Originally a comment by maddog on What makes them experts?

“The judgment does not remove the legal protections trans people currently enjoy under the Equality Act,” the experts said. “But it may be used to justify exclusionary policies that further stigmatise and marginalise an already vulnerable population, as well as human rights defenders working to protect and promote transgender rights.

So much to unpack here!

The judgment “may be used to justify exclusionary policies . . . .”

What do you mean by ”exclusionary”? Who gets to say what policies are ”exclusionary”? You imply a universal pejorative to the word ”exclusionary,” as if ”exclusion” is always bad. Is that really true? I mean, if you classify or categorize anything, you are making decisions or selections — i.e., discriminating — between what things are “in” a category (included), and what things are “out” (excluded).

Human beings routinely make such decisions dozens or hundreds of times a day, if not more. We decide whether something “is” or “isn’t” what we think it is, All. The. Time. We have to, or we’d be dead. Neither “discrimination” nor “exclusion” is inherently bad; they are essential for our survival.

So, “exclusionary” in this context means “excluding men (the sex that women are not) from the spaces, facilities, resources, opportunities, offices, competitions, etc. that are specifically set aside for women (the sex that women actually are).” In that case, where divisions are based upon actual sex, it is necessary to “exclude” men from anything afforded to women as a sex class. “Men” are the other sex from “women.” The word “women” necessarily excludes “men.” Everyone used to know this. It is mind-blowing how many people, who I used to think were intelligent and kind, have expunged these facts from their memories. Like 1984’s doublespeak and doublethink, T dogma has managed to destroy many people’s mental access to what was formerly “knowledge;” the erasure is astonishingly and chillingly complete. The whole reason for “women’s” anything is that women — because of their sex — have historically been systematically excluded from full rights of participation in society. You want to talk about “exclusionary policies”? That’s your exclusionary policy right there. Women have been “excluded” from most rights in most places for most of history. Women’s sex-based rights are relatively recent “INclusionary policies,” to allow women to finally have some say in civic life. Then along comes T and destroys what little women have (grudgingly) won for themselves.

The judgment “may be used to justify exclusionary policies that further stigmatise and marginalise an already vulnerable population . . . .” Really? ”Stigmatize” how? “Marginalize” how? ” Vulnerable” in what way? The men who call themselves “trans women,” are kings of the roost as far as I can tell. They and all their sycophantic allies and enforcers have had almost everything their own way for a decade or more. The rapidity and completeness with which T has captured all major social institutions puts the lie to any claims of “vulnerability” or “marginalization.” Any group that can snap their fingers and get police — the State — to punish people for a sticker that says, “Woman = adult human female” or for photographing a suffragette ribbon, is neither vulnerable nor marginalized.

I don’t see anything to the claim of “stigma,” either. Trans women (men) have been so aggressive and bullying and public and “out there,” that there’s nothing new or surprising about seeing guys in frocks running in packs with their black pampers enforcers. The institutional capture has been so successful for so long that there’s no particular stigma in being a trans woman per se. However, when all these trans identified males keep bullying, terrorizing, and attacking women, there’s a certain stigma attached to being a sexual pervert. If the men (trans women) stuck to using men’s facilities instead of insistently invading women’s spaces, the stigma of sexual perversion would be minimized. Win-win. Women get their own spaces, and trans identified men reduce stigma against themselves.

As to “human rights defenders working to protect and promote transgender rights,” those people are not being ”excluded”; afaict, those people aren’t stigmatized or marginalized or vulnerable in any way. They are just an army of misogynistic bullies who like to stick it to women.

As to what the T army of “human rights defenders,” who are “working to protect transgender rights,” are really advocating for, are not human rights at all. There’s no such thing as a “human right” to lie about your sex, and to falsify government and medical records.

The entire T enterprise is a lie founded upon lies. Human beings cannot change their sex. It’s a monstrous lie to say that men can be women. The T movement is a men’s rights movement, meant to terrorize and punish women, with the added bonus of public adulation for doing so.

So, yeah, you’ve got entirely the wrong people being unfairly “excluded,” or “stigmatized,” or “marginalized,” or “vulnerable.” As always, the real victims are women.

Sure. It’s just like mixing chocolates with nuts and chocolates without nuts. It’s like wearing a red shirt and black jeans. It’s like reading Pride and Prejudice one day and Middlemarch the next.

