Cricket.

Transgender women have been banned from competing in all levels of women’s cricket with immediate effect, the England and Wales Cricket Board has announced.

In an update to its transgender regulations, the ECB said “only those whose biological sex is female” will be able to participate in women’s and girls’ cricket.

It doesn’t get much more tautological than that. Men and boys won’t be able to participate in women’s and girls’ cricket. Well duh: that’s what it says on the tin: women’s and girls’ cricket. Obviously men and boys won’t be able to participate. Yet all this time all these people pretended otherwise. Could it be because women and girls just don’t matter?

Amelia Short, a transgender cricketer for amateur side Lindow, says the ECB should have consulted with transgender players before altering its policy.

Well that’s bullshit, and the BBC should have recognized it as such instead of solemnly including it. There is nothing to consult about. Things for women and girls are for women and girls. The end.

“What the ECB has done is not give us as transgender women a chance to say that there isn’t much advantage going on. We’re not doing an injustice to the women’s game,” Short told BBC Sport.

Ah fuck off. You don’t need a chance to say. You’re not involved. It’s not yours. Go away. Whining about not being consulted is like burglars whining that the people in the house didn’t leave a window open for the burglars. You are not women so get out.

Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns for human rights group Sex Matters, said the ECB’s previous policy was “never coherent” and “indefensible”.

“Now that the UK Supreme Court has said it is lawful to exclude ‘all men, including trans women’, the ECB has done the right thing,” said McAnena.

At least the BBC gave her the last word.

Originally a comment by Acolyte of Sagan on More in the spirit of Mao than of Mill.

In regards to education around trans “rights”, I’ve sometimes thought that a good start to getting people to see gender ideology for what it is would be to get them to examine and understand the following concepts:

Understanding the concepts would be useful, but I believe that an understanding of where and how the modern concept of transgender actually began would explain so much about why the ideology is such a confused and confusing mess.

So far as I can tell, it started in the late 1990s as a purely philosophical idea centred on a post-modernist ‘no absolute truths’ view of sex and gender – I think I am therefore I am, if you will. From there it was taken up by the social sciences and expanded by such writers as the high priestess of gender ideology, Judith Butler, whose writing rivalled that of the greatest of theologians insomuch as it said very little, proved even less, but did so in such dense, impenetrable prose that it baffled the reader into submission: uncertain as to whether they were reading genius or bullshit, too many erred on the side of genius.

Believing that they had understood what in reality was intentionally unfathomable, the new converts began teaching that gender was more than a social construct, it was at the core of one’s very existence, and suddenly a new generation of students had their heads filled with what they thought was a stunning new insight into the human condition. Those students went on to spread the word to the wider world, and here we are, fighting a muddle-headed ideology based on nothing more than a flawed philosophy that should have been contained within academia but escaped to mutate and cause havoc.

Dude is angry that men can’t ruin women’s sports any more. Dude needs to find a better hobby.

“I’m a male footballer forcing my way onto a women’s team and I will keep doing it until they stop me.” “Fae” Fulconis, piggy man.

Stephen Robinson at Public Notice offers a selection of cold cuts Trump ramblings that reveal and emphasize how gone his brain is. Listening to such ramblings is torture, but reading them is not as much like having nails driven into your head, and they do underline how empty it is in his head.

Trump has always been an ignoramus who masks his intellectual shortcomings with bombast and declarations of his own brilliance, but his rambling nonsensical responses in these latest interviews should set off alarms…

Well, sure, but that’s been true all along, and he got elected anyway.

But there is a kind of morbid entertainment in probing the infinite emptiness.

Time asked Trump, “You recently signed memos calling for an investigation of Chris Krebs, a top cybersecurity official in your first term. Isn’t that, though, what you accused Biden of doing to you?” Trump’s response to this question was totally incoherent.

I think Chris Krebs was a disgrace to our country. I think he was—I think he was terrible. By the way, I don’t know him. I’m not—I don’t think I ever met him. I probably saw him around. You know, I have people come in, like the other one. He came in, and he’s on CNN all the time as like an expert on Trump. I have no idea who he is. And Chris Krebs the same thing. I guess he probably said he knows me, but I have no idea. And you know, oftentimes I’ll have some people sitting right here, and behind them will be 10 or 15 people from their agency or their office, and they’ll stand there, and then all of a sudden, I’ll hear that like I’m, you know, they’re all time experts in me. I know very little about Chris Krebs, but I think he was very deficient.

