Category: Notes and Comment Blog

  • breasts & blood test results

    Meanwhile in another part of the forest:

    They say I cant be a delegate this year at the Labour National Women’s Conference this year (I was in 2022), despite having a female birth certificate, breasts, & blood test results which show I am female. Because of surgery, I cant produce gametes – but neither can others who have had a hysterectomy. Surely you can see the injustice? Please support my legal case…

    Surely everyone can see the justice? Men can’t be women no matter how much they fiddle with their anatomies. Men need to stop shoving women aside.

  • Schemiest scheme ever

    Weirdest BBC News headline and news story ever?

    Former Chick-fil-A employee charged in $80,000 mac-and-cheese scheme

    Speak English! What the hell is Chick-fil-A?! What is mac-and-cheese??!

    Still, at least they give us a quick dietary lesson in the process of reporting this global story.

    US media named the suspect as 23-year-old Keyshun Jones. Records show he is currently in custody at Green Bay prison in Forth Worth, Texas. The New York Times reported that Jones’s lawyer declined to comment.

    The Chick-fil-A catering menu lists the cost of a large tray of its mac-and-cheese at around $100 depending on location. The number of calories in the baked macaroni dish, which features three types of cheese, is almost 10,000 (40,000 kilojoules).

    The Beeb goes into careful thoughtful detail.

    CCTV footage shows the man wearing a brown puffer vest, blue jeans and backwards white cap, not the chain’s branded red polo uniform.

    What is this “puffer vest” of which you speak? On the one hand they chat knowingly about mac and cheese and on the other hand they rave about a “puffer vest”.

    The BBC has contacted Chick-fil-A’s media office for comment.

    Good good good. Let us know what they say.

  • The case should never have got to court

    “The decision of the Court to throw out this case , is very welcome – but this case should never have got to court.

    There has been a troubling pattern of police forces around the country to ‘believe’ trans-rights activists, time and time again, even when there has been overwhelming evidence that complaints have been made against gender critical campaigners, in bad faith.

    The police have failed in their duty to properly and fairly investigate – preferring instead to support one side over the other in a debate. All this has done is erode the faith the public should be able to have in the police. We are sick of two tier policing and I hope with today’s verdict it will end.

    I have suffered greatly in my fight to protect women and children from what I believe to be a dangerous ideology. But I am proud that I have never given in and I will not do.

    I have been lifted through support from friends and strangers, from women’s rights groups to London cabbies who have taken the time to stop and shake my hand.

    I am very grateful to my legal team; Daniel Berke and Sarah Vine KC and to the team at the Free Speech Union”.

  • Add to basket

    Barristers just wanna have fun.

    Jolyon Maugham: less dignity than Donald Trump.

  • Around mid-fourth grade

    I probably saw this back in 2018, and maybe wrote a post about it, but it remains interesting.

    Trump Speaks At Fourth-Grade Level

    President Donald Trump—who boasted over the weekend that his success in life was a result of “being, like, really smart”—communicates at the lowest grade level of the last 15 presidents, according to a new analysis of the speech patterns of presidents going back to Herbert Hoover.

    The analysis assessed the first 30,000 words each president spoke in office, and ranked them on the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and more than two dozen other common tests analyzing English-language difficulty levels. Trump clocked in around mid-fourth grade, the worst since Harry Truman, who spoke at nearly a sixth-grade level.

    The Flesch-Kincaid scale was developed in 1975 for the U.S. Navy to assess the relative difficulty of training manuals. A database of Trump’s words, compiled by the incomparable factba.se, ran the comparative analysis yesterday, in response to the president’s claim that he is “a genius.”

    Factba.se has collected interviews, speeches and press conferences from previous presidents, using material publicly available from presidential libraries, and including the University of California, Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project, which contains presidential press conferences going back to Hoover in 1929.

    The website excluded communiques issued by the last two presidents on social media and limited the study to unscripted words uttered at press conferences and other public appearances.

