Category: Notes and Comment Blog

Man insults men by calling them women. Thanks, man! That’s very good and helpful for women!

It turns out lots of men like to do the mass rape of drugged women thing.

Criminal investigators in the UK say they have uncovered a “truly international network” of organised drug-facilitated sexual assault in which victims are sedated before being raped and sexually assaulted.

The National Crime Agency [NCA] has said online networks, “many as yet unidentified by law enforcement”, were allowing offenders to arrange to rape and abuse victims or arrange for sexual assaults to be filmed.

In many cases, these crimes were being perpetrated by those who “utilise the existence of committed, trusting and often long-term relationships to perpetrate and facilitate offending”, the agency said, giving the example of the high-profile Gisèle Pelicot case in France.

I can’t help noticing that the Guardian doesn’t mention that it’s men doing this. Maybe the Guardian would say that’s because it’s obvious, not least for the obvious physical reasons? But in journalism nothing is obvious. The elephant in the sex dungeon has to be mentioned.

Since it began investigating an online forum in October last year, the NCA has identified more than 270 individuals linked to that forum and its successors.

Nigel Leary, the NCA’s deputy director, said it had disseminated more than 210 “intelligence packages” relating to suspects and potential victims to law enforcement partners in the UK and overseas, with more than 90% of those being sent abroad.

…

“We’ve seen users actively engaging with other like-minded individuals discussing in graphic detail how they want to drug their victims to commit the most heinous sexual abuse,” Leary said.

“Discussions include inviting other people to take part in the sexual assaults, seeking advice on the best drugs or sedatives to use and how to administer them, asking for specific abuse to be conducted and filmed, and also coordinating offending, arranging to rape and abuse victims, sharing methodologies and developing tactics to avoid detection.

“In many of the cases we’ve seen so far, individuals have become victims of sexual assault crimes while sedated,” he said, adding that people may not even be aware it had happened.

There is such anxious care to avoid the words “men” and “women” that the language becomes contorted. Users, like-minded individuals, people, victims, people.

Helen Millichap, the director of the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection, said “organised drug-facilitated sexual assault represents a serious and evolving threat”.

She said the offending was “rooted in domestic abuse, controlling and coercive behaviour and sexual offending”. While these crimes were “certainly not new”, she said, “the evolving profile reveals how the online and connected nature of the abuse is occurring, the dimensions are changing and therefore so must our response”.

She said that many people affected might not know they had been a victim until they were contacted by the police or saw digital evidence. “We recognise how confusing and distressing that could be, particularly where the person responsible is somebody known and trusted,” she said.

The Guardian even manipulates her language so that she doesn’t say “many women affected” or “the man responsible is someone known and trusted”. I wonder if they just plain changed her actual wording. They couldn’t change the name of her organization, but everything else appears sanitized. I suspect they did in fact change her wording. The question is: why?

Euan Weddell wants to be left alone, and that’s why he tells us all where he’s going and what he’ll be doing there.

The post he “had to” delete was presumably the one with a photo of him beaming gormlessly on the train to London to chat with the Good Law Project aka Jolyon Maugham. If he wanted it to be a secret that he was going to London to chat with the GLP then why did he post that photo on TwitX?

Talk about brazen…

Investment accounts owned by President Donald Trump engaged in more than 300 previously undisclosed stock purchases on April 8, 2025, one day ahead of his surprise announcement that he would pause a number of his “Liberation Day” tariffs, according to Trump’s annual financial disclosure report.

That’s about as insider as insider trading can get. Inside one person: himself.

The president has consistently denied that his private sector ventures pose a conflict of interest with his role as president, even as he and his family have plunged into a wide variety of businesses that have reaped billions of dollars in returns for them.

Trump consistently says whatever he feels like saying. He’s a chronic, prolific liar. What he denies or doesn’t deny is so much dandelion fluff.

This from Jamie Raskin underlines the caliber of people we have running the government:

Liz Oyer, former Pardon Attorney, describes how Todd Blanche fired her when she refused to do a dangerous official favor for Trump friend Mel Gibson. The actor lost his federal firearm rights after committing domestic violence. Gibson assaulted his girlfriend while she was holding their baby daughter, smashing her in the mouth, breaking her teeth, threatening her with his gun. Gibson asked Trump’s DOJ to reinstate his federal firearm rights despite his criminal conviction. Although Blanche had the power to do it on his own, he tried to force Oyer to give her stamp of approval. Not convinced of Gibson’s rehabilitation or his lack of dangerousness, and knowing that over half of women murdered in the United States are killed by a current or past intimate partner, and the presence of firearms in an abusive household increases the risk of murder by 500%, Oyer refused to have anything to do with Blanche’s dangerous and unethical suggestion. Blanche sacked her.