People voted for that.

Time pointed out that Trump has made zero deals since his trade adviser Peter Navarro promised “90 deals in 90 days.” Trump simply denied this reality.

No, there’s many deals.

When are they going to be announced?

You have to understand, I’m dealing with all the companies, very friendly countries. We’re meeting with China. We’re doing fine with everybody. But ultimately, I’ve made all the deals.

Not one has been announced yet. When are you going to announce them?

I’ve made 200 deals.

You’ve made 200 deals?

100%.

Then Trump imagined himself a “a giant department store,” the way a small child might imagine they’re a dragon.

I am this giant store. It’s a giant, beautiful store, and everybody wants to go shopping there. And on behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and I’ll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay.

The wave continues.

ECB update on transgender participation in women’s cricket

The ECB is today announcing a change to its regulations regarding eligibility for transgender players in women’s and girls’ cricket. This is based on the updated legal position following the recent Supreme Court ruling.
 
With immediate effect, only those whose biological sex is female will be eligible to play in women’s cricket and girls’ cricket matches. Transgender women and girls can continue playing in open and mixed cricket.  

Bam.

Our regulations for recreational cricket have always aimed at ensuring that cricket remains as inclusive a sport as possible. These included measures to manage disparities, irrespective of someone’s gender, and safeguard the enjoyment of all players. However, given the new advice received about the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, we believe the changes announced today are necessary. 
 
We acknowledge that this decision will have a significant impact on transgender women and girls. We will work with Recreational Cricket Boards to support people [affected] by this change in our regulations.

I wonder – did England and Wales Cricket Board ever say it would work with Recreational Cricket Boards to support people affected by its regulation that allowed men to intrude on women’s cricket? My educated guess is that it never did.

We maintain that abuse or discrimination has no place in our sport and are committed to ensuring that cricket is played in a spirit of respect and inclusivity.

Even to the point of keeping men out of women’s cricket…eventually.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on What we don’t like makes us special.

All a diagnosis of gender dysphoria tells us is that a patient is in distress and is ruminating about his or her body. That by itself should only be the beginning of a proper clinical assessment, but far too often it’s treated like a conclusion. [Artymorty]

Exactly. One of the most evil things that gender ideology does is to claim that dysphoria = trans, skipping right past the phenomenon of “desistance”*. The motivation to fast track children into “social transitioning”, puberty blockers, surgical procedures, etc., is to short-circuit and pre-empt desistance by pretending it doesn’t exist, because the alternative is that “transness” doesn’t exist. After all, how can a supposed “gender identity” be anything core, fundamental, unchanging, or eternal, if you can outgrow it? But recruit/trap them before they get a chance to think about things too much, and you’ve won yourself a whole cohort of children (and often parents), who are now fully committed. Having invested their very bodies (or those of their children) in the “cause,” these True Believers will be all the more motivated to defend the ideology, rather than admit that they were fooled and misled by adults who should have known better, and that they have made horrible, irreversible mistakes.

Regret and detransition must, like desistance, be hidden and denied, because it is not the actual health and wellbeing of children that must be defended but their “transness”. Admitting the possibility of mistaken diagnoses leads to questioning the the standards used for a diagnosis of “transness” in the first place. Can’t have that. This is the real meaning behind all of those “Protect Trans Kids” t-shirts. It’s not children being “protected”, but their “diagnosis” as trans. This is tragically ironic: “gender affirming care” is going to inflict more harm on these children than “cis” society is ever likely to. Buying into the “dysphoria = trans” claim means more mutilated, sterilized children. Who’s protecting them?

For those children whose mental or psychological distress is not resolved by going through puberty, whatever it is they are suffering from, it can not be the result of having been “born in the wrong body.” That does not happen. If this supposed “cause” is taken off the table, what is left of “transness” at all? Very little, apart from a movement of bullying, intimidation, and emotional blackmail led by predatory, misogynistic, narcissistic, fetishists.