    The words were run through a variety of lexicological analyses, besides the Flesch-Kincaid, and the results were the same. In every one, Trump came in dead last. Trump also uses the fewest “unique words” (2,605) of any president—Obama was the best at 4,869—and uses words with the fewest average syllables, with 1.33 per word, compared to positively multi-syllabic president Hoover at 1.57.

    “By every metric and methodology tested, Donald Trump’s vocabulary and grammatical structure is significantly more simple, and less diverse, than any President since Herbert Hoover, when measuring “off-script” words, that is, words far less likely to have been written in advance for the speaker,” Factba.se CEO Bill Frischling wrote. “The gap between Trump and the next closest president … is larger than any other gap using Flesch-Kincaid. Statistically speaking, there is a significant gap.”

    It’s a huge part of why he is so intensely annoying – it’s because he’s so dumb, so vacant, so threadbare, so empty, so without anything of interest to say. One big clue: he says the same thing all the time. He has a few stock phrases and he utters them when he should be making new combinations of words. That’s what makes him seem so childish and buffoonish.

    And it matters, because it reveals how threadbare his thinking is. Result? Wars started as if they were games of checkers. People killed in small boats or sent back to countries where they will be killed as if said people were toys instead of sentient human beings. He’s too stupid even to have compassion.

  • Any of this pish

    Golly. What a pack of lies.

    Trans rights trans rights trans rights, she says, without saying those are. Nobody I know of wants to take away the human rights of trans people, but purported “rights” specific to trans people are another story. No, it’s not a genuine “right” to be able to force people to endorse a man’s claim to be the sex [or “gender”] he is not.

    Why don’t journalists learn to ask this question? What rights are you talking about exactly? Please explain, clearly and without obfuscation.

  • Some ever-so-subtle rebuttals

    The NY Times on the flashy visit:

    And yet, on the first full day of a state visit focused on the shared history between the United States and Britain, the king sprinkled in some ever-so-subtle rebuttals to Mr. Trump. Charles spoke on Tuesday of the value of the trans-Atlantic alliance, the importance of checks and balances and his passion for the environment. He even spoke of his time in the Royal Navy, after Mr. Trump belittled British naval capabilities in recent weeks.

    The king tucked his rejoinders into a mostly lighthearted speech to Congress on Tuesday afternoon and during evening remarks at a formal banquet at the White House.

    What the Times neglects to mention is that the king says what the government tells him to say. He’s not there to chat about himself and his views, and he’s not free to say whatever he likes. We Yanks tend to forget this, because US presidents combine the ceremonial and the governing jobs into one office, which Trump’s presidency has revealed to be a very risky way to do things. Charles has no power to override or ignore Parliament, while the current PM does get to tell him what he can and can’t say.

    Trump is furious at Britain for its refusal to join the fight against Iran, and his administration continues to accuse the British government of denying free speech to conservative voices. In London, Prime Minister Keir Starmer vows not to be dragged into another war of America’s choosing, and bristles at the president’s description of Britain’s aircraft carriers as nothing more than “toys.”

    Those differences were never likely to be erased by the king’s first visit to the United States as the British monarch. By law and tradition, the king is supposed to rise above the disputes that often bedevil the leaders of both governments.

    There you go. They should have said that up front, because we tend to forget it. Charles has no real power; he’s there for ceremonial and public relations reasons, that’s all. Trump is falling for it, because of course he is, but he’ll also forget all about it the moment the royal plane is wheels up.

    Trump was a guest of the royal family for a state dinner at Windsor Castle in September, an experience he described as “one of the highest honors of my life.”

    Of course he did. He takes it seriously. He’ll forget about it tomorrow, but he also takes it seriously. He thinks royalty is still a real thing.

    He also drew a standing ovation during his speech to Congress when he spoke about how the concept of checks and balances in American government has its roots in English history. Mr. Trump has worked to significantly expand executive power.

    Charles said the U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society found that Magna Carta was cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, “not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances.”

    Zing. Well done, Prime Minister.