We live in a sewer.

He has nothing more important to do?

In a post on Truth Social, the president shared a 90-second AI-generated clip between two White House clips touting his successes and showing off the new Air Force One jet acquired from Qatar.

Not so much “acquired from Qatar” as corruptly donated by Qatar. It’s what the professionals call a massive bribe. He’s not actually allowed to accept bribes.

The clip, posted shortly before midnight, depicts the president as a doctor dressed in a white lab coat as a deepfake voice mimicking Trump asks, “Have you or someone you know been diagnosed with TDS?”

Hur hur, geddit? If you understand that Trump is a brainless corrupt malevolent sack of shit you’re deranged.

The AI-generated Trump then identifies as a doctor, claims he has a “treatment plan” and before playing clips of his supposed “patients,” represented by deepfakes of prominent celebrity critics.

The video shows several prominent critics of the president, including talk show hosts and comedians Whoopi Goldberg and Rosie O’Donnell, actors Robert De Niro, Julia Roberts, Edward Norton, and John Leguizamo.

All burbling about how happy they are to be cured of realizing that Trump is a deeply stupid narcissist and grifter.

Elie Mystal at The Nation talks the usual stale point-missing drivel.

I’ve come to understand that advocating for the fundamental humanity, dignity, and equality of transgender people, especially transgender women, is a controversial stance. I realize that there are a lot of people who otherwise support legal and social equality think that there must be some way to carve transgender people out of our society and place them off to the side, with a diminished suite of rights and privileges. 

No, that’s wrong. Of course it’s wrong. The reality is the other way around: trans ideology has invented a new and fictitious suite of rights and privileges.

These people are wrong. Bigotry must be fought everywhere and at all times. 

But “these people” don’t exist, because we don’t have the thoughts you claim we do. Your argument depends on the giant strawman that gender atheists think trans people should have no rights. If you can’t make your case without lying, your case should be dismissed.

It’s not “bigotry” to know that men are not women.

Put another way, the court ruled that transgender women and girls have no constitutional right to equality. It is a disgusting ruling.

And it’s not just about sports. It’s about whether transgender women and girls have the same rights as everybody else. It’s about whether they have the same rights as cis people, and about whether they have the same rights as transgender men. And the court said “no.”

None of that is true. “Cis” people don’t have a right to play on the opposite sex team. If you can’t make your case without lying, your case should be dismissed.

Prohibiting trans women from participating in sports is discrimination on the basis of gender norms, something that is also not allowed under Title IX. 

No it isn’t. Furthermore, the issue is not prohibiting men who claim to be trans from participating in sports, it’s prohibiting them from participating in women’s sports. They can go right on participating in men’s sports.

If you can’t make your case without lying…

Sir, that’s not the issue.

Nobody is saying trans people don’t have a “right to exist”.

The issue is not existence, it’s trans ideology. People who claim to be the sex they’re not exist, but they’re wrong (or lying) about themselves.

This isn’t a particularly odd or extreme claim. People are often wrong about themselves.

Of course people who claim to be trans have the “right to exist” but it doesn’t follow that they have the right to force us all to agree that they are the sex they are not.

Pretending their “right to exist” is contested is typical of the manipulative bullshit that gender ideology is drowning in.

Trump’s lawsuit may bite him in the ass.

In defending against Donald Trump’s defamation claim, the BBC has demanded extensive records from November 2020 to January 2021, including phone logs, schedules, and diaries. The broadcaster also wants names of everyone Trump communicated with regarding the ‘Stop the Steal’ rally and Capitol riot. 

…

Trump’s lawsuit, filed in December 2025, alleges that a Panorama episode spliced two separate remarks to create the impression he directly urged violence on January 6, omitting his call for peaceful protest. The BBC apologised for the edit, calling it an ‘error of judgment’, but denied defamation and refused compensation. The fallout led to high-profile resignations at the BBC and triggered a claim for £7.5 billion in damages under defamation and deceptive trade practices laws.