#HormonesAreAmazing#TransRightsAreHumanRights#transformation

Trump is a stinking liar chapter eleventy billion.

JOHANNESBURG, May 22 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump showed a screenshot of Reuters video taken in the Democratic Republic of Congo as part of what he falsely presented on Wednesday as evidence of mass killings of white South Africans.

“These are all white farmers that are being buried,” said Trump, holding up a print-out of an article accompanied by the picture during a contentious Oval Office meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

In fact, the video, published by Reuters on February 3 and subsequently verified by the news agency’s fact check team, showed humanitarian workers lifting body bags in the Congolese city of Goma. The image was pulled from Reuters footage shot following deadly battles with Rwanda-backed M23 rebels.

Hey now. They were in Africa. That’s close enough.

The footage from which the picture was taken shows a mass burial following an M23 assault on Goma, filmed by Reuters video journalist Djaffar Al Katanty.

“That day, it was extremely difficult for journalists to get in … I had to negotiate directly with M23 and coordinate with the ICRC to be allowed to film,” Al Katanty said. “Only Reuters has video.”

Al Katanty said seeing Trump holding the article with the screengrab of his video came as a shock.

“In view of all the world, President Trump used my image, used what I filmed in DRC to try to convince President Ramaphosa that in his country, white people are being killed by Black people,” Al Katanty said.

And to try to convince everyone else and to pin the blame on Ramaphosa.

UN press release on the who gets to be a woman question:

A group of independent human rights experts* today expressed concern about the implications of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment interpreting the definition of “woman” under the Equality Act 2010.

While the ruling was limited to a question of statutory interpretation, the experts warned that it risks entrenching legal uncertainty and undermining the rights of transgender persons in all aspects of life, including education.

But what about the way the bogus “definition of woman” to include men risks undermining the rights of female persons in all aspects of life, including education?

Why does sweaty concern for the purported rights of trans people (“rights” such as being endorsed as the other sex) cancel concern for the genuine rights (rights such as single-sex spaces and medical care) of women? Why do purported trans rights matter more than women’s rights? Why do people like these “experts” always always always ignore that conflict?

I have no idea what the answer is. I have no idea how they manage it.

“The judgment does not remove the legal protections trans people currently enjoy under the Equality Act,” the experts said. “But it may be used to justify exclusionary policies that further stigmatise and marginalise an already vulnerable population, as well as human rights defenders working to protect and promote transgender rights. We are deeply concerned that the application of this judgment may lead to increased discrimination and exclusion of transgender women in various sectors, including the workplace, at a critical time when employers should be striving to foster and maintain inclusive environments for all employees.”

But that would include women. If you let men use the women’s toilets and changing rooms then you have ruled out any “inclusive environment” for women. If you keep insisting that trans people’s rights should cancel women’s rights then you’re not being inclusive of women.

They also raised concerns about how interim guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission has interpreted the ruling, allowing – and in some cases requiring – organisations to exclude individuals from single-sex spaces based on biological sex. This could lead to situations where both trans women and trans men are barred from facilities aligned with their gender identity, or even excluded altogether, the experts warned.

But, again, allowing men to use women’s facilities is unsafe for women, and effectively excludes them.

Round and round and round it goes.

BBC headline:

Sex offender jailed for contacting young girls

Tell us more, Beeb.

A registered sex offender who breached a prevention order by sending sexually explicit messages to schoolgirls has been jailed for four years and eight months. Katie Birtles was arrested on 16 January after trying to meet a 14-year-old girl at the railway station in Grantham, Lincolnshire.

Birtles, of Wroxall Drive, Grantham, breached a 10-year sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), preventing any contact with children, which was put in place in 2017 for previous offences. Lincolnshire Police said messages on Birtles’ phone over a two-week period in January found the offender was planning to meet victims for sex and had offered to buy gifts such as wine and chocolates. At Lincoln Crown Court on Monday, the 40-year-old was ordered to remain on the sex offenders register for life and will be subject to the SHPO indefinitely.

Etcetera.

The entire longish piece never once admits that “Katie” Birtles is a man. It includes a photo, but the wording is strenuously gender-neutral throughout.

Trump to CDC: shut up.

