Same old same old – it’s vastly worse than we thought and we’re doing nothing at all to slow it down.

Sea level rise will become unmanageable at just 1.5C of global heating and lead to “catastrophic inland migration”, the scientists behind a new study have warned. This scenario may unfold even if the average level of heating over the last decade of 1.2C continues into the future.

The loss of ice from the giant Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has quadrupled since the 1990s due to the climate crisis and is now the principal driver of sea level rise.

The international target to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C is already almost out of reach. But the new analysis found that even if fossil fuel emissions were rapidly slashed to meet it, sea levels would be rising by 1cm a year by the end of the century, faster than the speed at which nations could build coastal defences.

And, I’m guessing, faster than the speed at which nations could build new housing and transportation and other infrastructure for millions of refugees from coastal cities. Heyup city planners, you’ve got the populations of San Diego and Los Angeles and San Francisco and Seattle plus all the smaller cities and towns and suburbs near them, heading your way. Also Houston, New Orleans, Florida (yes all of it), DC, Baltimore, Newark, New York, Boston, plus all the smaller cities and towns and suburbs near them.

The world is on track for 2.5C-2.9C of global heating, which would almost certainly be beyond tipping points for the collapse of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets. The melting of those ice sheets would lead to a “really dire” 12 metres of sea level rise.

Today, about 230 million people live within 1 metre above current sea level, and 1 billion live within 10 metres above sea level. Even just 20cm of sea level rise by 2050 would lead to global flood damages of at least $1tn a year for the world’s 136 largest coastal cities and huge impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods.

But here’s the problem. That’s the future. This is now. Humans are hopelessly bad at doing difficult things now to avoid much worse things 20 or 30 or 50 years down the road. The giant cruise ships will continue to trundle in and out of Seattle and New York and Miami and the ice will continue to melt. People will continue to buy huge heavy SUVs and live 20 miles from where they work and the ice will continue to melt. The headlines will continue to warn us and the ice will continue to melt.

Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

Bros before hos eh?

Stupid women. They should just stay home if they want lavatories without men in them. Women are so fucking demanding.

The Houses of Parliament have refused to ban trans women from female lavatories despite the Supreme Court’s gender ruling.

A spokesman told The Telegraph that the House of Commons would be waiting for guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission before changing its rules.

You mean reverting its rules. The House of Commons hasn’t always let men use the female lavatories. If it had, they wouldn’t be called “female lavatories.” There was a rule (however implicit) against men in the women’s toilets until Trans Ideology came along to make sure women never have any rights ever again.

He said they wanted to ensure that all are treated in an “inclusive manner”. The House of Lords said it would be adopting a similar approach.

Hm. Can anyone spot the flaw? It seems pretty obvious.

I’ll spell it out. What the fuck do they mean by “inclusive manner” when they’re talking about taking away female-only toilets? It’s the old Anatole France line, which being translated is:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” 

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids women as well as men to commit rape.

Women are not a threat to men. I assume most men don’t want us flocking into the men’s toilets, but we’re not a threat if we do. The converse is not the case. Five little words: men are stronger than women. Throwing all the toilets open to both sexes puts women at risk in a way it does not put men at risk. This means it is not “inclusive” to force women to give up safe toilets. “Inclusive” is very much the wrong word here.

The Supreme Court ruled in April that legally a trans woman does not count as a woman, and that the word “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not gender identity.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then put out interim guidance to organisations to underline that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities”.

A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association, for example, has said trans women would be banned from women’s sport. But other organisations, including the NHS, have said they are awaiting guidance from the EHRC.

But they already have the guidance from the EHRC; it says so right there.

Now the Telegraph can reveal that the House of Commons has also refused to change its guidance.

A spokesman said: “Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the EHRC on this issue. However, in advance of that we are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate and providing support to colleagues where needed. We are committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, and in an inclusive manner.”

No you’re not. You’re committed to the opposite of that. You’re committed to continuing to force women to risk encountering men in the women’s toilets. You suck.

It’s a funny thing…much of the time, or most of the time, or nearly all of the time, BBC Woman’s Hour seems to know perfectly well what a woman is. It is, after all, in the title of their program. Their daily program that they put on every weekday.

