I’m baaaaack!

Originally a comment by maddog1129 on Is this the day?

“You go out of the house thinking ‘is this the day that someone is going to shout at me, attack me?’”

Right. And women go out of the house thinking,

“Is this the day a man is going to kill me?”

“Is this the day that an entitled man is going to rape me in what’s supposed to be a women-only space?”

“Is this the day I’m going to become an involuntary porn actor with my image permanently on the internet, because men were allowed in women’s spaces to set up hidden cameras?”

“Is this the day that a male player will severely injure me when he participates in women’s sport?”

“Is this the day that my prison sentence includes rape and/or impregnation by a LARPing man in my cell/unit?”

Shouting at you is SO MUCH worse!

Ah yes “Emily” Bridges, the man who forced his way into women’s cycling. ITV thought he would be a good person to chat with about issues that affect women.

Emily Bridges, Britain’s best known transgender athlete, says last week’s Supreme Court ruling on gender has “painted a target” on the back of trans women.

Who says he’s best known?

If he is best known it’s for being a man who cheats by racing as a woman.

“It increases levels of vulnerability,” she told ITV News. “You go out of the house thinking ‘is this the day that someone is going to shout at me, attack me?'”

Oh really? Is that what it does? Now think about what it does for women.

She said she reacted to the court’s decision with disbelief: “I felt, like it has painted, like, more of a kind of target on our back since because it’s…..been wall to wall coverage across social media and across the news and, of course, the newspapers”.

Now think about how women feel.

But of course he won’t. Could not care less.

Bridges also believes the judgement stokes the toxicity and extreme views. “The public expression on both sides has increased in intensity and vitriol,” she said. “People are now feeling more comfortable to express hateful views. Not just trans people but about people of colour, immigrants, religious minorities and there’s been a massive rise in sexism.”

Much if not all of it coming from people who claim to be trans.

Bridges says, despite the ruling, she will continue to use women only spaces: “I am going to keep using the spaces I’ve always used. I’m perceived as female in the street, I am greeted with ‘Miss’, I’m perceived as a women, I’m going to use a female changing room, I’m going to use a female toilet.”

But how about the women who feel intimidated or unsafe by trans women using their changing rooms, what about their feelings?

Yes what about them? I mean us? Thank you for asking at last.

“I understand if you see someone you think is trans and you have a certain view, but how do you know who is trans? The policing of toilets which has already been happening, is if you’re not welcome in a toilet you’ll be asked to leave. That’s how it works.”

Beautiful compassion. I’m all verklempt.

Does he believe? Yes or no?

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said. It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sir Keir told the Times that “a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view – that is actually the law”. Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM’s official spokesman said: “No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman.”

Well, to be more precise, or perhaps I mean truthful, it’s not just when looking at an Act that a woman is a “biological” woman. It’s all the time. A woman is always a woman; the “biological” part is redundant. There is no non-biological type of woman that a man can be. It was a mistake to divide women into biological and pretend. It was a mistake and an over-complication and an embarrassment. Women are women; men are the other thing. Works the same way in reverse: Men are men; women are the other thing. It’s called a binary, and it’s real. Without it, poof, no humans.

In 2023, Sir Keir told The Sunday Times that for “99.9%” of women “of course they haven’t got a penis”. Later that year he told BBC Radio 5 Live “a woman is an adult female”.

And in April 2024 he said Rosie Duffield, who quit the party last year, was right to say “only women have a cervix”, telling ITV: “Biologically, she of course is right about that.” Sir Keir had previously been critical of Duffield’s views on trans people when she was a Labour MP, saying in 2021 that she was “not right” to say only women have a cervix.

In short he said one thing one day and a different thing another day. The Guardians of Trans Virtue were always just a few inches away, with their pitchforks, breathing heavily. What’s a Prime Minister to do?

Asked whether Sir Keir would now use a trans woman’s preferred pronouns, the spokesman declined to comment on “hypotheticals” but insisted the PM had “been clear that trans women should be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else”.

Oh yes? So then they shouldn’t be addressed as the sex they’re not, and they shouldn’t be allowed to destroy women’s rights, and they shouldn’t take up all the oxygen? Good to know.

Labour’s Emily Thornberry said LGBT helpline calls had “skyrocketed in recent days” and highlighted that “the overwhelming threat to women and to all of the trans community is the violence that we suffer from cis men”.

No. Men who claim to be trans are not thereby automatically rendered not a threat to women. Some of those men threaten women on social media all the time. Some very violent rapists have claimed to be women.