    He spoke of “the natural wonders” of the United States and “our shared responsibility to safeguard nature, our most precious and irreplaceable asset.” Charles is an avid environmentalist; Mr. Trump, by contrast, pulled out of the Paris agreement on climate change, making the United States the only country in the world to abandon the international commitment to slow global warming.

    Perhaps that part was Chuck’s idea and Starmer allowed it.

    While it was unclear whether the king’s appeal would be enough to mend the wounds in the trans-Atlantic relationship, Mr. Dickinson said the British were probably hoping the visit created a pathway to recovery.

    “That’s why the government values the royal family as a diplomatic ace in the hand,” he said. “It’s not a magic wand, but it helps.”

    Especially when it’s a Trump the government is trying to manage. It’s not a magic wand but Trump pretty much thinks it is.

  • He is satisfied

    Oh well, it’s just 48 women.

    A former neurologist accused of sexually assaulting 48 of his female patients has been acquitted.

    Justice Craig Parry ruled that he is satisfied there was a valid medical reason for examinations Jeffrey Sloka performed at his Kitchener clinic. The verdict comes nine years after the first complaints were made about the doctor to Ontario’s regulatory body, and following a four-and-a-half year criminal trial.

    The complainants in the case were all female patients who were seen at Sloka’s urgent neurology clinic between 2010 and 2017. In court, they described receiving vaginal exams, breast exams or exams of other intimate areas during appointments for neurological concerns.

    Sloka’s medical license was revoked in 2019 by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) after a no contest plea to the allegations laid out in a disciplinary hearing.

    A no contest plea, but he didn’t do it. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

    Parry largely rejected the expert testimony of Dr. Vera Bril, who told court in her opinion, the exams Sloka did aren’t typically done by neurologists.

    “Having considered Dr. Bril’s evidence in the context of the totality of the evidence, I have found it incapable of establishing that Dr. Sloka operated outside the permissible scope of his neurological practice,” Parry said.

    As for the women who testified, Parry said he found their evidence unreliable.

    Do we detect a pattern here? Male judge finds women unreliable? Male judge finds male doctor reliable? Surely it can’t possibly be that simple. Can it?

  • Lovely person and brilliant educator

    Hmm.

    Here, to refresh your memory, is Matt Rattley.

    Now here is someone explaining what a fine fella Matt Rattley is and someone else saying he has the nerve to look a bit unusual. Oddly enough they’re both men.

    Can he be a lovely person while openly mocking women the way he does?

    I don’t buy it. Yet again we go back to the thought experiments about blackface and the like. Would Joe Turner say Matt Rattley is a fine person despite the fact that he teaches students while wearing blackface?

    I doubt it. I can’t know, of course, but I doubt it. One reason: we see a lot of men defending visible contempt for women and we don’t see such a lot of men defending racist mockery. I don’t think that’s just random. I think it’s a strong clue that a hell of a lot of men just do not care about visible contempt for women.

    I can’t see Rattley’s joke breasts combined with rat’s nest beard as anything but a sustained show of disdain for women.

  • Wait who has the closed mind?

    Bad news:

    The University of Sussex has overturned a £585,000 fine from England’s higher education watchdog after the high court rejected claims that the university breached free speech regulations in a case involving a former professor.

    The ruling is a damaging blow to the credibility of the Office for Students as the court rejected the regulator’s lengthy investigation involving KathleenStock’s 2021 resignation,which came after protests over her views on transgender rights and gender identity.

    Mrs Justice Lieven found that the regulator’s decision was biased towards punishing Sussex as an example to other universities.

    So…it’s ok for universities to bully and punish professors for saying that sex is real?

    Lieven wrote that the OfS’s final decision to fine the university a record £585,000 “was vitiated by bias because the OfS approached the decision with a closed mind and had therefore unlawfully predetermined the decision”.

    Everyone’s mind should be so wide open that belief in magic changeable sex has plenty of room to move in. Belief that sex is not changeable however is not quite so welcome.

    Sasha Roseneil, the university’s vice-chancellor, greeted the outcome as vindication for her university, and said she was seeking an urgent meeting with Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, to discuss the ruling’s implications for England’s universities.

