One of the many things I hate most about Trump

(It’s supposed to be only one of those – many things OR hate most – but with Trump it’s always both, because he always has all the toppings. There are many many things about him that I hate the most. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn’t.)

is the way he does the bad thing times 10 or 100 or 1000. He has no artistry, no restraint, no sense of Less is More. Every damn time he just jumps in with both feet and dials the abuse to a million. It should handicap him, but of course it doesn’t, because there’s no justice. The stupider his reaction to X the more his fans just love it.

The latest is “Oooh James Comey said a mean thing about Trump—>treason death penalty dirty cop blah blah.”

The Post is slightly more restrained:

Trump administration officials said Thursday that they would investigate former FBI director James B. Comey, whom they accused of threatening President Donald Trump after Comey posted a picture of seashells on a beach arranged to spell out “86 47.”

Trump is the 47th president; “86” can mean banning or removing someone, but it can also be slang for killing a person.

But at the same time, “86” can be slang for killing a person, but it can also mean banning or removing someone. It’s a choice to decide it definitely means killing That Person. Trump of course made the choice, and then turned it into Shouting Drama Exaggeration War, because he can’t see anything that’s not bigger than the sun.

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” Comey wrote in the original Instagram post, which he quickly removed after claims that the phrase communicated the threat of violence. In a follow-up post, Comey wrote that he assumed the shells he saw “were a political message” but said he was not advocating violence.

Trump insisted in a TV interview that Comey “knew exactly” what it meant.

“If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination,” Trump told Fox News in an interview scheduled to air Friday evening. “And it says it loud and clear.”

But of course that’s exactly what it doesn’t do. Some seashells. Four numbers. A couple of numbers that can mean kill or escort to the exit. It’s very far from a loud and clear “Kill Trump.”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said on Fox News that she believes Comey should be in jail because of the post and accused him of “issuing a hit” on Trump.

Yeah right, that’s what that was.

I didn’t realize Pride had gone homophobic. I’m so old I remember when Pride was all about lesbians and gay men.

Stroud Pride says no LGB views.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Woman’s hour for men.

It’s funny how the BBC feels compelled to trot out all these spokespeople who are wringing their hands at having been caught out essentially breaking the law, and how following the law is going to be such a burden and hardship. How many voices of women who are happy with the judgement are they going to feature? What’s the ratio of whiners who claim the decision is “wrong,” to women who are relieved that someone has finally listened to their concerns? Four to one? Ten to one? The BBC is certainly doing its best to browbeat people into where it believes their sympathies and concerns should reside, and it’s not with women.

All these men who are being pushed back out of women’s spaces knew they were male. They all knew they were taking advantage of a “loophole” they themselves had punched through the law. They knew they were cheating. They knew they were invading women’s spaces. They’ve been trying to normalize this violation and occupation ever since. Now that that breach in the law has been noted and flagged for repair, they’re squealing “VICTIM!” when they were the aggressors.

Did the BBC ever report on the original story of men invading women’s spaces? That was the “Man bites dog!” moment of aberration that was the real story, not this redress of women’s grievances for offences against them which should never been allowed to occur in the first place but which were aided, abetted and normalized by the BBC itself. Instead, we get all this noise and fuss over (what should be) the non-story of “Men are not Women.”

Onward.

…we should remember that sadly trans people are very affected by domestic violence as of course are are other women – and those people have said “we know how to run our services, we know how to protect people in those services, um, we know how to safeguard, we do that for all individuals from other individuals, those are protected before this judgement they still are now, nothing changes, we’re open for trans people” – uh – that is really important and it is very welcome that we’re hearing that – we’re also hearing people uh hearing trans people saying things like “I don’t know if I can go to the gym any more – I’m I’m afraid even to leave my home” because actually people are using the judgement perhaps as an excuse to um abuse me on the street which of course is not what the Supreme Court said should happen – so that sort of implication from the judgement I think now we really need to see some calm and

Ok hang on a second – sorry to interrupt but if you refuse to end a sentence now and then I have no choice – if now we really need to see some calm why are you burbling this alarmist bullshit? You are not saying anything calming. You are also, of course, as Amnesty always does on this subject, wringing your hands over trans people while insinuating that women are bullying and harming them. If we really need to see some calm how about you stop monstering women?

…some calm and emphasis on the protection of trans people, which the law very clearly says.

