JD Vance gets to steal water from a lake for the sake of a joy ride, but solar panels for the proles is another thing altogether.

The Trump administration is preparing to terminate $7 billion in federal grants intended to help low- and moderate-income families install solar panels on their homes, according to two people briefed on the matter.

The Environmental Protection Agency is drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups and Native American tribes that received the grants under the “Solar for All” program, with the goal of sending the letters by the end of this week, according to the two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

If finalized, the move would escalate the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back billions of dollars in grants awarded under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s signature climate law. And it would be certain to draw legal challenges from the grant recipients, many of whom have pursued projects in Republican-led states.

…

Already, the E.P.A. has sought to cancel $20 billion out of the $27 billion in climate grants authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act. That move has prompted a drawn-out legal battle and a widening controversy involving the E.P.A., the Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Citibank, where the funds are being held.

Just think of all the lakes JD Vance could empty with $20 billion to spend!

On his first day in office, Mr. Trump issued an executive order declaring a national energy emergency. But his administration has been withdrawing federal support for renewable energy like wind and solar power while encouraging the production and use of fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal.

The non-renewable kind is more luxurious.

Nice for some.

JD Vance’s team had the army corps of engineers take the unusual step of changing the outflow of a lake in Ohio to accommodate a recent boating excursion on a family holiday, the Guardian has learned.

The request from the US Secret Service was made to “support safe navigation” of the US vice-president’s security detail for an August outing on the Little Miami River, according to a statement by the US army corps of engineers (USACE).

Vance was spotted in the south-western Ohio area on 2 August, his 41st birthday, according to social media posts that noted he was seen canoeing on the river, a tributary that Caesar Creek Lake feeds into.

USAID slashed, the National Weather Service slashed, $7 billion in grants for solar energy canceled, but by golly no price is too high for JD Vance’s boat trip.

The news raises questions about whether Vance’s office was potentially exploiting public infrastructure resources for his personal recreation at a time when the Trump administration has cut billions of dollars in foreign aid, scientific research and government jobs as part of its “efficiency” drive.

The vice-president’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The Guardian first approached the USACE in Louisville for a comment about the change on Tuesday. Publicly available data on the US Geological Survey (USGS) shows a sudden increase in the river level and corresponding drop in lake elevation during the early August days when Vance was vacationing.

Divert that lake into that river, a Trumpkin wants to go paddling!

According to the Guardian’s anonymous source with knowledge of the matter, “special releases” are generally not done for individuals or by individual request.

Ah but that’s ordinary aka plebeian individuals. The rules for royalty are quite different.

While there is no allegation that Vance’s office did anything illegal, the ethics lawyer Richard Painter, who served in the George W Bush administration, said it seemed hypocritical and “pretty outrageous” for Vance to be receiving these particular accommodations for his family holiday when the administration’s cuts have led to drastic cuts in the National Park Service (NPS).

The National Parks Conservation Association has estimated that the NPS has lost about a quarter of its staff since January, which in turn has led to sections of some parks to be closed and hours to be changed due to staffing issues.

See above. One rule for plebs, another for royals. Suck it up.

Norm Eisen, a former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, said: “When I was President Obama’s ethics czar in the White House I got a lot of unusual requests, but I never got one to increase the outflow of a waterway as part of a government official going kayaking.

“My nickname was ‘Mr No’ and I certainly would have lived up to it in this situation. I never would have permitted this kind of a thing because whether it technically violates the rules or not, it creates the appearance that the vice-president of the United States is getting special treatment that’s not available to the average person who wants to utilise that body of water for recreational purposes.”

It creates the appearance and the reality.

You know…

What these clowns don’t get is that “trans women” are not the black people in this scenario, they’re the white racists. They are. We’re not; they are. They are men. They are trying to dominate and punish and exile women. They are not the underdogs, they are not the victims, they are the KKK, the Birmingham cops, George Wallace in the schoolhouse door.

They are.

Jean Hatchet lets fly.

Upton and Tickle, who sound like a pair of bad electricians, were in court over the last two weeks for one reason only and that was to try to make people, especially women, say the words, “you are a woman”.

Everywhere they walk they hear these coveted words. They hear them from the compliant, the sycophants and the fearful alike. Their neighbours will say it, their friends will say it, some of their family will say it. Other men in frocks will say it, and they will return the feel-good falsehood. The newspapers will say it, the television will say it, posters will say it and songs will say it…

However, the reason they came to court is because they each found someone who refused to say it. Sandie Peggie and Sall Grover refused and have carried on refusing. This is unbearable to them. Upton and Tickle’s lie is only true if everyone repeats it for them, and to them. Everyone.