Many Labour MPs will be uneasy about the comments from Sir Keir and Phillipson, although frustration did not seem to extend to being willing to criticise the government, but instead expressing concern about anxieties within the trans, non-binary and intersex community.

How about some concern about anxieties within the sick to death of hearing about the blah blah blah community? Eh? What about us? We have to buy a whole new set of teeth practically every week.

Talk about phoning it in – what a worthless contribution to discussion of the ruling:

Making trans women use male spaces will cause distress

Yes, thanks, we’re aware of Line One of the Trans Dogma Commands: they’re what we dispute and reject. We do not agree that men’s “distress” when women say no is a compelling or even halfway decent reason to let men take what belongs to women. Men’s presence in women’s toilets and organizations causes women distress, so how’s about you focus on that for a minute. You are a woman after all. Have some self-respect.

Plenty of people will perceive this clarification of meaning — or change of interpretation, as maintained by Melanie Field, who oversaw the drafting of the Equality Act in 2010 — as permission to be more openly hostile towards trans people, who are now “other” in the eyes of the law. 

Well trans people are “other” – that’s the whole point. That’s why so many gullible fools like you pay so much attention to them. Mere women are just boring dreary old women but trans women are special, exciting, different – that’s why we’re required to pamper them and shield them from even the mildest summer breeze.

I’ve already seen the ruling wielded as evidence of the validity of anti-transgender sentiments. It will be used, even if that is not the intention, to stoke an already fiercely incandescent culture war.

Oh will it. Have you noticed, by any chance, the way trans activists and their ardent fans talk about women? Did you watch “Sophie Molly” calling JK Rowling “biiiiiitch” the other day, with all the glee of a little boy dropping his sister’s favorite toy into a sewer?

This is just the beginning. Forcing trans women to use male single-sex spaces, or trans men to use female single-sex spaces, will cause more distress than the present set-up.

Like hell it will. What you mean is it will cause more distress to a very small number of men, as opposed to causing more distress to millions of women. Why do you prefer the second option?

The ship is turning around.

Trans women should use male toilets, the equalities minister has said, declaring that “services should be accessed on the basis of biological sex”.

Bridget Phillipson said businesses should ensure “they have appropriate provision in place”, which could mean unisex facilities.

But she said the Supreme Court ruling was clear about the basis on which services should be used.

Her comments came after a long-awaited judgment delivered last Wednesday in which the UK’s highest court confirmed the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”. It means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if it is deemed “proportionate”.

What “proportionate” means in that context I don’t know, nor do I know who will be doing the deeming.

Ms Phillipson told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I know that many businesses, large and small, will ensure that they have appropriate provision in place. For example, many businesses have moved towards unisex provision or separate cubicles that can be used by anyone.”

She added: “There are important questions around, for example, the use of toilets, around the use of changing facilities, but there are also profound questions that I think are even more important about, for example, hospital provision, rape crisis centres, women’s refuges, where you are talking about people often being in that provision on an accommodation basis for an extended period of time. And I think it is important and welcome that the Supreme Court have put beyond doubt that providers can make sure that is done on the basis of biological sex.”

The terf communniny is wondering why she didn’t say so before, but it’s also rejoicing at the news.

It came as a minister condemned the “utterly unacceptable language” used by demonstrators as tens of thousands gathered to protest the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman.

Education minister Stephen Morgan was asked about a placard at a protest in Parliament Square that showed an illustration of gallows alongside a slogan suggesting “the only good Terf (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)” is a hanged one. And the Labour frontbencher called for police action over what he said was the “completely and utterly unacceptable” language. Mr Morgan told Sky News: “It’s completely unacceptable language to be used, and obviously any matters that break the law should be reported to the police, and hopefully police action is taken.”

Where have they been these last 10 years? Why haven’t they been saying this all along?

Ms Phillipson said the Supreme Court ruling meant service providers “can now operate with absolute confidence in delivering single-sex spaces for biological women”. She told BBC Breakfast: “I do welcome the clarity that the Supreme Court judgment has brought in this area, making clear that biological sex is the basis on which single-sex spaces are provided.”

…

“Before I was a Member of Parliament I used to run a women’s refuge, so I know more than most how essential it is that women, particularly those who’ve experienced sexual violence and male abuse, are able to have safe, therapeutic environments, and that’s why there has always been protection there within the law for single-sex spaces.