There! Finally the sentence ends!

I think maybe that’s enough of Mister Amnesty now. He’s not very good at it.

Woman’s Hour had a bro from Amnesty International on today to explain why it’s still fine to take women’s rights away and give them to men. That segment starts at 18:19.

We’re currently hearing different perspectives this week on the Supreme Court ruling last month that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act refer to a biological woman and biological sex. The judgement has implications for many organizations.

Well yes, the fact that “woman” means “woman” does have implications. It always did. The claim that “woman” could also mean “man” provided he cleared the massive hurdle of saying so – that claim also had implications. Rather intrusive and annoying ones, actually.

We’re looking at the practical dilemmas the ruling creates for organizations, businesses and individuals.

Yes it’s a real dilemma, isn’t it – let men invade the women’s toilets and changing rooms, or no? Must keep everyone awake for hours ever night.

So she talks to Sasha from Amnesty International about the “impacts” of the ruling. He says trans people are “facing discrimination, facing harassment.”

We have been hearing from a number of people, trans people, who, sadly, and this has been a long-standing issue in society in the UK and around the world, are very fearful, facing discrimination, facing harassment – that was one of the reasons Amnesty put evidence in front of the Supreme Court, we work on human rights all around the world, we believe in everyone’s right to privacy, a family life, to be protected from discrimination, and wanted to make sure that the Supreme Court heard those arguments – I think the judgement in this case – it was a long judgement, it was about 30 pages or so, lots of detail, the court was quite precise about what it was making a judgement on – and indeed on things it also wanted to see, like discrimination against trans people – absolutely not allowed in the law –

Interrupting to apologize for the fact that the sentence never comes to an end, but that’s because it doesn’t. The man doesn’t speak in sentences, he speaks in one endless sentence.

absolutely not allowed in the law – perhaps some people are kind of rushing to judgement as to what exactly the judgement means, how to implement it – and I’d urge some caution because I think that’s causing a lot of fear and a lot of anxiety and even sense of threat for a lot of trans people at the moment –

Finally the presenter, tired of waiting for the sentence to end, breaks in.

What have they been saying to you?

Well – sometimes we’re hearing things actually it’s important to recognize are really important and good – so for example we’ve heard recently from a number of organizations that run refuges for people who have been affected by domestic violence we should remember that sadly trans people are very affected by domestic violence as of course are are other women.

Oops. Telling. He tripped himself up there. He can’t finish a sentence but he can talk rapidly without repeating himself – until that “are are” when he has to admit that actual women are also beaten up or killed by men. You don’t say, kid. That second “are” may be a tiny flinch of shame at the fact that he’s claiming women are also rans when it comes to domestic violence – that the usual victim, the normal victim, the expected victim, is a man pretending to be a woman.

I think I’ll take a break there. He’s irritating to listen to, let alone transcribe.

It’s like walking through three feet of mud carrying a piano. Progress is infinitesimal.

Guidance issued by an NHS hospital would allow men identifying as women to use female changing rooms, despite warnings that the policy breaks the law.

Officials from the Royal College of Nursing wrote to senior administrators at the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust to warn that Darlington Memorial Hospital was breaching 33-year-old workplace legislation that requires the provision of single-sex changing facilities for men and women.

And by the way they’re also acting like sadistic women-hating shits.

It has now emerged that in the last week of March officials at the royal college — the professional body for nurses in the UK — wrote to a director at the trust to complain that it was in breach of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.

The college pointed out that those regulations required “the provision of single-sex changing facilities for men and women — the only exception being where the provision is of single lockable rooms (not cubicles)”.

The official said that the college was flagging the statutory position “given the ongoing legal dispute and internal investigation” around the dispute over a transgender nurse at the hospital. The letter added that “the regulations also appear to have been overlooked by other organisations”, before stating that the college “expects the trust to comply with these statutory provisions and provide single-sex changing rooms without delay”.

And by “overlooked” they mean “deliberately ignored so as to make men happy at the expense of women.”

However, campaigners representing the women have said that three days after the letter was sent, the trust director re-published its “transitioning in the workplace policy”, without any changes to the guidance, which, it is claimed, said that a biological man can change in the female staff changing rooms.

Charming. “Not only will we not obey, we will make a point of announcing our insistence on treating women like floor sweepings. You’re welcome.”