The man. Her beloved sister. Ordinary words used in an ordinary way.

Women’s groups. No footnote to explain what “women’s groups” might be; no apology for talking about women; no mention of trans anything.

I wonder why they can do it most of the time but then go all skeptical and “You know many people would say” when they’re talking to women who know that men are not women. I wonder what’s going on in their heads. I wonder how they make the sums come out right.

Same.

Just listened to this and found it quite uncomfortable listening.

Because it felt like @BBCNuala was challenging @KateBMwriting to justify the existence of lesbians. By pushing her to say men couldn’t be lesbians – then saying some people might find that view offensive.

So I re-listened to the recent Robin Moira White interview (trans identifying man + barrister) to compare. But there were no questions that offered a similar level of ‘challenge’. Like: –

What do you mean when you use the word woman?

– What would you say to people who say trans women are men – and that you can’t actually change sex?

– Some would argue that your beliefs are offensive to women – in fact many have – what would you say to that?

There was no challenge to Robin around identity versus biology at all. Yet Kate was subjected to the most idiotic questioning e.g. why she might want to exclude men from her dating pool as a lesbian.

In fact @BBCNuala even went on to clarify that Robin’s pronouns were she/her (after Kate had used ‘he’ and explained her reasoning).

And this is ‘Woman’s Hour’. Just extraordinary.

And enraging.

The Beeb should at the very least change the name to Trans Hour.

Replies are scathing toward Nuala McGovern.

Ok by popular demand of at least one person I’ll go on with the “what even are women??” segment of today’s Woman’s Hour.

I paused at the cliffhanger moment when Nuala McGovern asked Kate Barker

and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive – do you ever use the term “trans woman”?

Do you ever stop beating your children? Do you ever stop kicking dirt in the faces of the poor? Do you ever stop throwing men off high bridges?

Kate Barker, much too pleasantly in my opinion, says “Yes I would do” but then adds that she prefers to say “trans-identified male, and that’s not to insult or upset anyone but we’ve seen polls that show that 30 percent of people, the British population, don’t know what a trans woman is, they think that’s maybe a woman that’s transitioning to a man” – at which point McGovern cuts in to say “but within – with the people that this will affect they know what that word would mean, the people that disagree with your point of view for example.”

It’s not a point of view, it’s reality. And her point is just a snotty little gotcha: KB is saying that talking about “trans women” will confuse 30 percent of the population, and McGovern rudely brushes that off because apparently the only population that counts is the trans one.

McGovern goes on:

So you’re arguing that a biological male can never be a lesbian – eh there are some trans women as you know that say they are lesbians what would you say to them?

Will these buffoons never grow up? Gosh, I don’t know, what would I say? What would I say if someone told me he’s the reincarnation of Tsar Nicholas II? What would I say if Nuala McGovern said she can turn her own piss into Châteauneuf-du-Pape? What would I say if you said there’s a ghost in the cookie jar?

Barker, I’m pleased to say, answers with “‘Stop it.'” Then a laugh. Then “It’s just ridiculous.” Then a half-formed thought then a swerve to the fully formed “One of the things after the Supreme Court ruling, we were all happy and celebrating – [but] we were exchanging glances, and saying to each other: Can you believe, we’re at the Supreme Court, to find out whether a man is a lesbian or not.”

McGovern clarifies that the LGB Alliance and other lesbian groups were intervenors, and then somewhat belligerently says “But obviously your group, those groups, don’t represent all views of all lesbians, there will be lesbians listening to this program right now saying you do not speak for them, and that they don’t need the protection that you believe is necessary, or want to have a space defined in the way that you want it defined.”

In other words “some people don’t agree with you.” You don’t say!

There’s more but the energy had gone out of it by then so I can’t be bothered to type it up.

Conclusion: I’m really not a fan of Nuala McGovern.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Some memberz of the communniny.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Well, given that you probably think being called a man is abusive, pardon me if I don’t take your word for it. Given that you think the ruling is incorrect (for no reason other than its curtailment of your former “centred” and “validating” use of female spaces you shouldn’t have been entering in the first place), you’ll have to excuse my lack of sympathy. The scales of justice have finally weighed your desires and whims against the safety and dignity of women, and found in favour of the latter. It is frightening to think it might not have gone that way.