To accomplish its mission of increasing the health security of the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that it “conducts critical science and provides health information” to protect the nation. But since President Trump’s administration assumed power in January, many of the platforms the CDC used to communicate with the public have gone silent, an NPR analysis found.

Many of the CDC’s newsletters have stopped being distributed, workers at the CDC say. Health alerts about disease outbreaks, previously sent to health professionals subscribed to the CDC’s Health Alert Network, haven’t been dispatched since March. The agency’s main social media channels have come under new ownership of the Department of Health and Human Services, emails reviewed by NPR show, and most have gone more than a month without posting their own new content.

Interesting. What’s the thinking here? The usual Trump-Musk substitute for thinking? “Government is bad, close it all down”? Is that it?

Health emergencies have not paused since January. Cases of measles, salmonella, listeria and hepatitis A and C have spread throughout the country. More than 100 million Americans continue to suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes and breast cancer. The decline in the agency’s communication could put people at risk, said four current and former CDC workers, three of whom NPR is allowing to remain anonymous because they are still employed by the CDC and believe they may be punished for speaking out.

But being put at risk is good for people. It toughens them up, makes them hardier, teaches them lessons about life. Besides, communication costs money. That’s money that could be in Trump’s pocket instead.

“Social media is one of the main ways the CDC communicates plain language, life-saving messages to America,” said one CDC employee.

But now, many of those messages have stopped being sent out. Changes to communication at the CDC began shortly after Trump was inaugurated in January, when HHS instructed the CDC and other health agencies to pause any sort of collaboration with people outside the agency.

“So at that point we stopped pretty much all communications,” said a CDC employee who works at the agency.

It’s efficiency. The less communication there is, the more efficiently things run. Everyone gets to go home early.

Two CDC employees who work in communications told NPR that fewer than half of the public health posts they’ve sent to HHS for approval have been cleared for publication on social media. Even posts that include basic information about recent disease outbreaks, like the number of people sickened or hospitalized, have not been posted as requested by employees, NPR confirmed after reviewing posts submitted for approval by an employee. Communications workers say they are also suggesting fewer health posts because they anticipate that their posts will be rejected.

“Everything is getting bottlenecked at the top,” said a worker. “It is extraordinarily time-consuming and backlogs us by weeks, if not months.”

The consequences could be deadly, experts said.

“When you have an outbreak of something like listeria, if you are a person who is pregnant and you consume food items that might have listeria in it that CDC should be warning you about, you run the risk of the baby that you are carrying dying,” said Guest. “And so that information needs to get out there.”

Oh well done, NPR, do be sure to distract us from this quite important disaster to make a big show of your enlightened refusal to say “pregnant woman.” We’re all massively impressed, and we no longer care about the Trump administrations war on medical information. Good luck in the future, Person Who Is Pregnant!

Sonia Sodha on the obstinate refusal to accept that men are not women:

A few weeks on, it’s becoming clear that despite the exceptional clarity of a judgment handed down by the highest court in the land, implementing it is a different matter. The rule of law, it seems, depends on most people choosing to follow it.

Some organisations, like Britain’s biggest union, are brazenly flouting it. Unison is allowing a male member who identifies as female to stand for election for its national council positions reserved for women. Last year its president accused a group of nurses from Darlington of “anti-trans bigotry” for standing up for their right to female-only changing rooms at work.

So what kind of unison is that? “All together now: women don’t get to have any rights!”

It’s not just Unison: the National Education Union has called on employers — presumably including schools — to support the rights of people to “use gendered facilities which match gender identities”, which would be unlawful. A train company, Southeastern, has wrongly told employees the ruling does not stop them using facilities designated for those of the opposite sex. Police forces still have policies allowing male officers who identify as female to carry out strip searches on female detainees. Even leading law firms have sent out analysis that badly misrepresents the law.

All this lying and refusing and bullying for the sake of men who call themselves women. Not men who give their all to ending racism or poverty or disease, but men who want to shove women aside and take their place. Why? Why are so many people so enthralled by this destructive counter-reality ideology?

What’s obvious from this soup of legal misinformation is that women are going to have to continue crowdfunding for expensive legal action to enforce their rights in the face of institutions hostile to the judgment. At least the more legal wins they clock up, the more likely it is that insurers will insist on organisations following the law or invalidating their liability policies.