* We’re often told by gender activists that we must “educate ourselves” about trans “rights”. I believe that most of us here have done exactly that. But we have not reached their approved conclusion. They’re not interested in truth or enlightenment. They want obedience and submission. They want us to re-educate ourselves, more in the spirit of Mao than of Mill.

In regards to education around trans “rights”, I’ve sometimes thought that a good start to getting people to see gender ideology for what it is would be to get them to examine and understand the following concepts:

Desistance and detransitioning

Forced Teaming

DARVO

Institutional Capture

DSD vs “Intersex”

Autogynephilia

among others. Feel free to add to this list.

Seems worth noting.

Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei-led center in Washington DC, a hub of activity for the radical and secretive Catholic group.

Roberts acknowledged in a speech last September that – for years – he has visited the Catholic Information Center, a K Street institution headed by an Opus Dei priest and incorporated by the archdiocese of Washington, on a weekly basis for mass and “formation”, or religious guidance. Opus Dei also organizes monthly retreats at the CIC.

Perhaps to be continued.

Reading something that mentions “gender dysphoria” I come to a stop to think about the label for a sec (not, of course, for the first time). It strikes me all over again what an absurd concept it is. You could use it for anything. I don’t like very hot summer days; is that Hot Days Dysphoria? No, wait, Thermal Dysphoria – so much more sciency and thus convincing.

I don’t like mosquito bites, and neither does anyone else; are we all mosquito bite dysphoric?

I detest Trump; am I Trump dysphoric?

We could play this boring game all day and never come to the end.

We all dislike some things. It’s the human condition – it’s the animal condition. If you’re sentient, there are sensations you don’t like. There are things about ourselves we don’t like – we would like to be taller or wiser or stronger or you name it; is it “dysphoric” to have preferences of that kind? That’s all we’re talking about – liking this rather than that. Calling it “dysphoria” makes it sound technical but guess what: it isn’t. It’s just life as a sentient being.

Beware of pseudo-technical labeling, that’s my advice.

SOLIDARITY WITH OUR TRANS SIBLINGS

Or

maybe something else.

Tough choice.

Well…ok, but…isn’t he still our trans sibling? I mean she – isn’t she still our trans sibling?

Trans people are the most vulnerable people of all, don’t forget.

Being trans is the equivalent of being 172 women in terms of who has the most Oppression Points.

So, you know, little quirks like trying to get into the pants of underage girls become just another way trans women are fabulous and also more vulnerable than anyone else by miles.

Irish Independent:

Jenny Maguire: If my rights as a trans woman can be removed in an instant, what does that mean for yours?

Well what are your “rights as a trans woman”?

You mean your “rights” to be in women’s spaces and take jobs set aside for women and play in women’s sports? That kind of “right”?

Well, kid, if those “rights” that aren’t rights are removed then they are restored to women, and I’m a woman, not the pretend kind, so that’s what that means for mine.

That’s not what you mean though. You think you have a right to take what belongs to women. Well guess what: you don’t. It doesn’t matter how cute you look when you dress up as a woman: you still don’t get to take our stuff.

Maguire is angry about the ruling.

Just under two weeks ago the UK Supreme Court ruled that all references to women under Britain’s Equality Act are to be interpreted as meaning “biological women”.

Gosh really? The UK Supreme Court ruled that “women” means women. Shocker!

The British Transport Police updated its policy to have male officers strip-search people like me if we are arrested. The rhetoric around the ruling has thus given a social licence to transphobia.

People like you? Oh you mean men! Yes, if the police arrest you and need to strip-search you, it should be a male cop who does the searching. Your fantasies about women in police uniform searching you will have to remain fantasies. Big deal.

If trans women like me cannot use women’s bathrooms, they aren’t just going to start using the men’s. They will just stay at home. This is backed by research, with major impacts being found on trans people’s employment, education and social lives.

So stay at home then. Nobody cares. Threatening us with it is like a toddler vowing never to eat again, aka a tantrum. Women’s lives matter just as much as yours does, so you don’t get to use your rage at being told “no” as a tool to get your own way.

If the law is used to remove trans people from bathrooms, changing facilities, or to access crisis services, then the law is not about reform. It is about the removal of trans people from public life. When minority groups are pushed to the margins, the harm done to them can go more unnoticed.