Maya Forstater’s first employment tribunal judge ruled against her, calling her (now protected) beliefs “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. What if the second judge in her case had agreed? What if the judges of the Supreme Court had been as captured as her first tribunal judge? What if Stonewall Law had prevailed? For far too long it did, causing untold grief to how many thousands, or millions, of women in the UK. “Kate” Lancaster would have been fine with that, because he was fine under Stonewall Law. He’s upset now because his is no longer the whip hand, having lost much of the unearned and undeserved power and influence he and his fellow trans identified males have enjoyed for the better part of a decade. (Though it looks like the BBC is trying its best to drag the last bit of the struggle out, siding with the reactionary forces fighting the restoration of sanity and women’s rights. Which side of history are they on again?)

That your side never acknowledged the actual harms caused to women and girls by your fetish-driven gender adventurism, and the predatory advantage taken by other opportunistic males using Self ID as a cover (both of which were predicted, and then documented, by women as this horror show unfolded against their will), says all I need to know about how many tears I should shed on your behalf.

It’s a disgrace that the BBC is still seeking you out to commiserate with you on your fall from power, rather than talking to women and girls who are rightfully celebrating having been relieved of the burden and fear of having to accommodate your intrusion into their spaces. This great victory belongs to them, yet the BBC is making it out to be some kind of tragic loss because they’re looking at it from the wrong goddam side. It’s like they’re covering the fall of a tyrannical regime by trying to garner sympathy from the public on behalf of the fallen tyrants and their ruthless henchmen. “Spare a thought for the sacked secret policemen, and unemployed torturers. They’re having to go out amongst the people they tormented and go on living from day to day, out in the open, without the security apparatus of the state, and the anonymous, fickle, exercise of its retributive powers to protect and avenge them.” The BBC is still on the side of the gender ayatollahs, who pine for the days when their fatwas held sway.

This is not as much of an exaggeration as it might appear to be, (or one might have wished). Given what we were seeing here on B&W, for far too many women, (and for society as a whole), the UK under trans “rights” was turning into a police state, with the power of the government, police, courts, and corporations all moving to dismantle women’s rights, and stifling any protest against that movement. It’s easy to see the delusional lunacy of the views being proposed, enected, and enforced. We’ve been pointing out the insanity every day for years. But the craziness and incoherence did not keep these measures from being proposed, enacted, and enforced to begin with. It was a near run thing that might have gone either way. It is frightening to think too long on how much this outcome has depended on luck rather than reason and reality.

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia.

Yeah, no. I wouldn’t take your word for what you claim as “transphobia.” Reality is “transphobic” according to your lot, so, no. Try again.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

Nobody should be assaulted, or abused. No excuses. There are laws against that, laws that have been there for decades, which this ruling leaves intact. This ruling does not touch the human rights that you share with your fellow citzens. You have the same recourse to the law as everyone else. (Though if you consider being called “he” or “sir” “abuse”, you might find that your legal recourse might not cover having your feelings hurt, or being offended. Again my own sensitivity to cries of “abuse” or even “assault” from trans activists have been blunted by years of transperbole. But if you have a real case, call the police, press charges. Just make sure you’re not sending them after stickers, ribbons, and limericks. They may no longer be as quick to jump at these.) Try again.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Of course people shouldn’t yell vile things at random passersby. It’s rude and frightening. I know this from expereince. Yes, it’s upsetting, but it’s not illegal. Once it passes into illegality, from epithet to threat, I have recourse to the law. Until that line is crossed, I have to live with it. Hurting my feelings is not breaking the law. If the threshold were that low, courts and jails would be packed to a standstill. But for a while, in the UK, hurting your feelings was illegal. Remember? Stickers? Ribbons? Limericks? For some reason, transactivism’s speed-dial was always answered by the police, for the slightest of slights, and the mildests of criticisms, so long as they were labeled “transphobic”. Late night visits by the police, based on single, anonymous complainants. People lost their jobs for holding the “wrong” beliefs (beliefs which are now, thanks to the courage of women like Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey, and others, who faced down the hijacked, corrupted power of the state, protected). People were arrested for uttering statements of fact, or for trivial mockery, if it was something touching on the privileged, sacred status of Trans. Women could only marvel at the speed with which trans privilege was protected and enforced against the hard-won rights of women, which have never received anywhere near the degree of political, legal, and police support and protection that genderists were able to command overnight.