“There has been some confusion. I’m glad that’s been cleared up, because providers can now operate with absolute confidence in delivering single-sex spaces for biological women.”

Why yes, there has been some confusion, and some bullying, and some shunning. Glad we got that straightened out.

Very healthy, very sane.

Council-funded sex education tells pupils ‘ask for consent before choking’

Actually it’s worse than that, because of course it is. The “sex education” tells boys to ask for consent before choking girls. There’s nothing about girls asking for consent to choke boys. That fact and what it hints at should be reason enough all by itself to Just Say No.

The disgusting thing is that the Telegraph apparently never notices the disparity. It certainly never mentions it. What are you thinking, you bozos?? If boys are wanting to choke girls then that itself is a problem and should be right at the center of your reporting.

Sex education materials taught to teenagers in schools included references to asking for consent before choking a partner.

And yet it turns out to be always a girl “partner” being choked and a boy “teenager” being told to ask first.

Should the boys also ask first before plunging a carving knife into the girl’s abdomen?

However they’re not wrong that the advice itself is horrifying.

The Times has seen a Powerpoint presentation intended for PSHE lessons at secondary schools telling pupils: “Consent should also happen every time sexual choking is an option, not just the first time.”

Wrong. Choking should be absolutely forbidden, period. It’s not a fun sexy game, it’s cutting off oxygen to the brain.

The presentation said: “It is never OK to start choking someone without asking them first and giving them space to say no. Make it clear that they have a right to say no if they don’t want to be choked, and their no should be respected and if it’s not respected that is sexual assault. Consent under threat is not consent. Consent should also happen every time sexual choking is an option, not just the first time.”

No no no. It is never ok to choke someone at all. It’s been hideously normalized for years, and that needs to stop.

The fact that it’s boys who do it and girls who should be politely asked first should tell you all you need to know about the power dynamics involved.

Michael Conroy, the founder of Men At Work, which trains teachers how to deliver appropriate PSHE lessons, raised the material with local MPs.

He said: “This is not sex education, this is just advocacy for the porn industry. Imagine you are a 14-year-old girl and you have told your boyfriend you don’t want to be choked but then an authority figure comes into school and tells you it is OK.

“Choking cuts off oxygen to the brain and is incredibly harmful, it can even kill. Most schools will take it on trust that something endorsed by the local authority is OK.

“There is a rampant myth that choking can be done safely and is simply another option for a sexual act. It’s normalised in porn and served up to teenagers via social media algorithms. The practice of choking is rife and I have seen it become a much bigger issue in the last two years.”

Just stop it.

Maggie Chapman is in hot water.

The dean of the faculty of advocates has criticised Scottish Green MSP Maggie Chapman for what he described as “reprehensible” comments attacking the judiciary following the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman.

Ms Chapman – the deputy convener of Holyrood’s equalities committee – was filmed at a weekend rally condemning what she called “bigotry, prejudice and hatred coming from the Supreme Court”.

In a letter to the committee, Roddy Dunlop KC called the remarks “outrageous” and said they created a “risk of danger” to members of the Supreme Court. Chapman said she stands by her comments, and that it was her role to “stand up and represent trans people”.

Why is that her role? She’s a Member of Parliament, not a nanny for trans people.

Protests were held at the weekend by pro-trans campaigners, with First Minister John Swinney saying he understood why the trans community would feel “uncertain and anxious” over the court ruling. Chapman – a long time supporter of trans rights – attended a protest in Aberdeen and told the crowd: “We say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society.”

Which is how we got here – by deciding that women who say men are not women are expressing bigotry, prejudice and hatred as opposed to familiar everyday reality. That’s how so many of us lost so many friends.

Roddy Dunlop KC said the comments were “beyond the pale” and that Chapman should consider her role as deputy convenor as her remarks conflicted with Scottish Parliament guidance on impartiality.

Dunlop, writing on behalf of all the governing body’s office bearers, said her comments “fail to respect the rule of law” and “constitute an egregious breach of Ms Chapman’s duties to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary”.

He added: “But they go further than that, and create a risk of danger to the members of the court themselves. This behaviour is irresponsible and reprehensible.” He added that he expected a “swift and fulsome” apology from the MSP.

Chapman has said she won’t apologize.

This conversation gets so ridiculous.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

So until then he did believe that “trans women” are women? That’s so bizarre, because the word “trans” is right there.

And why are we talking about “believe”? Does the BBC do stories reporting that Starmer does not believe horses can fly? Does it report on everything the Prime Minister does not believe? Can’t we assume he doesn’t believe silly fanciful things?