These men don’t want changing rooms or chatting apps, they want full submission. They don’t want justice they want power.

And they want power over a particular set of people – the set that is female not in their dreams, not on paper, not by bullying, not by calling the cops, not by going to court, but just by birth.

Only by commanding everyone to believe they changed into women does anyone say “Oh him! I mean her. Sorry, don’t report me. Please?”

But when these men returned home they knew what they had each been told. They heard very loud and very clear, “You aren’t a woman because this woman right here, this one with the support of fucking thousands, who doesn’t give a fuck about your personal pretence or your tears by your car, she said so and she refused to fucking unsay it”.

So I’m glad they had to get in their house, take off their sham costumes, take a deep breath and look in the mirror with the brave words of those women ringing in their ears, “You, my lad, are not a woman”.

When the door closes and they take off the dress and the lipstick, the mirror screams, “Sorry pumpkin, you’re a fucking massive bloke” and you can’t drag a mirror to court.

And even if you could it wouldn’t be nearly as much fun as dragging a living breathing woman.

I run away for a few hours and come back to find

In it, she asserts that the “gametic definition” of sex—roughly, that there are two sexes, defined by whether the organism produces sperm (male) or eggs (female)—is not only “harmful,” but also “sophistry, not science.” (Lancet piece is below.)

I hold the gametic view. To the best of my knowledge, this is the view held by most evolutionary biologists. The author of the review has different ideas, and quotes approvingly from Fuentes’ book on the nature of sex: “sex is a biocultural construct. Gamete size represents but one of multiple components and developmental processes—including gonads, hormones, genitals, fertility, mating, parenting behaviour, secondary sexual characteristics, and gender identity.”

Ah yes the old “it’s more complicated than that.” Gamete size is not all there is to say about parenting behavior or genner idenniny. Jesus fucking christ nobody said it was. A definition is not a complete history or a biography or a novel in ten volumes, it’s a definition.

Back to Carole:

People disagree about the nature of male and female, and that’s OK. Respectful disagreement among scholars should be encouraged; it often sharpens thinking and research. But The Lancet review goes well beyond disagreement about the facts, and exemplifies one of the main reasons Harvard is being targeted by the government. Nobody wants to be called hateful or bigoted (especially by faculty with fancy endowed professorships), or even tainted by close proximity to views that could be construed that way. But not only has the Harvard professor disagreed with the gametic view, she apparently feels free to publicly impugn the ostensible motives and character of those who endorse it. Without providing any evidence, she asserts that our view is motivated (at least in part) by political aims, and harmful ones. As she wrote in The Lancet: “Although the gametic definition makes reference to biological systems, it is sophistry, not science. Those who promote this definition favour the assertion that sex inheres in gamete (sperm and egg) production because, in part, it facilitates their political aims by fuelling unhinged panic in some quarters about transgender threats to traditional gender roles.”

That’s such a farfetched claim you have to read it about six times to figure out what she’s saying.

She praises Fuentes for recognizing scientists’ “responsibility to respond to harmful deployments of inaccurate, overly simplistic, and reductionist science by those attempting to naturalise and depoliticise their hateful views.”

Ah yes, their hateful views – what a very sciency way to describe one’s scientific critics.

And last, there’s the link between those who hold the gametic view and bigots: “Like scientific bigots of yore—such as the anthropologist J McGrigor Allan, who in 1869 pronounced in the Journal of Anthropological Science that, ‘Thousands of years have amply demonstrated the mental supremacy of man, and any attempt to revolutionize the education and status of women on the assumption of an imaginary sexual equality, would be at variance with the normal order of things’—the recent favour bestowed on the gametic definition of sex by anti-trans gender traditionalists appeals selectively to science to naturalise and rationalise inequality and exclusion.”

Ya like the exclusion of men from public toilets designated for women – how very dare we.

The subtext is that in science, simply following the evidence is ill-advised if you (or others who have power over you) think it will lead to social harms. What kind of person would want to hold, let alone give voice to such harmful views as the gametic one?

The Wrong kind.

P.S. The review.

Victoria Richards at the Independent bravely stands up for male employees handling the breasts of teenage girls seeking their first bras.