What Trump is destroying:

Scientists behind some of the most important breakthroughs in Northwest scientific research over the past two decades have left their jobs in the wake of budget cutting by the Trump administration.

The federal government has terminated science experiments, canceled research contracts, set spending limits for travel and purchases to $1 and created uncertainty at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, a flagship of scientific research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

I pass that flagship quite often on the bus. It’s near the Arboretum and the University, and right next to a Yacht Club. NOAA itself is a few miles northeast, on Lake Washington.

The science center has lost about 30 people, according to Nick Tolimieri, president of the fisheries chapter of the IFPTE Local 8A (a union leader for about 200 center employees in the bargaining unit). While science still continues at the center, many of those lost were scientists with significant experience.

The Trump administration had offered buyouts to agency staff to encourage early retirements as it seeks to cut the federal workforce.

To cut just for the sake of cutting, without taking into account the value of what they were throwing out.

Options to take early retirement, finalized last week, represent the loss of thousands of hours of research expertise honed in the Northwest’s rivers and urban streams, and probing the lives of the most revered wildlife species, including salmon and southern resident orcas.

The Times interviewed five of these scientists.

• Sarah Morley built a deep understanding of the food web and hydrology of urban streams and Northwest rivers.
• Mike Ford revealed just how inbred the southern resident killer whales are, a never-before understood element in their struggle to survive.
• Lynne Barre helped lead the world’s first successful rescue of a stranded baby killer whale, even returning the animal to her pod, where she has since gone on to bear two calves.
• George Pess has been a leader in fisheries science and management since 1989 and the “papa bear” — as he is lovingly referred to — of the interdisciplinary team of scientists gathering data on the Elwha River before dam removal, then the world’s largest, to be able to understand the impacts of a historic intervention for fisheries recovery.
• Nat Scholz helped crack the code on which chemical in tire dust is killing coho in urban streams before they spawn.

Penny wise and pound foolish much?

Many of the retired scientists are now seeking to continue their work — as volunteers, if the paperwork needed to do so will be approved by new leaders at NOAA, Morley said. But will it? To her these budget cuts weren’t about reducing spending at all, but shutting down the science itself, making their work, even done for free, unwelcome.

“These cuts have nothing to do with saving money,” she said. “It is about silencing people and destroying science.”

Penny stupid and pound foolish.

Ya it’s always encouraging to see public safety unions shouting that men are women and that women should shut up.

The interim guidance is unworkable, unhelpful and will only lead to an increase in discrimination for workers, including in fire stations and in control rooms. Trans people are not a threat. Gender-based violence and misogyny are.

Trans ideology is misogyny, and it triggers violence against women.

Gary Lineker was talking to Oliver Brown at the Telegraph when he said that stupid thing. He said a lot of stupid things in that talk.

And for Lineker, the subject of right and wrong is simpler than it may be for others.

“You either have empathy or you don’t,” he says. “It’s more important now than ever before that people raise their voices, because we live in dangerous times. I’ll definitely continue pushing humanitarian issues. Sometimes they cross over with politics, although I’ve never been overly loud with my politics. Nobody knows who I vote for – I’ve voted for lots of different parties over many years. You feel sometimes like you’re fairly helpless, like you can’t really do anything. But you have to live with yourself. That’s the important thing.”

Ah. That would explain a lot. No, that’s not the important thing. Self is not the important thing when talking about injustice to other people. It’s the other people who are the important thing. Not you, them.

One other area where Lineker has been noticeably silent is a subject where centrist-dad equivocations are difficult: men masquerading in sport as women. This has been front-page news in his own realm, with the Football Association forced this month to ban males from all levels of the female game, honouring the Supreme Court’s ruling that the definition of a woman was based on biological sex. And yet Lineker has consistently swerved it. When his podcast, The Rest Is Football, tried a public question-and-answer experiment last November, Martina Navratilova, Sharron Davies and hundreds of other women asked him what he thought of the FA banning a teenager – revealed by The Telegraph last weekend as Cerys Vaughan – for asking a transgender opponent: “Are you a man?” Even under pressure from a nine-time Wimbledon singles champion and a celebrated Olympic swimmer, he neglected to engage. Why?

“Ugh,” he sighs, slumping so far forward in his chair he nearly hits the table. “You can’t cover that subject properly in a post. It’s too nuanced. I don’t actually think, in terms of sport, that it will ever be a real issue. Sport, as it’s already doing, will sort it out and work out rules. Like they did in boxing, when they realised they couldn’t have heavyweights against little fellas.”

