Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Some memberz of the communniny.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Well, given that you probably think being called a man is abusive, pardon me if I don’t take your word for it. Given that you think the ruling is incorrect (for no reason other than its curtailment of your former “centred” and “validating” use of female spaces you shouldn’t have been entering in the first place), you’ll have to excuse my lack of sympathy. The scales of justice have finally weighed your desires and whims against the safety and dignity of women, and found in favour of the latter. It is frightening to think it might not have gone that way.

Maya Forstater’s first employment tribunal judge ruled against her, calling her (now protected) beliefs “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. What if the second judge in her case had agreed? What if the judges of the Supreme Court had been as captured as her first tribunal judge? What if Stonewall Law had prevailed? For far too long it did, causing untold grief to how many thousands, or millions, of women in the UK. “Kate” Lancaster would have been fine with that, because he was fine under Stonewall Law. He’s upset now because his is no longer the whip hand, having lost much of the unearned and undeserved power and influence he and his fellow trans identified males have enjoyed for the better part of a decade. (Though it looks like the BBC is trying its best to drag the last bit of the struggle out, siding with the reactionary forces fighting the restoration of sanity and women’s rights. Which side of history are they on again?)

That your side never acknowledged the actual harms caused to women and girls by your fetish-driven gender adventurism, and the predatory advantage taken by other opportunistic males using Self ID as a cover (both of which were predicted, and then documented, by women as this horror show unfolded against their will), says all I need to know about how many tears I should shed on your behalf.

It’s a disgrace that the BBC is still seeking you out to commiserate with you on your fall from power, rather than talking to women and girls who are rightfully celebrating having been relieved of the burden and fear of having to accommodate your intrusion into their spaces. This great victory belongs to them, yet the BBC is making it out to be some kind of tragic loss because they’re looking at it from the wrong goddam side. It’s like they’re covering the fall of a tyrannical regime by trying to garner sympathy from the public on behalf of the fallen tyrants and their ruthless henchmen. “Spare a thought for the sacked secret policemen, and unemployed torturers. They’re having to go out amongst the people they tormented and go on living from day to day, out in the open, without the security apparatus of the state, and the anonymous, fickle, exercise of its retributive powers to protect and avenge them.” The BBC is still on the side of the gender ayatollahs, who pine for the days when their fatwas held sway.

This is not as much of an exaggeration as it might appear to be, (or one might have wished). Given what we were seeing here on B&W, for far too many women, (and for society as a whole), the UK under trans “rights” was turning into a police state, with the power of the government, police, courts, and corporations all moving to dismantle women’s rights, and stifling any protest against that movement. It’s easy to see the delusional lunacy of the views being proposed, enected, and enforced. We’ve been pointing out the insanity every day for years. But the craziness and incoherence did not keep these measures from being proposed, enacted, and enforced to begin with. It was a near run thing that might have gone either way. It is frightening to think too long on how much this outcome has depended on luck rather than reason and reality.

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia.

Yeah, no. I wouldn’t take your word for what you claim as “transphobia.” Reality is “transphobic” according to your lot, so, no. Try again.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

Nobody should be assaulted, or abused. No excuses. There are laws against that, laws that have been there for decades, which this ruling leaves intact. This ruling does not touch the human rights that you share with your fellow citzens. You have the same recourse to the law as everyone else. (Though if you consider being called “he” or “sir” “abuse”, you might find that your legal recourse might not cover having your feelings hurt, or being offended. Again my own sensitivity to cries of “abuse” or even “assault” from trans activists have been blunted by years of transperbole. But if you have a real case, call the police, press charges. Just make sure you’re not sending them after stickers, ribbons, and limericks. They may no longer be as quick to jump at these.) Try again.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Of course people shouldn’t yell vile things at random passersby. It’s rude and frightening. I know this from expereince. Yes, it’s upsetting, but it’s not illegal. Once it passes into illegality, from epithet to threat, I have recourse to the law. Until that line is crossed, I have to live with it. Hurting my feelings is not breaking the law. If the threshold were that low, courts and jails would be packed to a standstill. But for a while, in the UK, hurting your feelings was illegal. Remember? Stickers? Ribbons? Limericks? For some reason, transactivism’s speed-dial was always answered by the police, for the slightest of slights, and the mildests of criticisms, so long as they were labeled “transphobic”. Late night visits by the police, based on single, anonymous complainants. People lost their jobs for holding the “wrong” beliefs (beliefs which are now, thanks to the courage of women like Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey, and others, who faced down the hijacked, corrupted power of the state, protected). People were arrested for uttering statements of fact, or for trivial mockery, if it was something touching on the privileged, sacred status of Trans. Women could only marvel at the speed with which trans privilege was protected and enforced against the hard-won rights of women, which have never received anywhere near the degree of political, legal, and police support and protection that genderists were able to command overnight.