    Roseneil said: “We need a regulator that works with the sector, not against it – in the interests of the students of today and of the future. I stand ready to work with the government to find better ways to regulate and support universities in serving the public good.”

    Provided the public good embraces trans ideology, that is.

    “Meanwhile, I am delighted that Sussex’s foundational commitments to academic freedom and freedom of speech have been recognised by the high court, and that the OfS’s egregious decision against the university, and the fine it sought to impose, have been overturned.

    “The University of Sussex has a proud history of being the place where the most contentious issues of the day are aired – where independent-minded, critical thinkers develop their ideas, and where lively and engaged students work out how they understand the world.”

    Bullshit. Just ask Kathleen Stock.

    UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: ‘This ruling is a rebuke to the politicians who have wielded the OfS as a political cudgel in campus culture wars. The regulator has lost the trust of the sector, and there now needs to be a complete rethink from government over how it will work to protect higher education.”

    As if Jo Grady hasn’t wielded any political cudgels.

    This is really crap news.

  • This decision will bleach the halls of Congress

    Worst Ruling in a Century

    Wednesday’s 6-3 party line decision in Louisiana v. Callais will go down in history as one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century. All six Republican-appointed justices on the court signed onto Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion gutting what remained of the Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters, while pretending they were merely making technical tweaks to the Act.

    This decision will bleach the halls of Congress, state legislatures, and local bodies like city councils, by ending the protections of Section 2 of the Act, which had provided a pathway to assure that voters of color would have some rudimentary fair representation. It’s the culmination of the life’s work of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who have shown persistent resistance to the idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy, and a brazen willingness to reject Congress’s judgment that fair representation for minority voters sometimes requires race-conscious legislation. It gives the green light to further partisan gerrymandering. It protects Alito’s core constituency: aggrieved white Republican voters. It’s a disaster for American democracy.

    Other than that…

  • Opening the door for renewed voter suppression

    Terrible news.

    The Supreme Court on Wednesday weakened a landmark Civil Rights-era law that has increased minority representation in Congress and elsewhere, striking down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana and opening the door for more redistricting across the country that could aid Republican efforts to control the House.

    In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative majority found that Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

    “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six conservatives.

    It is unclear how much is left of the provision, known as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the main way to challenge racially discriminatory election practices.

    Not much, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for the three liberal justices. “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote.

    In a statement, Fields said the decision’s “practical effect is to make it far harder for minority communities to challenge redistricting maps that dilute their political voice.”

    The voting rights law succeeded in opening the ballot box to Black Americans and reducing persistent discrimination in voting. Nearly 70 of the 435 congressional districts are protected by Section 2, election law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos has estimated.

    Well we can’t have that.

    The chief justice has been at the center of the effort to limit the use of race in public life. He has had the Voting Rights Act in his sights since his time as a young lawyer in the Reagan-era Justice Department.

    “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race,” Roberts wrote in a dissenting opinion in 2006 in his first major voting rights case as chief justice.

    Well, yes, but since the sordid business did such a good job of favoring the pallid race for so long it is the lesser of two evils to correct the favoring until there is no longer a need to do so. We’re not there yet.

    In 2013, Roberts wrote for the majority in gutting the law’s requirement that states and local governments with a history of discrimination, mostly in the South, get approval before making any election-related changes.

    “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions,” Roberts wrote.

    Yes our country has changed but no the damage our country did before changing has not all been cleared away. Not even close.

  • Just a man who

    Jo Bartosch at Spiked:

    Oxford University biochemist Matt Rattley is the sort of man in a dress we are not supposed to snigger at. A tutor at the proudly inclusive St Hilda’s College, Oxford, he takes ‘bringing his whole self to work’ several cup sizes further, pairing a wispy beard and hulking frame with massive prosthetic plastic breasts. No one in his male-dominated department has publicly criticised his sexist sartorial choices, and he has been pictured and filmed at professional events looking as though he has wandered in from a stag do.

    Even if the blatant sexism didn’t bother them, you’d think the childishness would. No, Matt, we don’t do funny dress-up on the job, we’re supposed to be adults.