Men are not a minority group. Men are not a subordinate group. It’s not pushing anyone to the margins to say “you can’t use the women’s changing facilities, because you’re not a woman.”

During the abortion referendum campaign, a key talking point was the number of people who had to face the perilous journey of travelling to access abortion.

Ahhh look at you, saying “people” when you mean women. Trans doctrine is so interesting – we have to call men “women” and we have to refer to women as “people” – because men pretending to be women like it that way.

Then we reach peak stupid.

I am a woman. A trans woman. Like how my mam is a blonde woman. Or how Margaret Thatcher is a dead woman. None of these descriptors negate the word that comes after it. 

Except that that one descriptor of course does – because “trans” woman does indeed mean not a real woman.

Jeezus. Talk about grudging, resentful, one-sided, hostile.

FA update following the recent Supreme Court transgender ruling

As the governing body of the national sport, our role is to make football accessible to as many people as possible, operating within the law and international football policy defined by UEFA and FIFA.

Our current policy, which allows transgender women to participate in the women’s game, was based on this principle and supported by expert legal advice.

How was that policy “based on this principle”? Their policy made football inaccessible to the women displaced by men pretending to be women, and to women who didn’t want to play against men because they didn’t want to get smashed up by men. If the FA’s role really is to make football accessible to as many people as possible then they’ve been doing it wrong.

This is a complex subject, and our position has always been that if there was a material change in law, science, or the operation of the policy in grassroots football then we would review it and change it if necessary.

No it’s not. It’s not a complex subject. Men are not women. Simple.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 16 April means that we will be changing our policy. Transgender women will no longer be able to play in women’s football in England, and this policy will be implemented from 1 June 2025.

We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify, and we are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game.

So much tender concern for the men who have been displacing women, and so zero concern for the women displaced. All the understanding and contacting and explaining is for men who have displaced women, and none of the understanding and contacting and explaining is for women who have been displaced.

It’s really astoundingly cold and insulting and rude to those bad women who actually are women.

They’ve got a nerve.

Amnesty International pisses all over women every chance it gets. Amnesty International drives a tank through women’s rights because it finds fictitious “trans rights” more glamorous and exciting. Amnesty International wants to be down with the kids. Never was a Readers added context more richly deserved.

Originally a comment by Patrick on Junior engineers say it won’t collapse.

One of the classic argumentative styles of the era goes like this. I’m going to number it out because I’m a nerd.

1. Your opponent says X. But you believe Y.

2. State, or at least imply, that these options exist in binary opposition such that either one or the other must be the case.

3. Restate X such that it is very specific. Keep Y vague for now.

4. Offer a variety of undercutting defeaters for X. “It’s more complicated than that,” is an evergreen attack because most things are more complicated than the short, specific statements to which you have reduced your opponents position.

5. After a while at this, declare X to be refuted.

6. State, or at least imply, that Y has therefore been proven.

7. Now that Y has allegedly been proven, get more specific.

I first noticed this from Christian apologists back in the 00s. They’d argue something like this: “Materialists think that the only things that exist are matter and energy, but, patterns exists, and they’re neither. Ideas exist and they’re neither. It’s more complicated than that. Now that we’ve established that materialism is false, let me tell you about a mystical spiritual dimension that our eternal souls inhabit after our deaths. I trust you’ll have no reason to doubt it since the only alternative has fallen.”

Once you start seeing this argumentative pattern you can’t stop seeing it.

Well you see we can’t say anything about the trans religion because we might get yelled at. You can’t expect a satirical magazine to risk getting yelled at!! Duh!!!

You might think that a Supreme Court ruling confirming the obvious fact that the word ‘man’ means ‘man’ and the word woman means ‘woman’ is a ripe subject for a satirist.

You might, unless that particular obvious fact had been magically transformed into a taboo enforced by sadists – sadists who rejoice in trashing people’s lives for saying men are not women.

Interlude for comparisons:

You can say apples are not carrots. You can say a hammer is not a wine glass. You can say France is not Idaho. You can say lakes are not mountains and vice versa. You cannot say men are not women.

