack those definitions are?

And this is in the philosophy department?

Give me strength.

Yet another witch trial under way.

…feel it necessary to speak out.

While we are not here calling for official or unofficial sanctions, we the undersigned believe that your behavior (a) perpetuates harm toward the trans community; (b) constitutes a failure to uphold your responsibilities as an academic; (c) is the result of an extremely misguided decision to collaborate with the Trump administration.

Is it still 2015? Are people still pouring out these strings of meaningless bromides and malicious accusations as if they had merit? And not just people but academics?

Note “perpetuates” – as if it were widely accepted that knowing men are not women=harm toward the tranz communniny. Note the assumption that knowing and saying men are not women=harm. Here’s a shocker: the real harm is in encouraging people to think their fantasies about themselves are not fantasies at all but reality.

Given that (a) is complete manipulative bullshit, (b) is more of the same. His responsibility as an academic does not include encouraging people to believe impossible fantasies about themselves. His vile colleagues are the ones not upholding their responsibilities as academics.

As for (c), on what basis do they “believe” the snide bit about collaborating with Trump? On the basis of malice and brain-dead conformity to the current misguided and delusional trans ideology. They’re a nasty bunch. As Steve McGuire says, they should be ashamed.

To be continued.

Stone the crows, Euan [aka Sophie Molly] has written an article. It’s as bad as you’d expect.

Back in April 2025, the UK Supreme Court ruled that, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, the definition of ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ refers to biological sex. This legal clarification, though presented as a matter of statutory interpretation, has had far-reaching and deeply personal consequences for many trans individuals across the country. 

Back in April, he means, or in April this year. “Back in April 2025” is clumsy and ridiculous. He is not a clever man.

More substantively, notice his whine about personal consequences for “trans individuals” [what’s wrong with “people”? Doesn’t sound pompous enough?] while he ignores personal consequences for female individuals, who outnumber trans ones by a very very very large margin. In short it’s the usual mistake: “This is bad for trans people and we don’t give a shit about female people.” Back atcha bro.

Since the judgement, a growing number of trans people have reported facing discrimination when trying to access single-sex spaces, particularly toilets and changing rooms.

It’s not “discrimination.” Men are not allowed to use women’s toilets and changing rooms because that would make women unsafe. We don’t let murderers babysit children and we don’t let men barge into women’s toilets.

It’s all too easy to discuss laws in the abstract, but it’s much harder to hear the stories of those now forced to navigate life with increased anxiety, fear and isolation.

You mean women, right? Oh no of course you don’t, you mean men. Again.

I’ll skip over paragraph after paragraph of whining to leave you with this gem:

What might at first glance appear to be a tidy legal ruling has created a mess on the ground.

Oops! Bad shellfish maybe?

Allison Bailey won her case.

A gender-critical lawyer was banned by her vet because of her belief that there are only two biological sexes, a judge has said.

Imagine a vet or dentist or doctor takes exception to you because of your “belief” that humans are not rabbits.

Allison Bailey, a retired criminal defence barrister and co-founder of the LGB Alliance, sued Palmerston Veterinary Group’s surgery in Walthamstow, north-east London, after she was “expelled” from the practice.

The practice claimed she was thrown out for being rude to staff, but the judge rejected the argument, saying she had faced “unlawful discrimination” because of her beliefs.

I hope that vet practice isn’t spaying male dogs and cats and rabbits.

During the case, Ms Bailey’s barrister Akua Reindorf KC told the court the practice’s “culture” included promotion of “trans activist material”, saying Dr Munro had shared information to staff members about how to address trans clients by their preferred pronouns and other preferred language use.

Does this come up a lot? We’re told trans people are a tiny minority; is there really a need to “share information” about how to address trans clients? Anyway what information would that be? There is no “trans” version of “you.”

In the witness box, Dr Munro replied: “I don’t believe that I hold strong views. Am I some sort of radical pro-trans activist? No. I believe I hold views that many people in society have and the feeling behind this was one of kindness, inclusivity and treating people as you wish to be treated.”

Nah it’s not about “kindness.” It’s about conspicuous obedience. If it were about kindness there would be some acknowledgement that women too have rights.

Aren’t we clever, we’ve resurrected measles.

Falling childhood vaccine coverage and a large, smoldering outbreak that was kindled in an undervaccinated pocket of West Texas have driven the United States to a troubling new milestone: There have been more measles cases in the US this year than any other since the disease was declared eliminated a quarter-century ago.

Nice work, Bob. You’re a real piece of shit.

Experts say this year’s cases are likely to be severely undercounted because many are going unreported. Three people have died from measles this year – two children in Texas and one adult in New Mexico, all of whom were unvaccinated – matching the total number of US measles deaths from the previous two and a half decades.

Measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000, meaning there has not been continuous transmission for more than a year at a time. Reaching this status was “a historic public health achievement,” according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, possible in large part because of vaccine development. The measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine that is most commonly used first became widely available in the US in the 1970s.

With the result (among other results) that more and more people know less and less about measles. Bad Kennedy exploits that lack of awareness for his crank purposes.