Women have had to put up with abuse, lower wages, employment ghettoization, under-representation in all walks of life, assault, rape, and murder for centuries. Transactivism exacerbated this situation by eroding women’s sex-based rights and protections. Erasing women in law (which is what would happen if transactivism successfully redefined “woman” to include “non-women”), would destroy the protections and resources that women do have, and prevent the implementation and monitoring of any measures designed to redress historical, systemic barrires to women’s safety and advancement. This is what the Supreme Court ruling was about. Women were forced to seek this ruling because there was so much at stake. Transactivism was fine with the sacrifice of women’s rights and women’s lives, so long as men-pretending-to-be-women got what they wanted. This was the point of the mantra of “TWAW”, of “NO DEBATE”, of “NO CONFLICT”. All of these thought-killing slogans were designed to allow the legalization of the male invasion and permanent occupation of women’s spaces without any examination of the price women would pay. Women must never be allowed to say “No”. It might have been called “Trans Rights”, but in reality it was an attempted coup by Rape Culture. This is the movement that the BBC is wringing its hands over in teary-eyed nostalgia. Disgusting.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

Women won. Society won. REALITY WON. Men are not women. You are men, and not women in the eyes of the law. That is as it should be, because that is how things are. You have not lost any rights in this decision, and women have retained and protected theirs. That’s not a tragedy, it’s a glorious vindication of the fucking obvious that should not have been necessary in the first place.

Godalmighty. Woman’s Hour today had Kate Barker, CEO of LGB Alliance, on to explain why lesbians are quite pleased about the Supreme Court ruling.

Nuala McGovern: Now you’ve described this ruling as a watershed moment for women and in particular for lesbians; why?

Barker describes the joy and relief of that day

I don’t think people understand just quite how tough it’s been for lesbians over the last ten-fifteen years – I really would characterize it as a kind of dark age for lesbians, and the reason for that is that the LGBTQ+ lobby groups have been encouraging men to self-identify as lesbians, and those men just haven’t taken no for an answer, in terms of trying to access women’s spaces, women’s support services, women’s social groups. So it’s been really really difficult, and an example I suppose that people might understand quite easily is dating apps. So we all use dating apps now don’t we, it’s a common part of everyday life. If you go onto a lesbian dating app you’ll find that 20% plus of the people on that app are men – I’m using the word “men” in the sense that you and I – they’re men-men –

McGovern breaks in –

Well let’s talk about that particular term “men” that you use.

Yes she actually says that – apparently with a straight face. A woman who presents Woman’s Hour on the BBC says to the lesbian guest “Well let’s talk about that particular term ‘men’ that you use.” As if it’s some weird specialized jargon, some tendentious peculiar pejorative thing to say. What are we supposed to call them? What’s the permissible word now? Do we need to warn the audience before we say it? What does “Woman’s Hour” even mean???

Deep breaths. Push the play button again. McGovern, slowly and distinctly: “Who are you referring to?”

Fucking hell. Can you imagine being KB in that moment? It would be so tempting to shout: “This is Woman’s Hour; who are you referring to you brainless subservient buffoon?!!”

KB was admirably disciplined.

I’m referring to all male people.

McGovern asks, slowly and ponderously, “Are you also referring to those who identify as trans women?”

KB: I am.

NM: Why.