Is it not blindingly obvious, however, that sport will not simply “sort it out”? It has taken many determined female campaigners a punishingly long time to undo the damage of gender ideology, compelling sports to prioritise fairness for women rather than vacuous mantras about inclusion. Amid broad acceptance that the rights of half the population should trump the view of a small, vocal minority of men that they are entitled to colonise women’s sport, Lineker makes it clear where his sympathies lie. “They’re some of the most persecuted on the planet, trans people. You’ve got to be very careful not to have bigoted views on that. I genuinely feel really badly for trans people. Imagine going through what they have to go through in life. Is there even any issue? It’s the same swimmer, the same weightlifter, the same boxer. They’re the only people I ever see.”

Well there you go. He thinks trans people are some of the most persecuted on the planet, so he thinks the women they shove aside are not their victims but their persecutors. Same old crap in same old words.

It’s so fascinating to see men say they just can’t see why women matter.

Gary Lineker surprisingly admitted that he doesn’t see the transgender sport bans as “a real issue” and that the controversy will resolve itself by the relevant authorities. The polarising BBC host described transgender people as “some of the most persecuted on the planet” and admitted that he feels sorry for them amid recent sporting banishments.

More persecuted than women? More persecuted than the women they themselves persecute? Are they? Really?

I wonder if men think this because it’s a sort of worst nightmare thing to them – waking up to find yourself metamorphosed into a [shudder] woman. Creepy doesn’t begin to describe it. Is that it? Poor sad tragic men stuck being [shudder] women – there isn’t enough sympathy and pampering in the world to make up for it. Is that it?

Or is it just garden-variety stupid.

But the nonsense train rumbles on regardless.

An NHS board has failed in its attempt to prevent the public from watching a tribunal about a trans doctor allowed to use a female hospital changing room.

NHS Fife asked the judge overseeing the case brought by the nurse Sandie Peggie to remove public access to an online live stream of the employment tribunal’s proceedings.

Gee I wonder if that’s because NHS Fife is aware that it looks like a pack of women-hating bullies.

But it is understood that Sandy Kemp, the tribunal judge, has ruled that the public should be allowed to watch the case, in line with the principles of open justice. He is also said to have rejected an application by NHS Fife to ban an open justice campaign group from posting live social media updates about the case on X.

…

The first part of the Peggie tribunal was held two months before the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that access to female-only areas should be based on biological sex.

And now the rest of it will be held after that ruling. Am I gloating? Of course I am.

This week, Ms Peggie welcomed the ruling and challenged NHS Fife to dump its policy of “permitting any man who identifies as a woman access to female-only, single-sex spaces”.

For Women Scotland, the feminist campaign group that won the Supreme Court case, said it was delighted that the tribunal judge had “upheld the principles of open justice” by allowing the public to continue watching proceedings.

Trina Budge, one of the group’s directors, said: “NHS Fife has behaved appallingly in seeking to have the remainder of this case heard behind closed doors.

All this bullying and sneaking and lying and whining in aid of men who pretend to be women. Just imagine if women had ever had a tenth of the support that men in lipstick have been rejoicing in for years.

Silly me, I thought I had already posted about this hours ago, promptly after listening to it. I thought wrong.

Foreign man allowed to go out in public again.

A federal district court judge in Virginia ordered the release of Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri on Wednesday, marking at least the third time a detained student or academic targeted by the Trump administration because of their protest activity or affiliation was released from immigration detention.

Khan Suri was detained by masked federal officers outside his home in Rosslyn, Virginia, in March. Khan Suri was moved across multiple state lines shortly after his arrest and has been held in custody in a Texas detention center.

Well obviously we don’t want students and scholars in this country, so no crossing of state lines is too much to punish them. Also the masking is fine because it just is.

He is an Indian national postdoctoral fellow and was in the United States on a valid visa before his arrest. He is married to a US citizen.

That’s no excuse! Having a valid visa is not good enough! You have to have at least ten of them, and be missing an arm.

Suri has not been charged with a crime, but the Trump administration revoked his student visa and accused him of having ties to Hamas, a terrorist organization.