Women have had to put up with abuse, lower wages, employment ghettoization, under-representation in all walks of life, assault, rape, and murder for centuries. Transactivism exacerbated this situation by eroding women’s sex-based rights and protections. Erasing women in law (which is what would happen if transactivism successfully redefined “woman” to include “non-women”), would destroy the protections and resources that women do have, and prevent the implementation and monitoring of any measures designed to redress historical, systemic barrires to women’s safety and advancement. This is what the Supreme Court ruling was about. Women were forced to seek this ruling because there was so much at stake. Transactivism was fine with the sacrifice of women’s rights and women’s lives, so long as men-pretending-to-be-women got what they wanted. This was the point of the mantra of “TWAW”, of “NO DEBATE”, of “NO CONFLICT”. All of these thought-killing slogans were designed to allow the legalization of the male invasion and permanent occupation of women’s spaces without any examination of the price women would pay. Women must never be allowed to say “No”. It might have been called “Trans Rights”, but in reality it was an attempted coup by Rape Culture. This is the movement that the BBC is wringing its hands over in teary-eyed nostalgia. Disgusting.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

Women won. Society won. REALITY WON. Men are not women. You are men, and not women in the eyes of the law. That is as it should be, because that is how things are. You have not lost any rights in this decision, and women have retained and protected theirs. That’s not a tragedy, it’s a glorious vindication of the fucking obvious that should not have been necessary in the first place.

Godalmighty. Woman’s Hour today had Kate Barker, CEO of LGB Alliance, on to explain why lesbians are quite pleased about the Supreme Court ruling.

Nuala McGovern: Now you’ve described this ruling as a watershed moment for women and in particular for lesbians; why?

Barker describes the joy and relief of that day

I don’t think people understand just quite how tough it’s been for lesbians over the last ten-fifteen years – I really would characterize it as a kind of dark age for lesbians, and the reason for that is that the LGBTQ+ lobby groups have been encouraging men to self-identify as lesbians, and those men just haven’t taken no for an answer, in terms of trying to access women’s spaces, women’s support services, women’s social groups. So it’s been really really difficult, and an example I suppose that people might understand quite easily is dating apps. So we all use dating apps now don’t we, it’s a common part of everyday life. If you go onto a lesbian dating app you’ll find that 20% plus of the people on that app are men – I’m using the word “men” in the sense that you and I – they’re men-men –

McGovern breaks in –

Well let’s talk about that particular term “men” that you use.

Yes she actually says that – apparently with a straight face. A woman who presents Woman’s Hour on the BBC says to the lesbian guest “Well let’s talk about that particular term ‘men’ that you use.” As if it’s some weird specialized jargon, some tendentious peculiar pejorative thing to say. What are we supposed to call them? What’s the permissible word now? Do we need to warn the audience before we say it? What does “Woman’s Hour” even mean???

Deep breaths. Push the play button again. McGovern, slowly and distinctly: “Who are you referring to?”

Fucking hell. Can you imagine being KB in that moment? It would be so tempting to shout: “This is Woman’s Hour; who are you referring to you brainless subservient buffoon?!!”

KB was admirably disciplined.

I’m referring to all male people.

McGovern asks, slowly and ponderously, “Are you also referring to those who identify as trans women?”

KB: I am.

NM: Why.