KB: Well I think a dating app is a good example of why. So – consider the dating app, the lesbian dating app – the sort of people, however you want to describe them, they’re male, born male in male bodies – now I’m a lesbian and I go onto that dating app – my criterion is – well I would prefer to meet somebody without a penis – because I’m a lesbian. If I go onto the app and try to set up my profile and say “I’d like to meet somebody, oh I don’t know, female, or somebody who’s a biological woman – a real woman, in my mind, I’d be booted off the app and the man would be allowed to stay. And the reason for that is my position would be considered bigoted and unkind and transphobic, but most importantly, it would be considered to be Not Inclusive. And I think that’s worth looking at, for a second. So, me – and other women, as lesbians, we’ll assert our boundaries, and that boundary will exclude male people from our dating pool. But that position, in and of itself, is deemed to be a transphobic position…The same thing is happening for gay men as well, that if you assert your exclusive same-sex orientation – homosexuality – that is considered to be something which is “not inclusive” and which is bigoted and transphobic so that’s why we as an organization were celebrating and cracking open the champagne. You know because it allows us to – we can’t do our work as an organization unless we can clarify so what does sex mean –

McGovern breaks in there:

Well let’s talk about these aspects, and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive

Hey guess what Nuala McGovern, I find what you’re saying very offensive. I find the fact that you’re saying it very offensive. I find this sick joke of a program called Woman’s Hour contorting itself to bully women for saying that men are men VERY OFFENSIVE.

and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive – do you ever use the term “trans woman”?

What kind of question is that? Are we required to use it? Socially, morally, be kindly? Why is BBC Woman’s Hour scolding a lesbian for calling men men instead of calling men trans women? I would really like to know!

The rest later, if I have the stomach for it.

I can’t wait to rush out and not read this book, let alone not buy it. ($55 for the paperback!)

Transgender and Non-Binary People in Everyday Sport – A Trans Feminist Approach to Improving Inclusion

Ok first what is “everyday” sport? If you mean amateur say that; if you mean something else, make it clear.

Second what is a “trans feminist” approach? Is that a sly euphemism for “fake feminist” approach?

Description:

This formative work discusses transgender people’s inclusion in everyday sport in the United Kingdom. It adopts a trans feminist approach to explore pivotal issues regarding the barriers to participation faced by transgender and non-binary people.

What is a “formative” work? Is “transgender people’s inclusion in everyday sport” a euphemism for letting men invade women’s sport? What, again, is a “trans feminist approach”? Does it mean an approach taken by male people who are not feminists and enjoy seeing male people take over female sport?

Offering a critical perspective on the current landscape surrounding this topic, the book draws from insightful interviews conducted by the author with 18 transgender and non-binary individuals. The author uses a critical social science approach to explore the heteropatriarchal construction of sport in the modern industrialised West, and how this has formed the backdrop to the continuing discrimination towards many athletes, not just those who are transgender. Using first-hand perspectives, it focuses on the three themes of the sporting body, sporting spaces and sporting communities. It investigates why conversations about fairness and safety regarding transgender athletes have become so polarised within the media, and the significance of taking a trans feminist approach to reducing barriers in sport.

Mmkay I think we get the drift. It’s a book about the urgent need for men to take over women’s sport.

The hardback is only $200.

The BBC is distraught over claims that women have rights.

It’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, “woman” means a biological woman. The decision was welcomed by some women’s rights groups but condemned in the transgender community. How are they and others affected by the ruling feeling now?

Or to put it another way, it’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that women have rights. How do people who think women should not have rights feel about this ruling now?

While the full implications of the ruling are not yet clear, some members of the trans community feel threatened by it.

Hey Beeb, you know what? Some members of the female communniny feel threatened by your passion for attacking women’s rights.

Kate Lankester, a 25-year-old trans woman who works in trans healthcare, says life is “a living hell”.

“I’m walking out of the house scared every single day,” she says. “I worry about who’s looking. I worry if someone’s going to say something to me.”

Looking at what? Say something about what? Does he wear a pumpkin on his head or something?

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia. She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Well it was nice of Jessica Brown to feed the BBC what it so obviously wanted to hear, but I’m not 100% sure I believe his account is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

Benji Rayson, a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary, says they do not believe the ruling will “fix anything” but has instead “shone a light on a community that just wants to get on and do their own thing”.

Hahaha ok Beeb, you got me. I thought you were serious until “a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary.” Hahahahaha you win.

Smith College is confused.