Asked whether Sir Keir would now use a trans woman’s preferred pronouns, the spokesman declined to comment on “hypotheticals” but insisted the PM had “been clear that trans women should be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else”.

This raises an interesting and important question. Is it in fact treating people with dignity and respect to join them in playing Let’s Pretend? I don’t think it is. Adults with intact faculties are expected to leave their fantasies at home. A wide exception is carved out for religious fantasies, but I think that too is a mistake.

Hot water.

A Green MSP has been urged to resign after accusing the UK’s highest court of spreading “bigotry, prejudice and hatred” by ruling that a trans woman is not a woman.

Maggie Chapman, who is deputy convener of Holyrood’s equalities committee, was filmed lambasting the Supreme Court at a gathering of trans activists in a street in Aberdeen at the weekend.

The North East Scotland MSP and high-profile trans activist said that the “prejudice” evinced by the court was “not in our name, never in our name”.

Ah yes, the “prejudice” of saying that men are not women.

But feminist campaigners and the Tories accused Ms Chapman of attempting to “smear” the Supreme Court and argued she should resign, either as an MSP or as the committee’s second-in-command.

Akua Reindorf KC, a commissioner at the UK’s equalities watchdog, said that she was “deeply concerned” at an elected politician making “irresponsible and entirely false allegations of bigotry and hatred” directed at the judiciary.

And for what? For saying that women are women! How did we get here?

The Telegraph punishes Chapman by choosing a very silly photo of her to place under that paragraph.

The footage of Ms Chapman’s speech, posted on X, showed her telling trans activists: “And we say not in our name to the bigotry, prejudice and hatred that we see coming from the Supreme Court and from so many other institutions in our society. Not in our name, never in our name.”

It’s not bigotry, or prejudice, or hatred, to say that men are not women. It’s ridiculous and horrifying that people at the top of government keep trying to force us to say otherwise. Maggie Chapman is a nightmare for women.

For Women Scotland posted on X: “Insane comments from an elected politician as she accuses the highest court in the land of ‘bigotry, prejudice and hatred’.

“Remember, this woman is deputy convener of the committee that looked at the GRR. She clearly cares nothing for the law and is unfit to be an MSP.”

Joanna Cherry KC, a former SNP MP and an outspoken critic of self-ID, posted on X: “It is wholly inappropriate for any parliamentarian to speak about the judiciary in this way and to so misrepresent their judgement. This person is not fit to convene a parliamentary committee on equalities, human rights and justice. She should resign her position.”

She should learn the differences between women and men.

The Telegraph tells us Starmer has finally managed to get the words out.

Sir Keir Starmer has finally broken his silence on the Supreme Court’s ruling that transgender women are not legally women.

The Prime Minister, who has faced criticism for failing to address the judgment since it was announced last Wednesday, said on Tuesday that the court had provided “real clarity”.

Well, there’s been real clarity all along, it’s just that we’ve been relentlessly bullied and punished for mentioning it. Starmer has done nothing to discourage that bullying and punishing.

Asked whether he believed a trans woman was a woman, Sir Keir told broadcasters: “A woman is an adult female, and the court has made that absolutely clear.

“I actually welcome the judgment because I think it gives real clarity. It allows those that have got to draw up guidance to be really clear about what that guidance should say.”

But it wasn’t clarity that was lacking, it was the freedom to say it aloud that was lacking. People who said it aloud were punished.

Why are we doing the flags at half mast thing for the pope? Do we do it for the Archbishop of Canterbury? Do we do it for all religious celebrities? If so why? If not why? Why single out the pope? Catholicism is a horrible religion, especially for women.

I did ask Google but it refuses to tell me – it just keeps repeating FrancisFrancisFrancis. Yes I know, I’m asking about other popes and clerics.

I feel like going out and buying a flag just so that I can fly it. Is there a devil flag? An atheist flag? A gender-atheist flag?

What next? Pete Hegseth accidentally dropping a nuke down Trump’s pants?

As last week got underway, one of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s top advisers, Dan Caldwell, was escorted from the Pentagon. Soon after, Darin Selnick, another top member of Hegseth’s team was out, too.

The same day, nearly every member of the Pentagon’s Defense Digital Service — described as the department’s “fast-track tech development arm” — announced that they’re resigning. Soon after, Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, was also removed from the Pentagon.

Good thing it’s only the Pentagon.