    Rattley doesn’t claim to be a woman. He is just a man who wears low-cut frocks and a huge rubber rack. The question is not about his identity, or even his motivations, but whether his choices infringe on others.

    There probably aren’t explicit rules about that kind of thing, because they are assumed, because adults are assumed to know tacit rules about how to behave around other adults. The fact that the rules are tacit doesn’t translate to it’s ok to ignore them. Tacit rules can be the worst to ignore.

    Dr Ace North is a biologist who has found himself on the wrong side of Oxford’s inclusion inquisition. Recently, he was hauled into a meeting with human resources and branded ‘hateful’ by senior staff after questioning what he saw as the department’s increasingly overt ideological signalling, from Progress Pride flag displays to a ‘gender unicorn’ poster in shared office space. Commenting on this double standard, he said of Rattley on X: ‘As an employee of the university, I feel grossly insulted that this is tolerated, even celebrated, yet even mild criticism of gender-identity ideology is shouted down. I can’t imagine how young women in his classes may feel.’

    Ultimately, a university is not a stage, nor a fetish club. It is a place of learning, where young people ought to be able to study without being forced to navigate someone else’s exhibitionism. Oxford’s problem is not that it attracts weirdos. It is that it has forgotten how to say no to them. Regrettably, it seems Matt Rattley will be at liberty to display his plastic tits until university officials find their ovaries.

    Or until they get tired of all the attention? Here’s hoping.

  • Trumpy go boom

    We’re getting younger and younger every day. Not in a good way.

    has issued an astonishing new threat against Iran, posting a mocked up picture of himself brandishing an assault rifle with the strapline: “No more Mr Nice Guy!”

    “Iran can’t get their act together,” the president wrote on Truth Social early Wednesday morning. “They don’t know how to sign a nonnuclear deal. They better get smart soon!”

    The threat was accompanied by a meme of Trump, stood against a Middle Eastern backdrop of explosions devastating a hillside, wearing a dark suit and sunglasses and holding the heavy-duty firearm.

    Macho man, when in reality he can’t even stand up straight, let alone hold a massive heavy firearm.

  • “He stole my rattle!”

    Stalinism MAGA-style.

    The Justice Department has secured a new indictment of James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, over a social media post, after a past indictment effort spurred by President Trump last year ended in failure, according to people familiar with the investigation.

    The new case represents another twist in the department’s tortured efforts to satisfy the demands of Mr. Trump to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Comey, a longtime target of the president’s wrath. The first indictment against Mr. Comey was thrown out by a judge.

    The new one is about the seashells that spelled out 86 84 blah blah blah next it will be he stole Trump’s brand new red wagon.

    By the way, of these two guys, Trump is the convicted felon.

  • Teeny brother

    Ewwwww

    The US will soon begin issuing passports featuring an image of President Donald Trump inside, a State Department official said Tuesday.

    The official said that the passport “will be the default passport out of the Washington Passport Agency when available” for those who renew their passports in person at that location.

    Well that’s a relief. At least it’s not every passport agency.

    Yet.

    The presence of Trump’s likeness in the US passports is the latest – and most significant – instance of his image being used for an item said to be commemorating the 250th anniversary of US independence. Unlike a commemorative coin or national park pass, a US passport is an internationally recognized form of identification that is typically valid for 10 years.

    It’s also something you have to have for international travel.

    The blatant vanity and greed for attention, including forced attention, is grotesque.

  • Good faith debate is it?

    Yeah yeah always line up with the men.

    Blah blah open dialogue blah good faith debate blah blah building bridges blah – get men together to tell women that men can be women and women need to shut up. How to have this open dialogue good faith debate to build bridges? Via two men who pretend to be women. Sheer genius!

    Got questions? Ask two men larping as women!

  • MuhJEStick

    In which Trump demonstrates that he sounds like a kid in first grade when he tries to read aloud. That’s how bad at reading he is. No wonder he’s all television and no books.

    Too bad that kingy fella was there to listen and cringe.