Sneaky. Anyone who doesn’t already know who “Rachel” Levine is will of course assume he’s a woman being honored by a women’s college. Sneaky all around – doing the women-insulting thing, and being coy about doing the women-insulting thing.

There’s been a lot of insulting of women over the past decade or more. We’re rather tired of it.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on He had benefited.

The transgender community fears its rights are “melting away” after a legal ruling which has left people “terrified”, according to one trans woman.

Well they wouldn’t have melted away so easily if they had been actual rights, and not based on an unlawful interpretation of the statutes they were carried in on, would they?

Sarah Savage, a trans woman who is the chief executive and co-founder of Trans Pride Brighton, said it was not long ago that trans rights felt “solidified”.

Only to the degree by which your campaign of lying, bullying, and terrorism had succeeded. These “rights” were only “solid” because they were enforced on a largely apathetic, deceived, and cowed public, through the expedient of “NO DEBATE.” Actual opponents to this program were villified and threatened. Yeah, some really solid “rights” there, mate.

“Trans people just want to have a quiet life, we just want to get on with it. We don’t want all this drama, we just want respect.”

HAHAHAHA! Thats a good one! No, really, let’s dig into this. Let’s look at just one of your own actions and see how well they conform to this claim. I’m talking of course about your library alarm stunt. Fire alarms are not “quiet.” Misusing them is usually a criminal offence. How did your pulling that fire alarm to disrupt a meeting on women’s health help you “just get on with it”? How was that not drama? How did that contribute to your desire for “respect”? It shows you to be a self-centred, bullying, contemptable coward of a man. Acts like this go against all of your claims, and in fact hurt the efforts of those apochryphal trans folk who really do want a quiet life. You are not a very constructive poster boy for your cause, but you sure seem to be a representative one.

“It makes me feel scared for the future because my rights are literally being taken away before my very eyes.”

Those aren’t your “rights” you’re seeing taken away, it’s the restoration of stolen property to its rightful owners. Your access and intrusion was illegal from the start. You barged into spaces and opportunities never meant for you, to which you were not entitled or qualified. Nobody has the right to do that, though thugs and gangsters would disagree. That’s what you’ve been; a thug and a gangster. You deserve no sympathy. You knew what you were doing when you violated women’s boundaries. Shut up, get the fuck out, and stay out.

What if I need to go to a hospital? Am I going to be treated with respect?

Respect is a two-way street, and it is earned. You haven’t offered any to the women whose rights and safety you have strived so mightily to diminish, so no respect for you.

What kind of ward am I going to be put in?

One for men, which is what you are, always have been, and always will be. Nothing you say, or wear, or do can ever change that. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s just the way things are. It’s where you belong. Not with women. You’ve already shown you are threat to them. Nobody has to play along with your delusional self-image. If you still insist on being put into a female only ward, then the facility you should be housed in should be one specializing in mental illness, and a secured one at that.

A director of community group TransActual, jane fae – who spells her name in lower case

And it’s so interesting that these same journalists take great pains to let us know that the lower case affectation* of the man they’re quoting is not a spelling mistake on their part. Priorities people, priorities.

…I foresee being forced into the indignity of being on a male ward….

And why is that an indignity for you? You are a man. (See above re: “Sarah” Savage’s hospital ward anxiety.) You don’t need to be on a female ward any more than you need a pap smear or hysterectomy. You might need specialized treatment to take into account any “gender affirming care” you might have subjected yourself to in the past, but none of that turned you into a woman, however extensive and convincingly lifelike they might have turned out. You’re not any kind of woman; stop pretending you are. That continued insistence, and your forcing your delusional beliefs on everyone else (especially women)? There’s your indignity right there.

*Another example of playing helpless and self-effacing? “Oooh look at me with my lower case, I’m so small and unintimidating. Let me into your spaces! I won’t hurt you, I promise! Don’t put me in with the other, beaslty, UPPER CASE men!”

“Sarah” Savage, the guy who pulled the fire alarm because women were holding a meeting, gets attention from the less fastidious news media for being a trans woman who demands all the rights.