Wait…

And just when it seemed things couldn’t get much worse, they got worse. NBC News reported:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth used his personal phone to send information about U.S. military operations in Yemen to a 13-person Signal group chat, including his wife and his brother, two sources with knowledge of the matter confirmed to NBC News. He did so after an aide had warned him to be careful not to share sensitive information on an unsecure communications system before the Yemen operation, the sources said.

Ahh his wife and his brother. Nice touch. Not the next-door neighbor? The UPS guy?

In a normal and healthy political environment, Hegseth would have no choice at this point but to start writing his resignation letter and putting his belongings in a cardboard box. Then again, in a normal and healthy political environment, a president wouldn’t have nominated a manifestly unqualified, scandal-plagued television personality to lead the Defense Department, and in a normal and healthy political environment, his nomination would’ve received zero confirmation votes in the Senate.

In a normal and healthy political environment Donald Trump would never have been nominated, let alone elected.

They’re just falling all over themselves in the rush to keep women down.

Sir Keir Starmer has refused to stop a plot by ministers to thwart last week’s Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women.

Labour ministers and MPs will this week meet to discuss how to promote trans rights in the wake of the landmark judgment. They are understood to be planning to take their demands to the equalities minister.

The plot emerged in leaked WhatsApp messages from a group chat of Labour MPs, including ministers Sir Chris Bryant and Dame Angela Eagle. Both railed against comments made by Baroness Falkner, the equality watchdog chief, who said the ruling meant trans women would be banned from women’s single-sex spaces. They urged colleagues to meet them to discuss their concerns.

Because we can’t allow women to meet without men present.

Downing Street refused to take any action against the two ministers, claiming they were not trying to undermine the judgment.

Even though that’s what they said they were doing.

While the Government has said it welcomed Wednesday’s ruling, Sir Keir has not made any statement about the ruling. Nor has he commented on Saturday’s vandalism of a suffragist statue by trans activists during a mass rally.

His stance will raise fears that Labour may introduce extra safeguards for trans people that will circumvent the ruling, which found that a woman was defined by biological sex, not gender identity.

Well, his “stance” combined with his previous complete failure to lift one tiny finger to support women on this issue.

Dame Angela warned that official guidance that would follow the ruling could be “catastrophic” for transgender people and criticised Lady Falkner, who chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which will publish the relevant guidance for how trans people should navigate single-sex facilities.

On Thursday, Lady Falkner had said the ruling clearly meant that trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports. Hailing it for bringing “clarity”, she told the BBC: “Single-sex services like changing rooms must be based on biological sex. If a male person is allowed to use a women-only service or facility, it isn’t any longer single-sex.”

Writing on the WhatsApp group of LGBT+ Labour MPs, Dame Angela said: “Let’s meet about this when we get back from Easter recess to decide a way forwards. The ruling is not as catastrophic as it seems, but the EHRC guidance might be and there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting.”

Dame Angela thinks it would be “catastrophic” for women to have their own facilities and sports.

Joan Smith tells us Labour is plotting to make things worse for women.

Yesterday’s Mail on Sunday has revealed that government ministers secretly condemned the ruling in a WhatsApp group and plotted to challenge it. Labour MPs specifically attacked Baroness Falkner, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is due to issue new guidance this summer on the court’s common-sense ruling that “sex” means biological sex.

Falkner has correctly interpreted the judgment to mean that men who claim to be women cannot use single-sex spaces or compete against female athletes at sporting events. But when a Labour MP in the WhatsApp group described Falkner’s response as “pretty appalling”, Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant replied that he “agreeed [sic]”. A Home Office minister, Dame Angela Eagle, suggested that they should seek a meeting “ASAP” with the “relevant Equality Minister”.

In order to make sure women are denied equality.

Bryant and Eagle are patrons of LGBT+ Labour, which now lists more than 50 MPs and 10 Labour peers as patrons. Four years ago, the group began to harass the then Labour MP, Rosie Duffield, demanding an apology and “reparations” after she liked a tweet stating that only women have a cervix.

…

Trans people have not lost a single right in this country. What they don’t have — and never had, despite the claims of activists — is a right to be treated as biological women. The hysterical response to the judgment is a cry of pure fury, an echo of every time an entitled man has heard the word “no”. And that makes it an exceedingly dangerous moment for women.

Be careful out there.

Why aren’t ALL MPs saying this? With one voice? Why is it cool for men to threaten women with violence and murder? Why does the left look hard in the other direction?

And another one. Lloyds Bank ffs.