Please also put the refuseniks on the naughty step for a minimum of ten years.

So Labour is canceling women. That will make everything better.

The Labour Party has postponed its annual Women’s Conference in the wake of advice following last month’s ruling on the legal definition of a woman.

You bitches don’t want men taking everything that belongs to you? Fine!! We’ll just cancel your damn conference then, so ha!

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Up until the ruling, Labour had allowed people [men] to self-identify as a woman, so trans women could attend the event and also take part in “positive action” measures such as all-women shortlists.

That is, Labour had allowed men to ruin everything for women and take everything that belonged to women.

A leaked advice paper to Labour’s governing body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), recommended delaying the conference because the “only legally defensible alternative” would be to restrict attendance to biological women.

And we can’t have that so we must take the conference away from women altogether. Have you noticed what relentless bullies women are?

A spokesperson told the LabourList website: “We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women’s conference.”

Yes but you see if they do anything else then they’re letting women get away with it, and that is just out of the question. Women must do as they’re told, or chaos will descend.

Earlier today…

The deck is stacked. Always.

The Quakers are just as brain-dead as everyone else on this subject.

As a faith group, Quakers in Britain have a clear position statement, recorded in Minute 31 of Britain Yearly Meeting 2021. We wish to welcome and affirm trans and non-binary people in our communities. We have underlined this position in recent years through acts of witness, advocacy and solidarity. The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers [2025] has affected the interpretation of some parts of the Equality Act 2010. No provision in respect of protection from discrimination for trans people has been affected, nor has the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Following the ruling, the Equality & Human Rights Commission has issued interim non-statutory guidance, which goes beyond the scope and actual statements in the ruling. This is already contested and subject to legal challenge.

Notice anything missing?

Women. Trans people blah blah blah witness advocacy solidarity blah blah blah already contested blah blah. Nothing about women, just a flood of burble about trans trans trans. So progressive, so egalitarian, so compassionate.

Management Meeting and BYM Trustees have agreed the following principles which inform our decision-making about facilities at Friends House and Swarthmoor Hall:
1) Our position must uphold Yearly Meeting’s commitment to welcoming and affirming trans
and nonbinary people in Quaker spaces. Minute 31 of YM2021 is the overarching expression of our position and so governs our decisions.
2) Our testimonies of Equality, Truth and Integrity must guide the arrangements we make. No trans, non-binary or intersex Quaker, staff member, or service user will be asked to make
any disclosure or prove their status in a way that is not asked of cis people. We must
respect the dignity of each person to live with integrity, informed by the truth of their lived
experience.

Unless they’re women of course. Women have no right to live with integrity, informed by the truth of their lived experience. That privilege is only for trans people and men and trans people.

It is not possible or desirable to monitor who uses our facilities and therefore cannot
guarantee any shared space as exclusive for one group of people. We will not label
something as a single-sex space if we cannot truthfully guarantee that it will be single-sex.

Yes because that’s how that works and always has been. All toilets have armed guards at the door enforcing the “Women” sign. The Quakers are alone in not being able to employ the armed guards, so naturally it’s open season on women in Quaker spaces, and always has been. Right? Twenty years ago, thirty, fifty, all Quaker spaces had facilities open to both sexes and no other kind of facilities at all, yes?

We will take robust steps to ensure freedom from harassment or inappropriate behaviour.
We have no evidence of any harm having come to women using our facilities from trans
women or anybody else. We will investigate inappropriate behaviour (especially sexual or
other harassment and hate speech or discrimination) and follow this up, including with the
police if we believe a crime has been committed.

To put it just a little more bluntly, they will take robust steps to ensure freedom from harassment or inappropriate behaviour unless it’s trans people doing it. They will keep a very beady eye on women while letting men who pretend to be women do whatever they want all the time.

What a nasty crew, and obviously bursting with their own righteousness.

Originally a comment by maddog on Some memberz of the communniny.

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

BBC, how can you even say that? Of course the implications are clear! Did you even read the opinion? Where the Act says “sex” or “women” or “men,” it means biological sex. What could they have said to make it any more clear?

