Aaaaand the retrofitting begins.

Just one bit of added context…

CNN nervously reports:

The United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that the legal definition of “woman” excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality laws are applied.

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in equality legislation refers to “a biological woman and biological sex,” sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners but warnings it was a “worrying” development for transgender people.

The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) – which offers legal recognition of someone’s female sex – are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation’s Equality Act 2010.

It still, after all this time, seems absurd that we have to argue over the idea that a certificate should have the ability to override physical sex. There are some things that certificates can’t change. Quite a lot of things, actually.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” a summary of the ruling said, which added that transgender women could be excluded from same-sex facilities such as changing rooms if “proportionate.”

Would and does and has for years been cutting across the definitions of woman and man. Cutting across them and making an incoherent mess of them.

The justice insisted that the court’s interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 “does not remove protection from trans people,” with or without a GRC document. A trans woman could claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, and because “she is perceived to be a woman,” added Hodge.

So a trans woman gets to count twice, eh? So trans women still get extras. How ridiculous.

Britain’s government “has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex,” a spokesperson said, following the ruling.

Has it? Really? Then what’s the Sandie Peggie-“Beth” Upton case all about? Why is Sandie Peggie being brutally persecuted for wanting “Beth” Upton to get out of the women’s changing room? Why hasn’t the government protected single spaces there?

Trans activists across the globe warn that the fierce public debate over their private lives has chipped away at protection for the marginalized and regularly vilified community in recent years.

But it’s not over their private lives. That’s exactly what it’s not. We don’t give a good god damn about their private lives; we object to their intrusions on our lives.

Helen Webberley is astounding.

And if that’s not enough –

Official.

Colin Montgomerie is confused.

Same with “equality”. Being labeled or recognized or endorsed as something you’re not has nothing to do with equality.

Also there’s his dimwitted question about an appeal. Onlookers are wondering if he grasps the meaning of “Supreme” in “Supreme Court”.

Thoughts and prayers, Joly.

Oh my – I’m seeing headlines.

NYT: UK Supreme Court Says Legal Definition of Women Does Not Include Trans Women

BBC: Supreme Court backs ‘biological definition’ of woman

The Independent: Trans women are not legally women under the Equality Act, Supreme Court rules

CNN: UK Supreme Court says legal definition of ‘woman’ excludes trans women, in landmark ruling

!!!!!!!!!!

Mother Jones is way into trans ideology.

Three months into President Donald Trump’s second administration, anti-trans hatred has become inescapable for families like Kai’s, even in more liberal states like Connecticut. Parents—many of whom have spent years learning, advocating, and finding ways for their trans or nonbinary child to thrive—say their lives have been upended by a series of executive orders and actions targeting their children’s health care and support at school.

The actions from just the first week of April, gives an idea of the flurry of attacks. On April 4th, the pro-wrestling-executive turned-Education Secretary Linda McMahon launched a Special Investigations Team focused on keeping transgender girls out of girls’ school bathrooms and off of girls’ sports teams.

So…it’s bad to keep boys out of girls’ school bathrooms and off girls’ sports teams?

Are we sure about that? Could we maybe pause for just a minute to think about it? Could we not possibly help kids who are unhappy about being male or female without harming girls? Could we not manage to remember for a single second that letting boys play against girls is in fact not fair to the girls?

And in a proclamation recognizing April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, Trump declared that “gender ideology”—an empty signifier for anything related to trans people—was “one of the most prevalent forms of child abuse facing our country today.”

Stop right there, assholes. Much as I loathe Trump, “gender ideology” is far from an empty signifier. You buffoons are purveying it right here in this pathetic reporting. It is indeed an ideology to think and teach that unhappiness with one’s sex equals being the other sex. It does require an ideological bridge to leap from “My kid hates being a boy” to “my kid gets to play on the girls’ teams, thus ruining the girls’ sports.” It does take an ideology to be that coldly indifferent to the wants and needs of the female half of the population.

“Lily” Contino – the guy who makes videos of himself in restaurants picking fights with wait staff who fail to tell him what a pretty girl he is – thinks the fact that a large croissant is a croissant=a man is a woman. Yes really: that’s his argument.

Also, he pronounces it wrong. Completely utterly wrong. Just call it a pastry if you can’t manage the French “croiss” sound or even the French “ant” sound.

Or to put it another way –

Amnesty intensifies its campaign against women.

AMNESTY International has warned against “dangerous misinformation” ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. 

The court is due to issue its judgement next week on how a woman should be defined in law. It is part of a court challenge brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish Government. 

FWS say sex-based protections should not apply to transgender people with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), while the Scottish Government argues they should be included.

As always, the reporting carefully hides the fact that the issue is men with a GRC, not “people” with a GRC. As always, the reporting goes to absurd lengths to muddy the waters, making their own story incomprehensible.

Amnesty International has intervened ahead of the expected ruling being handed down in London on April 16. 

In a statement, Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive at Amnesty International UK, said: “Amnesty wishes to highlight the amount of dangerous misinformation that remains around this case, as an eye-watering amount of time is spent by commentators berating trans people – who make up just 1% of the population.”

Sacha Deshmukh also hides the real issue, also pretends the issue is trans “people” when it’s men who claim to be women. It’s not trans people in general, it’s not trans people as such, it’s men. She knows that of course, but she carefully hides it.

Why would they hide it?

Because they know it’s anti-women, and they want to do it anyway.

Originally a comment by Holms on Speaking of “dangerous misinformation”.

…an eye-watering amount of time is spent by commentators berating trans people – who make up just 1% of the population.