…when I recently took my daughter for her first bra fitting, I was peculiarly gratified to see that she acted pretty much the same way I did. Teenagers may have smartphones and TikTok and all the tech and street smarts we didn’t, but some things really do never change.

You don’t say. Rain is still wet, ice is still cold, the earth still rotates on its axis. Thanks for the vacuous banality which warns us that you don’t really have much to say.

The one thing that has changed, on the whole, is Gen Alpha’s greater understanding and empathy towards those around them. And so much the better.

Half of my daughter’s friends school the adults around them in the right pronouns to use for their peers. “They/them” is second nature to most of these kids. Us dinosaur millennials and Gen X-ers, meanwhile, should stand happily corrected (and make an effort to get it right when we slip up).

Wrong. Gross error. Completely back to front. Teenagers “schooling” adults to use pronouns incorrectly is not a new frontier in rectitude. We humans more than 19 years old are not dinosaurs for using accurate pronouns as opposed to play along with his fantasy ones.

Which is why, when I read the story about M&S – the same M&S who boast about being “Your M&S,” which presumably includes their own employees – reportedly apologising for “distress” over a trans member of staff asking a teenage customer if she needed any help in its bra section…

Aw look at you hiding the most important fact like any other obedient Independent stooge. You know perfectly well the issue was not “a trans member of staff” but a male one. The fact that you concealed that fact shows that you know it blows your claim out of the water. You’re too chickenshit to come right out and say M&S should allow and encourage male staff to volunteer to help girls fit their first bras.

…I only had one question: what on earth were they apologising for?

Bullshit. You knew and know perfectly well what they were apologizing for.

I understand those defending personal choice. In an ideal world, nobody would feel uncomfortable – especially children. But isn’t it our job, as parents (and members of society at large) to unpick this discomfort and name it for what it really is: prejudice. And to teach our children, just as we teach them to treat others equally, to be kind through our example.

It’s prejudice for female people to prefer female gynecologists and bra-fitters? You’re going with that?

What would you say if you heard, for example, that a person of colour working in M&S had approached a teenage customer and politely offered assistance, only for the teenager to feel uncomfortable, the parent to be outraged and complain about their “distress” – and the store to write an apology?

What would I say if I read a columnist for the Independent compare female people’s reluctance to have random men handling their breasts to racism?

How much time do you have?

Liar liar liar liar.

India Willoughby:

A mother and a daughter went to a Marks & Spencer store to buy a bra – um – a trans member of staff went over and said “Do you need any help?”

Liar liar liar liar. He is shameless.

A mother took her very young daughter to M&S to buy a bra for the daughter and a male member of staff toddled over and offered to help with fitting a bra for the very young daughter.

The man is scum.

Victoria Smith in The Critic:

When Mary Ann Stephenson was announced as the government’s preferred candidate to take over from Baroness Falkner as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, every feminist I know was delighted. With three decades’ of experience, working for organisations including the Women’s Budget Group, the Fawcett Society and Liberty, plus advising the British Council, the UN and the TUC on human rights, Stephenson was the perfect pick — a serious candidate, with serious, in-depth knowledge across multiple areas of interest. Who — other than someone who objected to the existence of the role altogether — could possibly object to that? 

And yet some people did. Within days of the announcement, a petition was launched against Stephenson’s appointment. To be fair, it was hardly surprising at a time when anything which delights feminists tends to be considered a dogwhistle for hate. According to the petition, Stephenson’s history “includes making anti-trans statements and associations with groups advocating for the curtailment of trans people’s human rights”. 

The usual lie. Nobody advocates “for the curtailment of trans people’s human rights”. Gender skeptics advocate for women’s rights, and skepticism of new and peculiar “rights” that apply only to people who claim to be the sex they are not.

No one was going to put down in writing “we do not want this woman because she recognises the political salience of sex”. Instead, there’s that workaround with which all feminists have become familiar in recent years. Women’s rights are the one area where it is permitted to suggest that if you care about them a little too much — so much that you won’t allow sex to be overwritten by gender — then that’s all you care about, to the detriment of all other rights for all other groups. In the case of Stephenson this couldn’t be further from the truth. As for her detractors – I’m not sure what they care about at all. 