KB: Well I think a dating app is a good example of why. So – consider the dating app, the lesbian dating app – the sort of people, however you want to describe them, they’re male, born male in male bodies – now I’m a lesbian and I go onto that dating app – my criterion is – well I would prefer to meet somebody without a penis – because I’m a lesbian. If I go onto the app and try to set up my profile and say “I’d like to meet somebody, oh I don’t know, female, or somebody who’s a biological woman – a real woman, in my mind, I’d be booted off the app and the man would be allowed to stay. And the reason for that is my position would be considered bigoted and unkind and transphobic, but most importantly, it would be considered to be Not Inclusive. And I think that’s worth looking at, for a second. So, me – and other women, as lesbians, we’ll assert our boundaries, and that boundary will exclude male people from our dating pool. But that position, in and of itself, is deemed to be a transphobic position…The same thing is happening for gay men as well, that if you assert your exclusive same-sex orientation – homosexuality – that is considered to be something which is “not inclusive” and which is bigoted and transphobic so that’s why we as an organization were celebrating and cracking open the champagne. You know because it allows us to – we can’t do our work as an organization unless we can clarify so what does sex mean –

McGovern breaks in there:

Well let’s talk about these aspects, and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive

Hey guess what Nuala McGovern, I find what you’re saying very offensive. I find the fact that you’re saying it very offensive. I find this sick joke of a program called Woman’s Hour contorting itself to bully women for saying that men are men VERY OFFENSIVE.

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

What kind of question is that? Are we required to use it? Socially, morally, be kindly? Why is BBC Woman’s Hour scolding a lesbian for calling men men instead of calling men trans women? I would really like to know!

The rest later, if I have the stomach for it.

I can’t wait to rush out and not read this book, let alone not buy it. ($55 for the paperback!)

Transgender and Non-Binary People in Everyday Sport – A Trans Feminist Approach to Improving Inclusion

Ok first what is “everyday” sport? If you mean amateur say that; if you mean something else, make it clear.

Second what is a “trans feminist” approach? Is that a sly euphemism for “fake feminist” approach?

Description:

This formative work discusses transgender people’s inclusion in everyday sport in the United Kingdom. It adopts a trans feminist approach to explore pivotal issues regarding the barriers to participation faced by transgender and non-binary people.

What is a “formative” work? Is “transgender people’s inclusion in everyday sport” a euphemism for letting men invade women’s sport? What, again, is a “trans feminist approach”? Does it mean an approach taken by male people who are not feminists and enjoy seeing male people take over female sport?

Offering a critical perspective on the current landscape surrounding this topic, the book draws from insightful interviews conducted by the author with 18 transgender and non-binary individuals. The author uses a critical social science approach to explore the heteropatriarchal construction of sport in the modern industrialised West, and how this has formed the backdrop to the continuing discrimination towards many athletes, not just those who are transgender. Using first-hand perspectives, it focuses on the three themes of the sporting body, sporting spaces and sporting communities. It investigates why conversations about fairness and safety regarding transgender athletes have become so polarised within the media, and the significance of taking a trans feminist approach to reducing barriers in sport.

Mmkay I think we get the drift. It’s a book about the urgent need for men to take over women’s sport.

The hardback is only $200.

The BBC is distraught over claims that women have rights.

It’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, “woman” means a biological woman. The decision was welcomed by some women’s rights groups but condemned in the transgender community. How are they and others affected by the ruling feeling now?

Or to put it another way, it’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that women have rights. How do people who think women should not have rights feel about this ruling now?

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

Hey Beeb, you know what? Some members of the female communniny feel threatened by your passion for attacking women’s rights.

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.”

Looking at what? Say something about what? Does he wear a pumpkin on his head or something?

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia. She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Well it was nice of Jessica Brown to feed the BBC what it so obviously wanted to hear, but I’m not 100% sure I believe his account is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

Benji Rayson, a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary, says they do not believe the ruling will “fix anything” but has instead “shone a light on a community that just wants to get on and do their own thing”.

Hahaha ok Beeb, you got me. I thought you were serious until “a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary.” Hahahahaha you win.

Smith College is confused.

Sneaky. Anyone who doesn’t already know who “Rachel” Levine is will of course assume he’s a woman being honored by a women’s college. Sneaky all around – doing the women-insulting thing, and being coy about doing the women-insulting thing.

There’s been a lot of insulting of women over the past decade or more. We’re rather tired of it.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on He had benefited.