‘It isn’t easy to do this particular subject, as Keir Starmer has found out,’ stammered an unusually flustered-looking Hislop. His teammate, guest Jo Brand, agreed:

‘I think this is a thing that a lot of people wouldn’t want to say anything (about), because it’s a very, sort of, venomous situation, and I think a lot of people are genuinely a bit frightened…no one really wants to get a death threat…’

Death threats from who exactly, Jo? Rabbits? Presbyterians? The Brighouse and Rastrick brass band? Not, I would strongly suspect, from the women who laboured for years at great personal and professional cost to raise the eye-watering sums of cash needed in order to get the highest court in the land to tell us what we all knew when we were two? The death threats, as anybody on the ‘gender critical’ side of this debate can tell you, flow thick and fast – and always from the other side.

Along with other kinds of threats, often having to do with jobs, careers, opportunities, alliances. The general idea is: everybody will hate you and you will starve on a rock in the middle of an ocean.

The admission of this fear, at long last, is an interesting first step. You’d think it would spark some reflection on the part of the cultural elite, because under our democratic system we are not supposed to be afraid to speak.

Well, yes and no. I agreed with that at first but then paused. It’s not really true. It’s not really possible to be totally unafraid to say X no matter what X is and no matter what kind of fear we’re talking about. Just to take one example, I have a deep fear of blurting something that would hurt someone’s feelings. Really really deep. I’ve told the story here at least once of blurting such a thing about an oldish man wearing an ugly tie to my mother only to have her whisper furiously “He heard you.” I glanced at his face and wanted to rip my own head off.

And starting from there it’s easy to think of lots of other examples. So it’s not really true. It’s generally true, other things being equal, yadda yadda, but it’s not an absolute.

But. Politically speaking, we shouldn’t be afraid to say things about claims that have massive implications for other people, especially other people who are of a race or nationality or status or sex that is considered inferior and/or subordinate.

It was fascinating to see all the varieties of awkwardness and denial on HIGNFY during the discussion on gender. Guest Richard Osman fell silent, with downcast eyes and the kind of terrified ‘please, please talk about something else, anything else’ look I’ve seen so many times in the last decade.

But then again, who can blame Osman? None of us should ever have had to deal with the madness of genderism. It caught comedians, and everybody else, unaware about ten years ago. Very quickly it became dangerous to even question it, let alone poke fun at it.

About ten years ago. Is that when I quit Freethought Blogs 5 minutes before they pushed me out? Why yes, it is.

In the days following the court’s judgment, for example, it’s been hilarious to watch political figures – Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, Green co-leader Carla Denyer, podcast centrist dad Rory Stewart – squirming and obfuscating, appearing to pretend that they simply don’t understand the ruling of the Court. The interim guidance issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission following the ruling is written in Ladybird Book, Year 4-level English. Yet these luminaries are apparently totally foxed by it. Or are they just frightened? Either way, it is agonising, but very amusing, to behold. As the lawyer Dennis Kavanagh remarked on X, ‘We are not debating this movement. We are babysitting it.’

…

It’s unfair maybe to focus on the antics on a flagging old show like HIGNFY. The show’s cowardice is merely a symptom of wider institutional failure. But what is plain to see is that the unwillingness to joke about gender is a class issue. Comedians today seem desperate to cling on to upper middle-class fads, however barmy they happen to be.

In a healthy, functioning democracy, satire should play an important part in the political and cultural ecosystem – yet on genderism, it failed, and failed badly. If supposedly satirical shows like HIGNFY had been firm with this rubbish at the start, the gender madness might not, perhaps, have ripped through our institutions in the way that it did.

Just imagine. No India Willoughby, no Dylan Mulvaney, no Freda Wallace, no Lia Thomas, no Imane Khelif.

Originally a comment by Mark on Defy the reality.

Just as many conservatives dislike something solely because it is popular amongst the Left, there are those on the left who like something solely because the right dislike it. I believe the trans-rights movement is, in large part, a byproduct of such thinking.

I am someone who has loathed right wing, religiously driven thinking for most of my life, but just because my ideological opponents hold a position on an issue, it does not follow that I must have the 180 degree opinion on it. We all know the saying about broken clocks.