The Supreme Court also held that discrimination against someone because of their gender identity is also prohibited, but the acts proscribed have to be actually attributable to the person’s transgender status. The two might overlap when a transgender person is actually perceived as the opposite sex, and the discriminatory act was done because of Animus against perceived sex. The transgender person would have to actually pass as the sex they are not for that to apply. Trans identified men don’t generally pass as women. Trans identified women might have a better chance of passing as a man, but then, men are rarely the targets of sex discrimination.

What is “threatening” about the ruling for trans identified males? The major “threat” is that they don’t get to violate women’s boundaries any more. Wow, what a threat! They might feel “threatened,” ie., fearful of how other men in men’s bathrooms or locker rooms might treat them. That’s an issue of male-on-male violence. That’s a worry that has concerned insufficiently “masculine” men forever; it’s not unique to trans identified males. It’s a problem for the men to solve among themselves. They don’t get to use women as human shields. As between men and women, men have a better chance of protecting themselves against male violence than women do of protecting themselves against male violence. It’s the men’s problem, not women’s problem to solve at the expense of their own rights and safety.

Beyond that, what are trans identified men “threatened” with? Oh no! “Misgendering”! Ie., correctly identifying their sex. Deadnaming! Oh no, can’t hide former misdeeds behind a new name. Being looked at! Oh noes! People might look at a man funny for wearing so-called women’s clothes. Guess what? Men can wear whatever they want. They do it TO BE looked at; but now they don’t want people to look, because they don’t get the privilege of sticking it to women.

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

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

A “living hell” ? Really? Because people might look at him? Because someone might “say something” to him? It’s like that old saw about:

What are men afraid of? That someone might laugh at them.

What are women afraid of? Being raped and/or killed.

See the difference?

What nonsense the BBC is peddling after this ruling.

Will Darlington Memorial Hospital ever just do what it’s told? It seems not.

Further pressure has been placed on Darlington Memorial Hospital to “comply” with same sex policies as nurses remain locked in a legal battle over a transgender woman using their changing room.

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation trust, alongside others across the country will be made to comply with a Supreme Court ruling moved forward last month that defines gender as “biological”.

When? And why won’t they just do it, without waiting to be “made” to do it?

I suppose it’s the usual answer: because women don’t matter, while a handful of men who pretend to be women do matter, matter infinitely, matter more than 5 or 10 or 100 times as many women.

Now, it has emerged that the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) previously stated the trust is “breaking the law by failing to provide single-sex changing rooms for its female staff”.

Well you see that’s because women don’t matter. Please make a note of it and don’t forget again.

“The RCN expects the Trust to comply with these statutory provisions and provide single sex changing rooms without delay. It would seem reasonable that that the alternative changing room provision that some women are currently using, would be the obvious choice for a gender neutral changing space.”

You remember that “alternative changing room provision” – a small closet-like room that opens directly onto a busy corridor. The women are supposed to use that so that the men can luxuriate in the actual changing room for women.

In response to the RCN’s letter, a spokesperson for County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust told The Northern Echo: “The Trust is engaged in open discussions with the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in response to their letter.”

The hell with “discussions” – there’s nothing to discuss. Obey the god damn law.

“This is a complex and sensitive matter involving not only our internal policies and procedures but also wider national guidance and legislation.”

No. it. isn’t. It’s not complex at all. It’s revoltingly simple. Men get whatever they can grab no matter what, and women must accept whatever leftover crumbs are thrown at them. That has to change. Simple.

The letter has not gone unnoticed by Darlington nurse and President of the Darlington Nursing Union, Bethany Hutchison, who says despite its efforts, there has been “no sign of action”.

“We appreciate the letter from the Royal College of Nursing, but it has been a month now and there has been no sign of any action, quite the opposite in fact.

“We recognise how captured the NHS has been by extreme Stonewall policies, but unfortunately the law is the law. There can be no excuses for any further dragging of feet.

“We are still having to use what we were told 10 months ago would be a ‘temporary’ converted office to change in. A man continues to use the female staff changing room with impunity.”

It doesn’t take ten months to tell an entitled bully of a man to gtf out of the women’s changing room and stay out.

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Catastrophic inland migration.

Meanwhile in South-Eastern Norway, where the bulk of the population lives, 2021 still stands as the last somewhat “normal” year so far. In what we used to think of as a “normal” year the water flow in our rivers would increase something like five-fold, and the levels in our reservoirs (i.e. lakes) would rise several meters above the “highest regulated water level” around the second half of May due to snowmelt in the mountains. This “spring flood” was considered so reliable that hydropower companies would lower their reservoirs towards the “lowest regulated water level” during the winter season (when the demand for power was high and prices were good), knowing that they would be filled up again in May [1].