Khan Suri’s attorneys filed multiple motions with the court challenging the legality of his detention, arguing their client was targeted in part because his wife is a Palestinian American. Khan Suri’s wife, Mapheze Saleh is also a former employee of the Qatari-based news network Al Jazeera, according to court documents.

Saleh said she posted on social media to show her support for the people of Gaza after the start of the Israel-Gaza war, court documents show.

Therefore it was necessary to drag her husband from Virginia to Texas and lock him up and throw away the key. What a beacon of human rights we are.

Originally a comment by Papito on Dragging more people into the maelstrom.

The trans ideology is at its worst when it draws the line of battle with women and the same-sex attracted right across the bodies of children.

The idea of “trans children” came about because adult men who modify themselves surgically to look more like women never pass as women, so they think if only they had started the modification before puberty they’d pass. So they project their inner turmoil, self-hatred, and sexual kinks onto other people’s children. Children are easy to manipulate, and the nerdy ones are always looking for an explanation as to why they don’t fit in. Throwing them a glitter party and calling them brave if they say the reason is because they’re trans is irresistible to many. Some of the parents are likewise gullible and will become boosters of their own children’s sterilization and mutilation; some are not, and this cult may break those families.

The next step after convincing a kid to say they’re trans is to elevate that statement above any other. A kid can say they want to be a musician and the parents say that’s great, let’s get you lessons, knowing that by the time college graduation rolls along the kid will likely have found a profession that pays. A kid can say they want to be an astronaut and parents will say that’s great, you have to study calculus and get in shape. A kid can say they’re emo, not goth, and the parents will say super, we’ll save on white pancake makeup. Anything a kid identifies as, parents understand it might change, and in the long run it doesn’t matter, a kid has to go through a lot of different phases, and can be motivated to learn things from any of them. But the job of the trans cult is to make sure the kid never grows out of saying they’re trans, which they would without intervention.

That’s what the gender centers are for, and the puberty blockers. Their stated function is to prevent the puberty that would develop secondary sex characteristics, and thus make the eventual trans adult pass better. Their practical function is to prevent the adolescent brain from growing, and prevent the kid from growing out of the phase where they identify as trans. Can we lock in a poet phase, or a scout phase, or a train-lover phase? No, but we can lock in a trans phase, medically. And we can train a generation of doctors to lie to children and parents and say they will kill themselves if we don’t.

Every day a new family is thrown into years, and perhaps a lifetime, of pain because someone has sold the trans lie to their child. There will never be a righting of this wrong, there will never be accountability for all the doctors and teachers and therapists who pushed this snake oil, who decided the line of battle for a kink ideology had to be fought over the bodies of children.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on How to make a right.

There is no such thing as specifically “trans” rights. There can’t be, because “trans” is a fiction, and because making that particular fiction a basis for rights would obliterate women’s rights as well as lesbian and gay rights.

A big part of the problem stems from people’s mistaken conception of “trans people” as a fixed subset of the population — directly analogous to gay people: a small group of individuals who were born with an innate and harmless condition that caused them to be discriminated against and persecuted by the rest of society — when in fact “trans people” are an open identity group whose membership can grow or shrink depending on its appeal at any given time or place, just like political movements, religious movements, and subcultures like hippies and punks.

The number of people who loudly announce themselves to be transgender (or who quietly drop the label) is directly dependent on the pros and cons of doing so. Every time you change a policy to make it “more trans inclusive,” you’re not easing the burden on a small, fixed group of people who can’t help but be innately “trans” and who would otherwise struggle to cope with their day-to-day lives without the concessions that supposed trans “rights” offer. Instead, you’re incentivizing more people who’d otherwise have carried on just fine to hop aboard the trans train.

You can see how the conflation of “trans rights” with gay rights came to be. It was a very clever marketing ploy by the trans activists to hitch their wagon to the gay rights movement:

There have always been men and women who, in the privacy of their minds, were far more attracted to members of the same sex. Some of them found the prospect of opposite-sex relationships to be completely unbearable to the point of impossibility, whereas others managed to carry on “in the closet” and go through the motions of heterosexual life, despite their private longings. The number who “came out” publicly was correlated to how well society included and accommodated them. But the number of people who were innately homosexual never actually changed. And no one has been able to identify any drawbacks to legally and culturally incorporating them into society.