The “socialist” aspect of trans rights is, for many of them, simply because they know the right hates it. It’s just as shallow, knee jerk, thoughtless a reaction as when average right wingers hate electric vehicles, despite not being in the oil business – they hate electric cars because the “vibe” of caring about the environment and thinking beyond the end of your nose strikes them as “lefty”. Same with trans rights – the Left like it because it’s all about, allegedly, acceptance, sexual minority protection and because it makes the right wingers really mad, and the “vibe” it gives off is all about rebelling against “normies” and peace and love and supporting people

The fact that the trans movement is completely illogical, goes against commonly accepted definitions and ignores basic genetics matters not. The viiiibbbbeeeess man, its all about those feel good socialist vibes! It feeeeeeeels Left wing, it feeeeeeeels rebellious, it feeeeeeeeels so good to annoy the right.

You can’t argue with them on logic. They didn’t arrive at their conclusion by using logic.

Just a couple of questions.

What’s socialist about this?

What’s worker about it?

I just want to start the day with this one paragraph from an Atlantic piece on Trump by Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer.

He had announced plans to pave over part of the Rose Garden, and he had redecorated the Oval Office—gold trim and gold trophies and gold frames to go with an array of past presidential portraits, making the room look like a Palm Beach approximation of an 18th-century royal court.

Small and yet so very…

Oh really?

Doctors brand Supreme Court trans ruling ‘scientifically illiterate’

Really? Then why haven’t all doctors always known that men are women if they say they are?

The subhead perhaps hints at a reason:

Junior medics claim binary divide between sex and gender ‘has no basis in science’

Ah. Junior medics. The ones who don’t want to be called harsh names by their friends.

The British Medical Association’s (BMA) resident doctors – previously called junior doctors – have voted to “condemn” the judgment, which ruled that trans women were not legally women.

Of course “legally” is not the same as “medically” so one wonders why doctors are butting in anyway. The Supreme Court is not a medical body, and ruling that men are not legally women is not a medical ruling.

The doctors passed a motion at a conference on Saturday criticising the ruling as “biologically nonsensical”.

The doctors claimed a binary divide between sex and gender “has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people”, according to a motion seen by The Times.

And yet, men don’t get pregnant, and men don’t get woken up at midnight to nurse the baby. Neither legally nor medically.

The wing of BMA, which represents about 50,000 doctors in training, said it “condemns scientifically illiterate rulings from the Supreme Court, made without consulting relevant experts and stakeholders, that will cause real-world harm to the trans, non-binary and intersex communities in this country”.

Notice any stakeholders missing? Yeah: women. It’s funny how women are always missing from these discussions.

Helen Joyce, the director of advocacy at Sex Matters, told The Times: “It’s terrifying that a group of young doctors, all of whom have been through several years of advanced education and training in biology, have been indoctrinated by trans activism to such an extent that they claim categorisation by sex – male and female – is ‘reductive’ and has ‘no basis in science or medicine’.

“These junior doctors are an embarrassment to their profession. What next: young geographers claiming that the Earth is flat, or junior vets who think it’s bigoted to suggest that cats can’t identify as dogs?”

Planets are lima beans! Oak trees are iguanas! Oceans are ginger ale!

So let’s read the Stonewall mush about the tragic fate of those poor sad vulnerable cherished people who just happen to think they’re not the sex they are.

The headline:

Following the Supreme Court ruling we must remember compassion and humanity

To whom? Women?

Hahahaha that’s hilarious, right? No of course not to women. Women are bitches, women persecute the poor helpless fragile men who claim to be women. Women don’t deserve compassion and humanity.

Trans people are our families, friends, neighbours, and colleagues; we share our workplaces, our communities, our pubs, cafes and places of worship with them. They are worried and frightened by the legal implications of the ruling, and its unknown consequences. 

Women are also our families, friends, neighbours, and colleagues

Women are also our families, friends, neighbours, and colleagues. We share our workplaces, communities, pubs, cafes and places of worship with them. We also share our buses, grocery stores, hospitals, schools, refuges with them – unless of course we’re so rich and privileged that we don’t need such things or get the servants to go if we do. Pubs and cafes are luxuries, and “places of worship” tend to be places of indoctrination, too. To put it another way, Stonewall’s manipulative choice of words is annoying, as it so often is.

Surprise surprise – Stonewall’s mission creep has crept so far it’s below the horizon.