The transgender community fears its rights are “melting away” after a legal ruling which has left people “terrified”, according to one trans woman.

Sarah Savage, a trans woman who is the chief executive and co-founder of Trans Pride Brighton, said it was not long ago that trans rights felt “solidified”.

Miss Savage described the ruling as “extremely worrying”, adding she had benefited from access to a women’s refuge after she came out and is now concerned that opportunity has been taken away from others.

Extremely worrying for whom?

He benefited from access to a women’s refuge but the women in that refuge had their benefit taken away. It’s so interesting the way hack journalists forget to point that out, and their editors fail to catch the omission. It’s so interesting the way journalism as such simply ignores this whole issue.

Miss Savage added: “It makes me feel scared for the future because my rights are literally being taken away before my very eyes. What if I need to go to a hospital? Am I going to be treated with respect? What kind of ward am I going to be put in?”

If he is put in a women’s ward, what kind of ward are the women then in? Why is one man’s unreasonable demand treated as a human rights issue while the human rights of the women involved are treated as biggottree?

“Trans people just want to have a quiet life, we just want to get on with it. We don’t want all this drama, we just want respect.”

They just want to get on with taking women’s rights away. As for the drama – you have got to be kidding. They love the drama – it’s all about them.

A director of community group TransActual, jane fae – who spells her name in lower case – also expressed concern about her potential future care.

“As I get older I may need hospital care, I foresee being forced into the indignity of being on a male ward, that would be upsetting to say the least,” the 67-year-old from Letchworth told PA.

Same again. Does he worry that the women who had to put up with him in their ward would find it upsetting? Of course not. His wants are everything, theirs are just something he gets to drive a tank through.

The shouty man in question is Sarah Savage.

He’s not a threat, oh good heavens no, but if women dare to have a meeting he will make sure to shut that right down. Which is in no way a threat. At all.

Large loud aggressive man tells us how he terminated a meeting of women by pulling the fire alarm, and shouts angrily about how fearless he is and how he will not let this go.

New boss even worse than the old boss.

Smith College tells us about its four commencement speakers for this year.

Four distinguished leaders in the arts, academia, health and wellness, social justice, and innovation will be awarded honorary degrees at Smith’s 147th Commencement on Sunday, May 18. In a tradition begun last year by President Sarah Willie-LeBreton, each honorand will offer a few words of wisdom and congratulations to the graduates.

Did I mention that Smith is a women’s college?

Honorary degrees will be awarded in May to:

• Danielle Allen, professor of political philosophy, public policy, and ethics at Harvard University and founder and chairperson of Partners In Democracy.
• Evelyn M. Harris, vocal teacher, former member of the world-renowned a cappella group Sweet Honey in the Rock, and a global performer for more than 50 years.
• Admiral Rachel L. Levine, 17th assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, accomplished physician, public health expert, and LGBTQ+ advocate.

And a man. Admiral Levine is a man. That’s an award that won’t go to a woman, because the good people at Smith wanted it to go to a man who playacts being a woman.

Smith devotes a lot of space to Levine’s bio, and doesn’t once mention that he’s a man, or even trans. Just she she she her her her. Women’s college insults women, news at 10.

In another, but very nearby, corner of the forest another court with another ruling.

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that had temporarily paused plans for mass layoffs and program closures at federal agencies.

A judge paused plans for mass layoffs and program closures at federal agencies?? That’s so shocking! All federal agencies are bad, and everything federal agencies do is bad. Obviously! The people should all be fired and the programs should all be slammed shut. Nothing should ever be done for any reason other than profit.

Last week, Judge Susan Illston of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California called for a two-week pause on the administration’s actions, which she said were illegal without congressional authorization. Her order barred two dozen federal agencies from moving ahead with the largest phase of President Trump’s efforts to downsize the government.

In the emergency application filed on Friday, D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, argued that the lower court’s “far-reaching order” would prevent “almost the entire executive branch from formulating and implementing plans to reduce the size of the federal work force.”

Could that be because the entire executive branch was “reducing the size of the federal work force” by simply firing masses of people without bothering to find out what they were doing and how necessary it was?