I have a particular interest in this because Stephenson was kind enough to allow me to interview her for my book Hags. Our conversation was not about “the trans issue”, but about the relationship between sex-based and age-based discrimination (age being another protected characteristic, albeit not one Stephenson’s critics have seen fit to mention). I felt — rightly — that Stephenson’s position as director of the Women’s Budget Group would give her particular insights into the cumulative nature of sex-based inequality. We discussed how women fall behind men due to lifecycle experiences, the impact of which are intensified due to factors such as race, class and disability. It was a conversation which acknowledged that sex matters, but only as a starting point. Of course, to anyone who has bought into gender identity ideology, such a conversation is only ever a flimsy excuse to hate on trans people, never to be taken at face value. 

The more I think about this conversation, and the smears to which Stephenson has recently been subjected, the more it highlights to me the way in which contemporary trans activism demands a completely different understanding of how we approach equality. There is an approach that is relational, which understands that who we are and where we stand depends on our relationships with other people, and that making the world fairer for all is not a simple matter of stating “I am who I say I am” and forcing everyone else to agree. It’s an approach that recognises the importance of bodies, the threat of violence, and the value of supposedly “lowly” work. It’s one that recognises the rights of all by acknowledging our dependency — socially, politically, physically, linguistically — on one another. Anyone who maintains this fundamentally intersectional approach will, like Stephenson, end up being called a terf, not because they have the slightest interest in “advocating for the curtailment of trans people’s human rights”, but because trans activism prioritises an individualistic validation of the “true self” over a relational, shifting understanding of selfhood. 

Exactly. Trans dogma / ideology / religion / theory is all about The Holy Self. The problem should be obvious. Or as Victoria put it –

If you believe that anyone who focusses on the needs of women — not least as a prerequisite to addressing the needs of marginalised subsets of women — is only doing so to make others feel left out, your problem is not their exclusionary tendencies. It’s your own narcissism. 

Yet again the issue is concealed behind layer after layer of dishonest language. In the Telegraph ffs.

M&S apologises over trans employee in bra department

Male employee. The issue was not trans but male.

‘Biological male’ caused a mother and teenage daughter ‘distress’ by approaching them in the lingerie area

What’s with the stupid scare quotes? He is a biological male, so why pretend it’s odd (or worse) to say so?

Marks & Spencer has apologised to a mother for causing her teenage daughter “distress” after she was asked if she needed help by a transgender employee in its bra section.

Male, damn you.

The retailer said it was “truly sorry” after the mother complained that her 14-year-old daughter had felt uncomfortable when they were approached by a trans shop assistant in the lingerie area of the shop, where they were hoping to have a bra fitting.

Male.

Although the staff member was polite, the mother said she felt it was “completely inappropriate” for her daughter to be approached by a “biological male” in that section.

Finally.

The following day, an M&S customer service assistant replied, apologising for the incident.

…

The retailer said it took her concerns “very seriously” and would ensure her daughter “receives assistance from a female colleague during her next visit”.

Well how is it going to do that? Unless it tells the male assistant to stay out of the women’s underwear section?

No that’s not the plan. The plan is to make the customer arrange for Special Handling ahead of time.

“We want to make this experience as comfortable and positive as possible for her. Please let us know when you plan to visit again, and we will make the necessary arrangements,” the email said.

No, not gonna do that, we’ll just shop somewhere else thanks.

What was that I was just saying about Joyce Carol Oates being not intelligent?

“so, just answer: what are the statistics of men currently incarcerated in women’s facilities?”

Replies providing said stats are many. She will never acknowledge them, and she will never adjust her views accordingly.

Joyce Carol Oates plays dumb.

Yeah and what’s all this fuss about Trump’s war on immigrants? Why is everybody yelling about Elon Musk? What’s the big deal about global warming? So what if Trump is corrupt and incompetent and stupid? Who cares if California burns to the ground? Why do people even need food?

Labour MPs resist.

Labour MPs have deemed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of a woman as “completely unnecessary” and a “backslide” on rights, months after the judgment.

Oh yes, it’s completely unnecessary to remind people that women, and women only, are women, and men are not, repeat not, women. It’s completely unnecessary despite the fact that a shocking number of people are insisting that some men are women and that non-men women are strictly forbidden to say otherwise much less act otherwise.

Although many letters sent by MPs, and seen by The Times, featured generic stock responses, an analysis of more than 50 pieces of correspondence revealed how some MPs continued to push back against the ruling and cast doubt over forthcoming guidance being produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the equality regulator.

Andrew Western, a work and pensions minister and the MP for Stretford & Urmston, told one constituent that he believed the case was “completely unnecessary” and he appreciated “the fear and distress that has resulted” from it.

Thus revealing that he has no awareness whatsoever of the needs of women, which is pretty appalling in an MP.