The same cannot be said for the following groups of “closeted” people:

There have always been straight men who, in the privacy of their minds, find it sexy and appealing to imagine themselves as women and who would love to make everyone else imagine them as women, too. There have always been men who secretly enjoy crossdressing. There have always been men who fantasize about getting naked in women’s locker and shower rooms. There have always been men who predate sexually on children and who dream of having the kind of unsupervised access to children that women are freely granted and that men are prohibited from.

There have always been teenage girls who long to be boys — to escape from the ever-present burden of objectification. There have always been lesbians who long to move through the world free of the everyday grind of homophobia and misogyny they’re subjected to, simply for looking and acting the way they naturally do.

There have always been gay boys and young men with naturally feminine attributes, for whom the thought has crossed their minds, “If only I were a beautiful young woman, hunky young men would find me attractive instead of repulsive, and I’d be so much more popular! I’m so ashamed to be gay. I feel like a freak…”

There have always been social chasers, people who need to be at the centre of the party, who get unbearable FOMO at the sight of a big glittery rainbow parade they weren’t invited to.

None of these people are innately transgender. None of them need special sex-denialist privileges in order to carry on with their lives. None of them. In fact, everyone — all of society — is far better off if none of them are designated as a separate class of special people who are granted special “rights” to force everyone else pretend not to see their sex. Automatically granting “trans rights” to some of these groups of people poses an immediate threat to the safety of women and children: making “trans” a no-questions-asked all-access pass to women’s safe spaces does just that. Granting “trans rights” to others undermines women’s rights and gay rights by disincentivizing society from its responsibilty to address the burdens of societal prejudice unfairly carried by women and gays, and instead pushes unhappy women and gays to simply modify themselves and irreversibly damage their bodies in order to conform to the status quo. This is what the bogus concept of “trans kids” does.

These supposed “trans rights” are just dragging more people into the growing maelstrom. It’s threatening to drown us all.

Classic Trump.

“It’s a great gesture from Qatar,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’”

Point completely missed SIR. Point not even within striking distance SIR.

To put it another way, you’ve just gone on the record as happy to accept any and all bribes from any and all parties.

The issue is not whether or not you would like a free lavish gift. We know you would love a free lavish gift. We know you’re greedy. We know you’re corrupt. We know you’re reckless. We know your brain is a puddle of grease. You don’t need to tell us any of that.

The issue is that you’re not allowed to accept bribes. The issue is that you’re especially not allowed to take bribes from other countries.

This is a bribe, you dumb fuck. It’s not a loving present from people who admire you, it’s a massive public bribe. It’s not a “free airplane”; it’s a hook lodged deep in your throat for Qatar to reel in whenever it chooses.

The Society for Women in Philosophy UK is not for women in philosophy. It’s for that other thing – the opposite.

It offers a “statement of solidarity and support in response to the recent UK Supreme Court ruling and EHRC guidance” which is not a statement of solidarity with women but rather a statement of solidarity with men who call themselves women.

(There’s no link to the statement because apparently they don’t do links; just scroll down – there’s not much on the page.)

What’s their philosophical take?

The Society for Women In Philosophy UK (SWIP UK) condemns the recent Supreme Court ruling on 16 April 2025 determining that the term ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a binary and biological notion of ‘sex’, and the subsequent interim guidance published by the EHRC on 25 April 2025. 

Ah yes a “notion” – a peculiar eccentric addle-pated notion that sex refers to sex. Silly Supreme Court; if only they studied the works of professional trans ideologues like “India” Willoughby instead of relying on sexual dimorphism for their definition.

This ruling and the guidance undermine the human rights and safety of trans, non-binary, and intersex people and are also detrimental to cis women. Trans women are women, and belong in feminist organisations. There is no fight against sexism and misogyny separate from the fight against cissexism and transmisogyny.

In what way is it detrimental to women to know what women are? In what way is it not detrimental to women to pretend that men can be women? Deep philosophical questions which the Gang for Women in Philosophy don’t bother to answer, or even ask.

SWIP UK membership, in line with our recognitions and aims, has for many years been open to trans women and to other trans and/or non-binary people who feel the category of ‘woman’ is relevant to their experiences, and this will not change under any circumstances. 

Oh. Really? So it’s not the Society for Women in Philosophy. Why do they call themselves that while they disavow it? If it’s not for women why do they say it’s for women?