The transgender community fears its rights are “melting away” after a legal ruling which has left people “terrified”, according to one trans woman.

Well they wouldn’t have melted away so easily if they had been actual rights, and not based on an unlawful interpretation of the statutes they were carried in on, would they?

Sarah Savage, a trans woman who is the chief executive and co-founder of Trans Pride Brighton, said it was not long ago that trans rights felt “solidified”.

Only to the degree by which your campaign of lying, bullying, and terrorism had succeeded. These “rights” were only “solid” because they were enforced on a largely apathetic, deceived, and cowed public, through the expedient of “NO DEBATE.” Actual opponents to this program were villified and threatened. Yeah, some really solid “rights” there, mate.

“Trans people just want to have a quiet life, we just want to get on with it. We don’t want all this drama, we just want respect.”

HAHAHAHA! Thats a good one! No, really, let’s dig into this. Let’s look at just one of your own actions and see how well they conform to this claim. I’m talking of course about your library alarm stunt. Fire alarms are not “quiet.” Misusing them is usually a criminal offence. How did your pulling that fire alarm to disrupt a meeting on women’s health help you “just get on with it”? How was that not drama? How did that contribute to your desire for “respect”? It shows you to be a self-centred, bullying, contemptable coward of a man. Acts like this go against all of your claims, and in fact hurt the efforts of those apochryphal trans folk who really do want a quiet life. You are not a very constructive poster boy for your cause, but you sure seem to be a representative one.

“It makes me feel scared for the future because my rights are literally being taken away before my very eyes.”

Those aren’t your “rights” you’re seeing taken away, it’s the restoration of stolen property to its rightful owners. Your access and intrusion was illegal from the start. You barged into spaces and opportunities never meant for you, to which you were not entitled or qualified. Nobody has the right to do that, though thugs and gangsters would disagree. That’s what you’ve been; a thug and a gangster. You deserve no sympathy. You knew what you were doing when you violated women’s boundaries. Shut up, get the fuck out, and stay out.

What if I need to go to a hospital? Am I going to be treated with respect?

Respect is a two-way street, and it is earned. You haven’t offered any to the women whose rights and safety you have strived so mightily to diminish, so no respect for you.

What kind of ward am I going to be put in?

One for men, which is what you are, always have been, and always will be. Nothing you say, or wear, or do can ever change that. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s just the way things are. It’s where you belong. Not with women. You’ve already shown you are threat to them. Nobody has to play along with your delusional self-image. If you still insist on being put into a female only ward, then the facility you should be housed in should be one specializing in mental illness, and a secured one at that.

A director of community group TransActual, jane fae – who spells her name in lower case

And it’s so interesting that these same journalists take great pains to let us know that the lower case affectation* of the man they’re quoting is not a spelling mistake on their part. Priorities people, priorities.

…I foresee being forced into the indignity of being on a male ward….

And why is that an indignity for you? You are a man. (See above re: “Sarah” Savage’s hospital ward anxiety.) You don’t need to be on a female ward any more than you need a pap smear or hysterectomy. You might need specialized treatment to take into account any “gender affirming care” you might have subjected yourself to in the past, but none of that turned you into a woman, however extensive and convincingly lifelike they might have turned out. You’re not any kind of woman; stop pretending you are. That continued insistence, and your forcing your delusional beliefs on everyone else (especially women)? There’s your indignity right there.

*Another example of playing helpless and self-effacing? “Oooh look at me with my lower case, I’m so small and unintimidating. Let me into your spaces! I won’t hurt you, I promise! Don’t put me in with the other, beaslty, UPPER CASE men!”

“Sarah” Savage, the guy who pulled the fire alarm because women were holding a meeting, gets attention from the less fastidious news media for being a trans woman who demands all the rights.

The transgender community fears its rights are “melting away” after a legal ruling which has left people “terrified”, according to one trans woman.

Sarah Savage, a trans woman who is the chief executive and co-founder of Trans Pride Brighton, said it was not long ago that trans rights felt “solidified”.

Miss Savage described the ruling as “extremely worrying”, adding she had benefited from access to a women’s refuge after she came out and is now concerned that opportunity has been taken away from others.