Josh Newbury, the MP for Cannock Chase, said in a letter it was “clear in my view that trans women are women and that trans men are men”. He said the Supreme Court ruling did not contradict that but that “the misinterpretation of, and fallout from, the ruling has wrongly brought this into question”.

He said: “I do not believe it is morally right for trans people to be excluded from single-sex spaces designated for their gender.”

But he does believe it is morally right for women to be excluded from women’s single-sex spaces. Why? Why does he believe it’s more important to give a small number of men access to women’s spaces than it is to give millions of women access to women’s spaces? How does that work in his head?

In another letter Noah Law, the MP for St Austell and Newquay, said the ruling could “be used as an excuse to discriminate against transgender people”. He said he feared the ruling would “serve as a backslide” and added: “It is, ultimately, not down to any court to decide how people feel living in their own skin, and it seems like obvious common courtesy to let people live in a way that makes them feel happy and safe.”

Unless they’re women. It seems like obvious common courtesy to let men use women’s toilets but it does not seem like obvious common courtesy to let women use women’s toilets. Make it make sense.

No.

No. Of course not. Women’s prisons are women’s prisons. That has never meant that each man should be “assessed on an individual basis” before being sent to a men’s prison. It has always meant that women’s prisons are for women, and as such they are not for men. The end. There is no “humanity and decency” in forcing trapped women to share their spaces with men.

Why are so many people so eager to lavish “humanity and decency” on men at the expense of women? What is this about? Did everybody’s mommy say no to a third cookie once too often?

Behold, UN Women goes out of its way to erase women and girls from its little homily about the stigma around – wait for it – menstruation.

I, you, we, they, but not she she SHE.

If we need to be able to talk about menstruation without fear or shame then we need to be able to start with the fact that it’s something women do, women exclusively, women and not men. Being so “inclusive” that you include men in menstruation is an inclooosive too many.

You can’t break a stigma by lying. You can’t speak openly about menstruation by pretending that men menstruate. You can’t make it possible for women to talk about menstruation without fear or shame by openly brazenly publicly LYING about it on social media.

Things the BBC is not reporting on.

Very Don’t Mention the War, isn’t it.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on #No BeKind for you.

Because trans identity tops an all-important oppression hierarchy and the purest form of virtue is being a “trans ally”.

I think it’s the purest form of virtue because it’s the costliest dogma to uphold. That’s always been the way with religion: the more preposterous and ostentatious the display of commitment — i.e., the harder it is to merely casually dabble, which is to say, the more expensive the dues are in that particular membership “tier” — the more virtuous one is seen to be, at least among fellow aspirants to that particular religion. That’s why the most committed members of any religion demonstrate it by wearing conspicuous articles of clothing — yarmulkes, turbans — and/or by the male members forcing the women under their control to be covered by garments whenever they’re in public — enshrouding them in burqas of varying degrees of severity.

And the more loudly one demonstrates their belief in the dogma — especially the most “difficult” parts, i.e., the hardest parts to swallow — the more virtuous one is presumed to be. This is the principle that drives Muslim suicide bombers, for example.

To my mind, this is all best understood through the lens of behavioural science — to be specific, something like, evolutionary behavioural neuropsychology, if that’s even what they call it? I.e., human culture is irrational and crazy because the human brain is just a primitive monkey with an overactive prefrontal cortex, which has deluded itself into thinking it’s a lot smarter than it actually is.

People covet exclusivity. Hell if I know exactly why, but it’s evidently a built-in drive that lives somewhere deep down in the brain where the animal instincts allegedly are, near the cerebellum. It’s apparently related to tribal in-group insecurity. This phenomenon isn’t limited to religion; the entire fashion industry runs on it, for one other notable example.

It’s trans ideology’s naked preposterousness that has made it irresistible to that primitive part of the brain that controls tribal in-group signalling, and which subsequently set off a frenzy among insecure left-wing people to see who can smother themselves in it the most. I don’t think that the autogynephiles who made up the religion planned it that way; it was just dumb luck that their silly belief system happened to fit the bill. Call it “keeping up with the Transes.”

As this religion falls apart, we’ll see the majority of people quietly slink away from it — like a fashion fad that’s come and gone. But I think we’ll also see a small few, the ones who’ve mentally cornered themselves into fighting to the bitter end, become extremely violent, more along the lines of Islamist terrorists.

It’s true.

Will the adults ever come back?

The obligatory opaque headline:

Transgender pool player loses discrimination case

He’s a man, of course.