Ironically, that’s about the most obvious contradiction one could come up with, and philosophers are supposed to be alert to contradictions, and avoid them. It seems kind of cringey to feature and underline one right there on their website.

If you’re a woman and a teacher in the UK you don’t have a union that looks out for your interests.

Britain’s largest teaching union has voted to campaign against the Supreme Court ruling on gender, insisting trans women in schools must be allowed to use ladies’ toilets.

The Left-wing National Education Union (NEU) resolved on Saturday to advocate for trans teachers to continue to choose toilets according to ‘gender identity’.

Which is a massive “fuck you” to women.

The judgement, which states a woman is defined by biological sex, effectively means a male-born trans person can be excluded from female-only spaces.

However, the NEU’s resolution means it may now intervene to provide legal assistance for trans teachers if they are banned from female toilets or girls’ changing rooms.

Not legal assistance for women who don’t want to take their clothes off with men in the room, but legal assistance for men who want to take their clothes off with women in the room. Solidarity Forever eh what?

Daniel Kebede, General Secretary, said: ‘The NEU is looking carefully at the Supreme Court ruling and its implications for employment. A toxic climate has been created in recent years in which trans people, a small community, are treated as if they are a risk or threat to others.’

Go to hell, Mr Kebede. Men are a threat to women if they’re insisting on invading women’s spaces and watching them take their clothes off. Men who are not a threat to women don’t want to do that. Do you get it now? The adamant insistence on intruding on women is a guy thing, and it’s revolting to see men lining up to defend it and encourage it.

The 52 executive members, mostly regional reps, voted in favour of a motion called ‘trans rights are human rights’.

The motion says the ruling ‘contradicts human rights and dignity of trans and other gender-diverse staff and encourages discrimination, harassment and hate crimes’.

What about the human rights and dignity of women?

It’s so interesting how they simply take for granted that “trans rights” get to cancel women’s rights.

Wrong.

That little nugget of wisdom is floating around on social meeja. It’s idiotic.

There is no erosion of the human rights of trans people, i.e. the human rights that everyone has. There is no such thing as specifically “trans” rights. There can’t be, because “trans” is a fiction, and because making that particular fiction a basis for rights would obliterate women’s rights as well as lesbian and gay rights. It’s unworkable to make it a “right” for men who pretend to be women to force everyone else to agree. It’s unworkable because it’s not true and it drives a tank through women’s rights.

Imagine if trans ideology faded out, to be replaced by an ideology that claims people are whatever military rank they say they are. If I say I’m an admiral, I’m an admiral. Would that be workable? No. How about an ideology that claims people can fly if they say they can? I suppose we could shrug and say “Ok whatever” because it would harm only the roof jumpers, but what if they started taking babies up onto that roof? So, no again.

The slogan sounds cute to people unaccustomed to thinking, but it’s not workable.

Welcome to Racism Import Theater.

The first group of White South African refugees arrived in the U.S. on Monday under President Trump’s executive order mandating they be prioritized for resettlement — even as the broader refugee program remains largely on hold.

The 59 Afrikaners, descendants of mainly Dutch colonists, underwent expedited reviews that took months, were brought to the U.S. on a government-chartered flight, and were greeted at Dulles International Airport by federal officials — all unconventional steps for the refugee resettlement program, which can take years to process.

In other words, refugees don’t normally get expedited reviews, they don’t normally get here on a government-chartered plane, and they are not normally greeted at Dulles by federal officials. It seems fair to assume that the “unconventional steps” are a way to rub our noses in the fact that the Trump regime welcomes white racists and has contempt for their victims.

Nose duly rubbed. We get it. You hate us and you love racists. You’re going to do all the harm you can in the next four years, and that will be a lot of harm. We can’t do a damn thing about it. We get it.

Among his first executive actions, Trump temporarily paused the refugee resettlement program. Various agencies including the State Department have also paused disbursing funding for critical services such as the home, job and school assistance the Afrikaners are poised to receive.

The pause sent the refugee resettlement agencies into turmoil as refugees already cleared to arrive in the U.S. received notice their flights had been cancelled.

Among those left in limbo were Afghans who worked with the U.S. military, a move that some Republicans have criticized. Judges have ordered the government to at least resume the refugee program for those who had already been approved to travel, but the administration is fighting the court order.

Fighting the court order while ostentatiously parading Afrikaner “refugees” from post-apartheid South Africa. Noses rubbed.