  • Slash those benefits

    Now they’re going after people with disabilities. Of course they are.

    Even a glance at Shy’tyra Burton’s life reveals her need for the sort of federal government assistance that helps disabled Americans stay in their homes. Born two months prematurely into a poor family in Philadelphia, unable to breathe or swallow without tubes and largely confined to medical facilities until age 4, Burton was diagnosed with a litany of developmental and intellectual disabilities that left her with an IQ below 70.

    She persevered and graduated from a high school special education program, then attempted community college. But she struggled to grasp basic tasks and information. She couldn’t get hired, including at McDonald’s. After multiple medical and psychological evaluations and a hearing before a judge, the federal government approved her for the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides a basic income to those with severe disabilities and to indigent older people.

    For Burton, now 22, the $994 monthly benefit is lifesaving but not enough to completely support herself on her own. So, like many SSI recipients, she has continued to live with her father, who makes around $2,000 a month as a Philadelphia sanitation worker.

    Now, President Donald Trump’s administration is poised to penalize people like Burton simply for living in the same home as their families, according to four federal officials, internal emails and a federal regulatory listing. The administration is working on a rule change that would deduct the value of a disabled adult’s bedroom from their SSI allotment, even if the family members they live with are poor enough to qualify for food stamps. This would mean slashing the benefits of some of the most low-income SSI recipients by up to a third — about $330 a month in Burton’s case — or ending their support altogether.

    Meanwhile garish gold-plated ballrooms for thieving cheating lying crooks spare no public expense.

    The effort to cut SSI for families who also rely on food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, was initiated by top White House and Department of Government Efficiency officials last year, multiple Social Security officials said. It marks a second attempt by the Trump administration to quietly but dramatically downsize disability benefit programs overseen by the Social Security Administration, despite those programs’ strict eligibility standards and minimal instances of fraud. 

    How dare disabled people get benefits when that money could go to more tawdry luxuries for the man from Queens?

    The likely SSI cut will affect not just younger adults with disabilities such as Down syndrome and severe autism who are still living at home with their low-income parents, but also older people with health or financial problems who have had to move in with their adult children on tight budgets. All told, as many as 400,000 poor and disabled people and indigent older people across the United States could have their support cut or eliminated, according to a ProPublica analysis of actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration.

    That’s a lot of money Trump and his goons can claw back to spend on gaudy monuments to Trump.

    For his part, Bisignano, the Social Security commissioner, wants to be seen as a leader who’s making the agency more businesslike and efficient, according to interviews with agency staff and recordings of him speaking in private executive meetings. But the SSI rule change, by all accounts, will increase the administrative burden not just on families like Burton’s but also on the staff who’ll have to constantly assess the living arrangements and family incomes of her and millions of other people.

    But Social Security isn’t supposed to be “businesslike.” Not everything has to be businesslike – in fact quite a lot of things need to be anything but businesslike. Parenthood for instance; family mutual support; care for people with disabilities and other intractable obstacles to profit-making; education; the arts; science; friendship. Not everything is about money. Money is an instrument; it’s not the music.

  • The very best

    The Guardian reports:

    Guardian Sport won two top prizes at the prestigious Sports Journalists’ Association’s awards evening on Monday.

    The Guardian won sports publisher of the year at the SJA British Sports Journalism Awards night while Jonathan Liew was named columnist of the year for the fifth time in eight years, as well as winning bronze in the football journalist of the year category. Suzanne Wrack won bronze in the women’s football journalist of the year and Andy Bull won bronze in the sports feature writer of the year (long form) category.

    Erm. Excuse me. Are we to understand that there is a prize for football journalist of the year and a prize for women’s football journalist of the year? As in, a prize for normal people and a prize for those pathetic feeble nitwits who can’t possibly ever win a prize unless the prize is restricted to pathetic feeble nitwits only?

    Meanwhile, Jonathan Liew is…not a big promoter of women’s sports.

    There are a great many objections of that kind…which the Guardian will continue to ignore. Women just don’t matter.