Extremely worrying for whom?

He benefited from access to a women’s refuge but the women in that refuge had their benefit taken away. It’s so interesting the way hack journalists forget to point that out, and their editors fail to catch the omission. It’s so interesting the way journalism as such simply ignores this whole issue.

Miss Savage added: “It makes me feel scared for the future because my rights are literally being taken away before my very eyes. What if I need to go to a hospital? Am I going to be treated with respect? What kind of ward am I going to be put in?”

If he is put in a women’s ward, what kind of ward are the women then in? Why is one man’s unreasonable demand treated as a human rights issue while the human rights of the women involved are treated as biggottree?

“Trans people just want to have a quiet life, we just want to get on with it. We don’t want all this drama, we just want respect.”

They just want to get on with taking women’s rights away. As for the drama – you have got to be kidding. They love the drama – it’s all about them.

A director of community group TransActual, jane fae – who spells her name in lower case – also expressed concern about her potential future care.

“As I get older I may need hospital care, I foresee being forced into the indignity of being on a male ward, that would be upsetting to say the least,” the 67-year-old from Letchworth told PA.

Same again. Does he worry that the women who had to put up with him in their ward would find it upsetting? Of course not. His wants are everything, theirs are just something he gets to drive a tank through.

The shouty man in question is Sarah Savage.

He’s not a threat, oh good heavens no, but if women dare to have a meeting he will make sure to shut that right down. Which is in no way a threat. At all.

Large loud aggressive man tells us how he terminated a meeting of women by pulling the fire alarm, and shouts angrily about how fearless he is and how he will not let this go.

New boss even worse than the old boss.

Smith College tells us about its four commencement speakers for this year.

Four distinguished leaders in the arts, academia, health and wellness, social justice, and innovation will be awarded honorary degrees at Smith’s 147th Commencement on Sunday, May 18. In a tradition begun last year by President Sarah Willie-LeBreton, each honorand will offer a few words of wisdom and congratulations to the graduates.

Did I mention that Smith is a women’s college?

Honorary degrees will be awarded in May to:

• Danielle Allen, professor of political philosophy, public policy, and ethics at Harvard University and founder and chairperson of Partners In Democracy.
• Evelyn M. Harris, vocal teacher, former member of the world-renowned a cappella group Sweet Honey in the Rock, and a global performer for more than 50 years.
• Admiral Rachel L. Levine, 17th assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, accomplished physician, public health expert, and LGBTQ+ advocate.

And a man. Admiral Levine is a man. That’s an award that won’t go to a woman, because the good people at Smith wanted it to go to a man who playacts being a woman.

Smith devotes a lot of space to Levine’s bio, and doesn’t once mention that he’s a man, or even trans. Just she she she her her her. Women’s college insults women, news at 10.

In another, but very nearby, corner of the forest another court with another ruling.

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that had temporarily paused plans for mass layoffs and program closures at federal agencies.

A judge paused plans for mass layoffs and program closures at federal agencies?? That’s so shocking! All federal agencies are bad, and everything federal agencies do is bad. Obviously! The people should all be fired and the programs should all be slammed shut. Nothing should ever be done for any reason other than profit.

Last week, Judge Susan Illston of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California called for a two-week pause on the administration’s actions, which she said were illegal without congressional authorization. Her order barred two dozen federal agencies from moving ahead with the largest phase of President Trump’s efforts to downsize the government.

In the emergency application filed on Friday, D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, argued that the lower court’s “far-reaching order” would prevent “almost the entire executive branch from formulating and implementing plans to reduce the size of the federal work force.”

Could that be because the entire executive branch was “reducing the size of the federal work force” by simply firing masses of people without bothering to find out what they were doing and how necessary it was?

In February, Mr. Trump signed an executive order directing officials to draft plans for “large-scale” cuts to the federal work force. Several labor unions, advocacy groups and local governments sued, seeking to block the order.

Judge Illston held an emergency hearing in the case last Friday and issued her ruling just hours later.

In the 42-page ruling, Judge Illston determined that the government’s attempt to lay off workers and shut down offices and programs created an urgent threat to scores of critical services.