Well, the old “normal” ended in 2022. That’s when the trusted spring flood remained completely absent due to record low levels of snow in the mountains. Along with the European energy crisis following the Russian attack on Ukraine this had the effect of pushing energy prices for the consumers up to economy-breaking levels, and if not for heavy rainfall in late September/early October we would almost certainly have faced energy rationing during the winter of 2022/2023.

By contrast the next two years were practically the polar opposite, with the extreme weather event “Hans” totally dwarfing the spring flood in August of 2023 (usually the driest season of the year!), leading to widespread flooding damages and pushing energy prices for the power companies down to record-low levels [2]. 2024 may very well have been even wetter on average, with “flood-ish” condtions from early April to late October (!), but more manageable since we didn’t have a single concentrated deluge comparable to “Hans”.

Well, guess what. We’re back to the same situation as 2022, with hardly any snow in the mountains, no spring flood, and bone dry conditions. At least we were a little more prepared this time (I like to think I had a tiny hand in that by sounding the alarm bell already back in February) and began holding back water before the reservoirs managed to sink too low…

As I have previously pointed out, most people I talk to still seem to think of each new extreme as a temporary “freak anomaly” (occurring in a vacuum), or conclude that two record-dry and two record-wet years in a four-year period “cancel out”, leaving everything “normal” on average. And, to be fair, four data points is hardly a basis for making any strong inferences about the future. I’m pretty sure it won’t be good though. On a “brighter” note, one of the few many things the MAGA crowd and the woke crowd both have in common, apart from besides post-truth politics, identity politics, intolerance of opposing views, cancel culture, mob justice, arguments from sound volume/number of repetitions etc. etc. is the same commitment to make sure the world (or at least the man-made part of it) is not worth saving anyway. As I keep saying, I do feel bad about all those other species doomed to go down with us, though. I always thought the armadillos were showing a lot of promise…

[1] This didn’t just make sense from a purely economic point of view: Even back then there was a real danger of flooding populated areas if snowmelt coincided with heavy rain. You definitely don’t want all that water to go straight into the rivers at the same time with no buffer, and filling up a lake is a great buffer!

[2] Sunday the 16th of July between 2 PM and 3 PM spot prices reached an all time low of -61,84 € per Mega-Watt-hour. I.e. that’s how much power companies had to pay for every MWh of energy produced! (Due to changes in my workplace, I haven’t been paying close attention to the spot prices in the last two years, so for all I know this all-time low may very well have been surpassed since then).

Helen Webberley is out of her depth.

Women live as women – simple – it is not about dresses, heels, pinks, or body parts. Gender identity and expression is not a costume and exclusion is not clever, it is a civil wrong.

Being a woman is not about body parts?

I think you’ll find it is, actually.

If it’s not about body parts, how do you explain all the children who keep getting born? Where do they come from? Is it a pill? An incantation? Something people smoke? A miracle?

Women don’t “live as women”; women just are women. How people live is a very large and complex subject, but talk of people “living as” women or men or goats or tulips or food processors is just that: talk. Empty talk, pretentious talk, silly talk.

This poor woman is in way over her head.

Poor Carla Denyer pulls the trap door closed on herself. She doesn’t really know how to answer the question, she says – well quite, and that’s the problem. What does it mean? What does it mean to live as a goat, a clock, a strawberry, a handful of dust?

Nothing. It doesn’t mean anything. There is pretending, which is pretty clear. There is living as if various things – as if one were healthy or ill, rich or poor, athletic or a couch potato – but living as something isn’t English idiom. It doesn’t make any sense. That’s why he asked. Her failure to think of an answer other than repeating exactly what he asked the question about is quite a pathetic display.

(We’ve seen and discussed this video before, I think, but it popped up again, and I found her irritable flailing both amusing and annoying. Plus Webberley.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

Bros before hos eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Same.

Just listened to this and found it quite uncomfortable listening.

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

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

What do you mean when you use the word woman?

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

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

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

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

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

And enraging.

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

Replies are scathing toward Nuala McGovern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

McGovern goes on:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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