A transgender pool player has lost a discrimination claim against one of the sport’s organisers.

The English Blackball Pool Federation (EBPF) banned players who were not born biologically female from its women’s competitions and teams in August 2023.

Professional player Harriet Haynes took the organisation to court, saying the rule was “direct discrimination” against her on the grounds of her gender reassignment.

It’s all dishonest and sneaky. A male “transgender” player has lost his claim. Players who were “not born biologically female” are men. One three-letter word as opposed to six long-winded words. Professional player “Harriet” is a man. He claimed the rule was discrimination against him on the grounds of his “gender reassignment” – which is not a thing. Species is not assigned and neither is sex.

But a court judge has said he is satisfied exclusion was the only “reasonable” way to ensure “fair competition” and dismissed her claim.

His claim. His his his his his.

A spokesperson said: “The court found that pool is a game in which men have an advantage over women and that allowing only those born as women to compete in our women’s competitions is necessary to secure fair competition.”

In her claim, Haynes said her exclusion from the Kent Women’s A pool team had caused her distress and upset, and she had been subjected to hurtful comments on social media.

Notice the contrast. On the one hand, he’s a man so he has unfair advantages. On the other hand wah wah distress and upset wah wah hurty comments wah wah his feefees matter while women’s don’t.

What a spectacle.

Ah yes, the old “if you don’t like the stats, fire the statistician” ploy. Always good advice. See also: if you don’t like the diagnosis, fire the doctor. If you don’t like the weather, fire the National Weather Service. If you don’t like the distance from New York to Miami, fire the mapmakers.

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a monthly jobs report that included weaker-than-expected numbers for July, plus major downward revisions of May and June’s numbers.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday, the president said the jobs numbers were “rigged” and that he’d asked his team to fire BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer.

“We need accurate Jobs Numbers. I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate,” Trump wrote.

In another Truth Social post, the president added, “In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.”

And what do we suppose he based that personal opinion on? A thorough investigation of the labor statistics? Or his dislike of the labor statistics on offer?

Denial; it ain’t just a river.

Trump faced criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress on Friday when he decided to fire McEntarfer, with several Republican senators questioning whether the firing would actually help the Trump administration improve future jobs numbers.

“We have to look somewhere for objective statistics. When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that, you know, the statistics won’t be politicized,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told NBC News on Friday. “I’m going to look into it, but first impression is that you can’t really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting,” he added.

Well, let us know if second impression is that you can really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on What no excuses?

“I wish they could have found another way to promote their cause without causing damage.”

All the women who have suffered at the hands of this “cause” would agree. But “causing damage” was the goal of this cause. Getting what transactivists wanted was only possible by destroying women’s rights. Unfortunately there were far too many people eager to do exactly that, knowing full well what the consequences for women would be, and became, because women told them. It should always be remembered that this was a price that activists and their allies were willing to force women to pay. This was not an accident, or an unforeseen, unintended consequence: it was the inevitable result of choices that were made deliberately, choices and policies enforced with calculated, misogynistic malice. Men in women’s prisons. Men in women’s hospital wards. Men in women’s crisis centres. Men in women’s short-lists. Men in women’s sports.

None of this just “happened.” It was all done, with authorization, coordination, and implementation from Cabinet on down, through all levels of corrections, hospital, counseling, and sporting authority management and staff. And all of it was regulated and enforced by these same departments and officials, as well as both the police and the judiciary. It was all reported upon by compliant, partisan, pro-trans/anti-women media, both public and corporate. This was a coup of delusion that captured practically the entire apparatus of the British state. How did it happen so quickly and so completely? How does anyone trust any of these institutions ever again? Some of them engaged in what amounted to state-sponsored terrorism against many of their own citizens, with the vast majority of the victims being women.

I’m still slightly amazed at the ruling of the Supreme Court, but it’s still early days. Too many institutions and departments are dragging their feet, or actively denying and resisting the clear meaning and legal requirements of the ruling. They’re pretending there’s wiggle room, nuance, or confusion when there is none. This is a slap in the face for the women who stood up and said “No” to a state gone mad. We can hope that their courageous example will serve as a beacon and promise of justice to come in other countries. The continuing human toll of what has been perpetrated during this nightmare time may well be incalculable. Some of it just can’t be undone. The tide seems to be turning, but the cleanup will take years; there’s a lot of toxic waste to be collected and safeguards to be installed. Heads should roll, but probably won’t.