In February, Mr. Trump signed an executive order directing officials to draft plans for “large-scale” cuts to the federal work force. Several labor unions, advocacy groups and local governments sued, seeking to block the order.

Judge Illston held an emergency hearing in the case last Friday and issued her ruling just hours later.

In the 42-page ruling, Judge Illston determined that the government’s attempt to lay off workers and shut down offices and programs created an urgent threat to scores of critical services.

It’s as if Trump told the Pentagon to bomb federal agencies into oblivion without pausing to preserve the buildings or allow the occupants to send a goodbye message home.

Trump does not have a close acquaintance with the law, but that doesn’t slow him down any.

President Donald Trump endorsed the idea that the United States Supreme Court had placed an “illegal injunction” on him by temporarily blocking his administration’s ability to deport Venezuelans, accused of being gang members, without due process, while litigation on the matter plays out in lower courts.

On Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reposted two posts made by attorney Mike Davis, a close Trump ally and the founder of the Article III project, calling the court’s recent decision “illegal” and claiming it was “heading down a perilous path” by not allowing Trump to continue a constitutionally questionable action.

“The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis wrote.

…

The court told the Trump administration on Friday it would  not allow it to resume deporting Venezuelans accused of belonging to a gang under the Alien Enemies Act while litigation continues in lower courts. In their decision, the justices flagged concerns about the administration bypassing due process rights.

Trump raged at the justices for not allowing his Department of Homeland Security to proceed with deportations under the act, calling it “bad” and “dangerous.”

Not his call. Co-equal branches, babe.

Saturday’s endorsement of the idea that the Supreme Court, the ultimate decider of law, was carrying out an “illegal” act on him by not allowing him to do something that lower courts have also consistently ruled against, is part of a recent trend.

The trend of being completely ignorant of the law? That’s not recent.

Trump and his administration have been accused of defying federal judges’ rulings – most notably not facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite the Supreme Court directing the administration to do so.

The president has personally lashed out at judges who have ruled against him, asserting they are “rogue” or “activists.” Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have both warned that attacking judges is harmful to the independence of the judiciary.

His behavior has led to some concerns from critics that the president will ignore court orders and continue doing whatever he wants with the help of his allies in the government, thus overextending his presidential power.

Gosh ya think?

Surely it’s obvious that that’s exactly what he intends to do. He intends to do whatever he wants and accept no restraint from anyone or anything.

It’s hard not to suspect a new Sokal Hoax.

I mean come on. “According to this definition pregnancy or the potential for pregnancy define womanhood.” Well yes, Genius, they do. If you look you’ll find that that applies to other mammals too. You know what there would be if they didn’t? Nothing, that’s what. Without reproduction there is nothing. P.D. James wrote a novel about that very scenario – a world in which human reproduction had simply stopped. In a world like that it takes only a few decades for living humans to disappear entirely. Not just thin out, not just become scarce, but go extinct. Like the dinosaurs. Get it?

It’s too obvious not to get. Must be a new Sokal.

The rest of the burble is just typical pomo litcrit word-flapping. A genre of political, aesthetic, and affective experience and expectation. Burble burble burble. Admire the clever academic with the fancy words like “affective” and “genre.” The childish “trick” here is just to pretend that because there’s more to say about pregnancy than the biological facts, therefore the biological facts are wholly irrelevant. Yuh huh. There’s more to say about a sunset than the astronomical facts, therefore the earth does not rotate.

Human ingenuity.

Seattle Councilmember Dan Strauss is worried about Seattle’s ears. 

Earlier this spring, he drafted a “hearing protection ordinance” that would require music venues to provide hearing protection for free or less than $1, or risk fines. 

“This bill is about making sure that people have the opportunity to both enjoy Seattle’s vibrant music scene and protect their hearing health no matter where they go,” Strauss said when presenting the idea to his colleagues in March. 

Well…that’s like going swimming with the sharks while taking a box of bandaids with you. It’s like going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant with a bottle of diet pills in your pocket. It’s like setting your house on fire and then putting on asbestos socks.

In short, why would you go to a concert that you know will be too loud? Why not select concerts that are not too loud, instead? Think of the fortune you would save on ear plugs.