It’s as if Trump told the Pentagon to bomb federal agencies into oblivion without pausing to preserve the buildings or allow the occupants to send a goodbye message home.

Trump does not have a close acquaintance with the law, but that doesn’t slow him down any.

President Donald Trump endorsed the idea that the United States Supreme Court had placed an “illegal injunction” on him by temporarily blocking his administration’s ability to deport Venezuelans, accused of being gang members, without due process, while litigation on the matter plays out in lower courts.

On Truth Social on Saturday, Trump reposted two posts made by attorney Mike Davis, a close Trump ally and the founder of the Article III project, calling the court’s recent decision “illegal” and claiming it was “heading down a perilous path” by not allowing Trump to continue a constitutionally questionable action.

“The Supreme Court still has an illegal injunction on the President of the United States, preventing him from commanding military operations to expel these foreign terrorists,” Davis wrote.

…

The court told the Trump administration on Friday it would  not allow it to resume deporting Venezuelans accused of belonging to a gang under the Alien Enemies Act while litigation continues in lower courts. In their decision, the justices flagged concerns about the administration bypassing due process rights.

Trump raged at the justices for not allowing his Department of Homeland Security to proceed with deportations under the act, calling it “bad” and “dangerous.”

Not his call. Co-equal branches, babe.

Saturday’s endorsement of the idea that the Supreme Court, the ultimate decider of law, was carrying out an “illegal” act on him by not allowing him to do something that lower courts have also consistently ruled against, is part of a recent trend.

The trend of being completely ignorant of the law? That’s not recent.

Trump and his administration have been accused of defying federal judges’ rulings – most notably not facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite the Supreme Court directing the administration to do so.

The president has personally lashed out at judges who have ruled against him, asserting they are “rogue” or “activists.” Roberts and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson have both warned that attacking judges is harmful to the independence of the judiciary.

His behavior has led to some concerns from critics that the president will ignore court orders and continue doing whatever he wants with the help of his allies in the government, thus overextending his presidential power.

Gosh ya think?

Surely it’s obvious that that’s exactly what he intends to do. He intends to do whatever he wants and accept no restraint from anyone or anything.

It’s hard not to suspect a new Sokal Hoax.

I mean come on. “According to this definition pregnancy or the potential for pregnancy define womanhood.” Well yes, Genius, they do. If you look you’ll find that that applies to other mammals too. You know what there would be if they didn’t? Nothing, that’s what. Without reproduction there is nothing. P.D. James wrote a novel about that very scenario – a world in which human reproduction had simply stopped. In a world like that it takes only a few decades for living humans to disappear entirely. Not just thin out, not just become scarce, but go extinct. Like the dinosaurs. Get it?

It’s too obvious not to get. Must be a new Sokal.

The rest of the burble is just typical pomo litcrit word-flapping. A genre of political, aesthetic, and affective experience and expectation. Burble burble burble. Admire the clever academic with the fancy words like “affective” and “genre.” The childish “trick” here is just to pretend that because there’s more to say about pregnancy than the biological facts, therefore the biological facts are wholly irrelevant. Yuh huh. There’s more to say about a sunset than the astronomical facts, therefore the earth does not rotate.

Human ingenuity.

Seattle Councilmember Dan Strauss is worried about Seattle’s ears. 

Earlier this spring, he drafted a “hearing protection ordinance” that would require music venues to provide hearing protection for free or less than $1, or risk fines. 

“This bill is about making sure that people have the opportunity to both enjoy Seattle’s vibrant music scene and protect their hearing health no matter where they go,” Strauss said when presenting the idea to his colleagues in March. 

Well…that’s like going swimming with the sharks while taking a box of bandaids with you. It’s like going to an all-you-can-eat restaurant with a bottle of diet pills in your pocket. It’s like setting your house on fire and then putting on asbestos socks.

In short, why would you go to a concert that you know will be too loud? Why not select concerts that are not too loud, instead? Think of the fortune you would save on ear plugs.

One of the many things I hate most about Trump

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

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

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

The Post is slightly more restrained:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah right, that’s what that was.

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

Stroud Pride says no LGB views.

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

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

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

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

Onward.

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

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

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

There! Finally the sentence ends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What have they been saying to you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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