The reaction to the judgment serves as an important reminder that, while the law is the law, our culture remains dead-set against women who say no to men. It’s how women’s and lesbians’ rights were so rapidly eroded by Stonewall and its allies in the first place, and why women have been bullied, hounded and sacked simply for trying to assert their legal protections.

The same people are ignoring the supreme court’s emphasis that none of this takes away from trans people’s existing rights, and are scaremongering and infantilising trans people as victims. Lloyds Bank wrote to all its employees to say it “stood by” and “cherished” all its trans employees.

Cherished! Cherished ffs. Who says that? Who wants that? I want respect, god damn it, and not being bullied or messed with. I’m not a baby or a glass sculpture, I’m an adult and I want equality and respect, not slop.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on Yes but.

Trans women won’t cease to exist because five judges decided the legal definition of a woman within the Equality Act 2010 does not include them, even if they hold Gender Recognition Certificates.

No, they most certainly won’t. So what’s the fucking problem, then?

And now they have to navigate a world that is crueller than it was before.

No, they fucking don’t. There is absolutely nothing cruel about acknowledging anyone’s biological sex, ever. If a man cannot cope with other people acknowledging his biological sex, he’s clearly got his mind tied up in mental knots and he needs serious therapy to untie them.

But most of these men absolutely can cope with acknowledging that they’re male, quite easily. They just don’t want to. These privileged, entitled men don’t want to let go of the luxuries they’ve embezzled from women.

I keep thinking back to the trashy, campy daytime talk shows of the nineties, like Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. They often had transsexuals and crossdressers on them, acting outrageously, being silly, goading the audience into boos and cheers. There’s one clip in particular that comes to mind, featuring members of some death cult I believe. They were actually just gothy, eccentric young artists performing at being in a death cult to get on TV. One of them was Nina Paley, who is now a gender-critical cartoonist. Another was a transwoman. He didn’t really “pass” as a woman; it was pretty clear he was a man. But he was passed off as a woman until near the end of the show, when in a climactic moment, after he’d riled up the audience with some shocking statement or other, he leapt out of his chair and announced, as if putting the cherry on top of his shocking sundae: “And also, I’m transgender! That’s right — I’m a man!”

That’s right — I’m a man.

They used to just come right out and say it. In public! Even on TV! For fun!

Nobody dies when crossdressers admit that they’re crossdressers. Nobody suffers, really.

Well… I don’t doubt that there will be some discomfort as they come back down to reality. And to some of them, it will feel like suffering. But it’s like the suffering of the rich losing their fortunes. Like the Ratliff family in the latest season of the White Lotus, basking at a Thai wellness retreat, blissfully offline, unaware that back home in North Carolina, all hell has broken loose, the FBI has raided the family business and all the money is gone. Their life of luxury had been bankrolled by embezzlement, and the thought of losing it and having to go back to living normally like everyone else seems unbearable.

Here’s Parker Posey, in a high camp Tennessee Williams southern drawl: “I just don’t think at this age I’m meant to live an uncomfortable life. I just don’t have it in me. I don’t think I ever did.”

Right now in the UK, a lot of men are like the Ratliffs at the end of their vacation at the White Lotus, when they got their cellphones back and discovered they’re about to face the same reality as the rest of us. Tough luck, guys.

But I thought our trans siblings were so vulnerable and terrified?

Statues defaced in trans rights protest

That doesn’t sound like fear, it sounds like rage. Male rage.

Trans rights activists who vandalised statues in Westminster are “simply criminals” and should be prosecuted, the shadow home secretary has said.

Seven statues were defaced when thousands of people gathered in central London on Saturday to demonstrate against the Supreme Court ruling that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

Protesters daubed “fag rights” and a heart on a banner held by the suffragette Dame Millicent Fawcett. 

Well of course. She’s just another bitch, right? Another one of those horrible bitches who think women’s rights matter.

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, added: “The law must be enforced equally. Why have there been no arrests or charges for criminal damage? Until there is proper punishment for criminality like this, people will continue to do it knowing they can get off scot-free.”

Oh come on, you know why. Because they’re so vulnerable, so fragile, so excluded, so delicate, so easily hurt.

Cute little Sophie lets the mask fall.

At 12 seconds – “The only person who should shutup is YOU. We should all take a shite on YOU – you heinous creepy awl BITCH.”

He then realizes that was a bit much, and tries to backpedal for a couple of seconds, then reverts to roaring “Our rights are under attack!!”

What a loathsome person he is.