Here’s another of the routine mistakes, or lies by framing. The reason there is so much attention on trans people is not because we recently became afflicted with hatred or fear of them, it is because trans people, or more importantly their political cause, gained a large amount of political traction in the last ten years or so. Consider the political state things in the 90’s – barely any attention was spent on the cause of trans people because it had no real visibility. The thing that changed was not a sudden surge in animosity against that population, but a sudden surge in the success of that political movement.

And the reason we oppose said movement should be obvious: it poses a real and imminent threat to the rights of women and their progress towards parity with men. Granting people a legal instrument by which they can ‘change sex’ – in addition to being an obvious absurdity – undermines demographic data collection and hence the ability to check for trends. Encouraging the idea that woman- or manhood is opt-in directly opposes efforts to fight sex-based crime and oppression. Every trans woman granted a position, award, shortlist position, promotion etc. that was reserved for women has bumped off an actual woman and so undermines efforts to reach parity… and so on.

Our opposition to the trans / gender identity movement seems out of proportion if and only if we are considering in terms of the number of trans people. When we bear in mind the movement attacks the rights and safety of a full 50% of the population, societal opposition is far below where it should be. It should never have seen the light of day, but now that it has, it needs to be quashed.

Obama went to Harvard. Trump did not.

Game on.

Harvard University is 140 years older than the United States, has an endowment greater than the G.D.P. of nearly 100 countries and has educated eight American presidents. So if an institution was going to stand up to the Trump administration’s war on academia, Harvard would be at the top of the list.

Harvard did that forcefully on Monday in a way that injected energy into other universities across the country fearful of the president’s wrath, rejecting the Trump administration’s demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum. Some commentators went so far as to say that Harvard’s decision would empower law firms, the courts, the media and other targets of the White House to push back as well.

Within hours of Harvard’s decision, federal officials said they would freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to the university, along with a $60 million contract.

That is a fraction of the $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives, with $7 billion going to the university’s 11 affiliated hospitals in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., including Massachusetts General, Boston Children’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. The remaining $2 billion goes to research grants directly for Harvard, including for space exploration, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and tuberculosis.

…

The administration’s fight with Harvard, which had an endowment of $53.2 billion in 2024, is one that President Trump and Stephen Miller, a powerful White House aide, want to have. In the administration’s effort to break what it sees as liberalism’s hold on higher education, Harvard is big game. A high-profile court battle would give the White House a platform to continue arguing that the left has become synonymous with antisemitism, elitism and suppression of free speech.

Steven Pinker, a prominent Harvard psychologist who is also a president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, said on Monday that it was “truly Orwellian” and self-contradictory to have the government force viewpoint diversity on the university. He said it would also lead to absurdities.

“Will this government force the economics department to hire Marxists or the psychology department to hire Jungians or, for that matter, for the medical school to hire homeopaths or Native American healers?” he said.

Or the engineering school to hire magicians?

Check out the hands on “Charlotte” Clymer. It’s hilarious that he keeps waving them around when he should be hiding them.

I have seldom been so surprised in my life. How is this POSsible?

Amnesty throws women overboard again.

Amnesty says women don’t get to decide.

AMNESTY International has warned against “dangerous misinformation” ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. 

The court is due to issue its judgement next week on how a woman should be defined in law. It is part of a court challenge brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish Government. 

FWS say sex-based protections should not apply to transgender people with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), while the Scottish Government argues they should be included.

What an obscure sentence. FWS says that men should not get protections intended for women, while the Scottish government says they should. Calling the protections “sex-based” instead of “intended for women” is pointedly opaque and confusing. Journalism is pathetically complicit in all this anti-woman garbage.

And now, Amnesty International has intervened ahead of the expected ruling being handed down in London on April 16. 

In a statement, Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive at Amnesty International UK, said: “Amnesty wishes to highlight the amount of dangerous misinformation that remains around this case, as an eye-watering amount of time is spent by commentators berating trans people – who make up just 1% of the population.”

Shut up. It’s not about “berating trans people.” It’s about not giving protections for women away to men in lipstick.

“Legal gender recognition, as it works now, is essential for trans people to enjoy the full spectrum of human rights each of us is entitled to, and live free from fear of discrimination.”

Bollocks. There is no “full spectrum of human rights” that depends on a right to idennify as the opposite sex and be treated accordingly.

“Amnesty has intervened in this case as it is a question of human rights, which affects us all.”

Indeed it is, and Amnesty is determined to trash women’s.

Well here’s a startling piece of information from an article by Anne Applebaum on how blatantly corrupt Trump is.

Trump’s Treasury Department announced last month that it would no longer enforce the Corporate Transparency Act, hampering recent congressional efforts to end money laundering, tax dodging, and other lawbreaking by anonymous investors. In an executive order, Trump suspended enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits American and foreign companies from paying bribes to do business.

Uh. That seems like an important piece of news.

Dang what a lot of contortions people go through to avoid telling the truth about men who pretend to be women.

FA resists calls to ban transgender players from women’s matches

First contortion right in the headline, as always. The calls are to ban male players from women’s matches. The calls really don’t give a damn how the male players idennify because the issue is that they’re male.

English football chiefs have introduced new rules on transgender players in women’s matches that stop short of a blanket ban but allow the FA to intervene if it believes there are issues around safety or fairness of competition.

If. Fuck you, dudes. Of course there are “issues”: that’s the whole point.

The updated policy came into force on April 1 and continues the practice of allowing transgender women to play in amateur women’s competitions if they have had reduced testosterone levels for at least a year.

Campaigners had wanted football to follow sports such as rugby union and hockey by restricting women’s matches to those who were born female, with an open category for all other players.

Instead, about 20 transgender women registered to play amateur football in England can continue to do so if their testosterone levels are below 5nmol per litre for at least 12 months. However, a change to the regulations means the FA can step in if it has any concerns and ask its Transgender and Non-Binary Eligibility Committee to make a decision.

Because god forbid they should just say no men in women’s sports, the end.