The BBC is seeking to have the case dismissed, arguing that the Miami court lacks jurisdiction since the programme was neither produced nor broadcast in Florida or the US. Its lawyers also contend Trump cannot show harm given his re-election and strong Florida win after the broadcast. Press freedom groups have labelled the suit a potential SLAPP case, noting the high ‘actual malice’ standard Trump must meet to succeed. 

Legal commentators note that Trump’s lawsuit risks exposing him to the very scrutiny he has long tried to avoid, with the BBC’s discovery requests potentially opening a window into his actions around January 6. This dynamic is a common pitfall in defamation cases, where plaintiffs’ conduct becomes subject to examination. Whether the court grants the BBC’s requests will determine if Trump must disclose records he has fought to keep private.

Please please please please please make it happen.

He shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

A trans woman was forcibly removed from a female-only nudist lido by police after refusing to leave.

They were ejected from the “Paradiesli” nude section of the Marzili lido in Bern on Sunday after complaints from other swimmers that they did not appear biologically female.

After two female swimmers said they felt harassed by the presence of the bather, some visitors began challenging the trans woman’s presence at the popular swimming spot and asking them to leave.

He, he, him. A man doesn’t become plural when he claims to be a woman. Using a plural pronoun just makes the reporting unclear and confusing.

When police arrived, the bather was pushed to the ground with “rough physical force”, handcuffed and taken away, supporters said.

Could that possibly be because he resisted arrest or refused to leave? I don’t know, but I’m guessing the police didn’t push him to the ground just for the hell of it.

The swimmer was held at a police station for about two hours, while a crowd of supporters rallied outside in a city square, Swiss Info reported.

The trans woman then spent the night in a hospital, with sources close to them calling the police operation “disproportionate” and resulting in bruises on their body.

The force said the bather actively resisted officers and refused after repeated requests to leave the female-only area.

Well there you go. If naked guy doesn’t want to get pushed to the ground, naked guy should leave when the cops tell him to leave.

Bern has now apologised and criticised the police after pointing out that the person concerned met access requirements under Switzerland’s self-identification rules.

The city said in a statement that the decision to remove the trans bather “turned out to be wrong in hindsight”.

It said the bathing company “mistakenly opted for a police-ordered removal of the trans woman. The tense atmosphere led to this misjudgment of the situation.”

The city said it “expressly regrets this decision and apologises to the woman affected… All individuals who identify as women and live as such have access to the voluntary nudist area.”

So for the billionth time the bro wins and women lose. Thanks, city of Bern.

No corruption here, no siree.

As President Donald Trump boarded his inaugural flight on the new Air Force One, a luxury jet donated by the government of Qatar, he shared his excitement for the new aircraft and its foreign builders, saying the US “couldn’t build a plane like this.”

Sir sir sir are you aware that you’re not supposed to accept bribes?

“I’m excited about the first flight,” he told reporters ahead of his trip to North Dakota on Wednesday for an America 250 celebration.

Sir sir sir you’re not allowed to accept bribes.

The new jet, an unconditional gift estimated to be worth about $400 million, has generated legal, ethical and national security questions. 

Just slightly.

Trump, who is expected to use the jet until a new US-built aircraft is finished in about two years, said there has “never been a plane like it.”

“Frankly, we couldn’t build a plane like this because we wouldn’t be willing to spend the kind of money necessary. They spent top dollars,” he said of the Qataris.

Yes, sir, and that’s called a bribe. It’s corrupt. It’s illegal. It’s not allowed. You’re not supposed to be doing it. Bragging about it in public doesn’t make it legal.

Sigh.

Meaning what? It’s singling out, and targeting, and harming people who claim to be the other sex to prevent male people from taking women’s sports and prizes and jobs?

No. Of course it’s not. Men remain men however they idennify, and they don’t get to take women’s sports and prizes and jobs.

It’s the biggest con job in the world to convince women that we should be cheering on men who are determined to take women’s sports and prizes and jobs.

Well done, FWS.

For Women Scotland has won another important victory against the Scottish Government, forcing it to finally remove all trans-identifying men from the women’s prison estate.

The Scottish Prison Service policy had been that trans-identifying male prisoners who had not committed violent, harassing or threatening crimes against women did not generally pose “an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women’s estates” [paragraph 11 of the judgment]. Trans-identifying men who had been convicted of a violent crime against women in the past could be placed in a women’s prison based on an individual risk assessment. 

Ridiculous, isn’t it. Let’s house women with tigers and rely on individual risk assessment to weed out the tigers too likely to act like tigers.

The Scottish Government had refused to change this policy even after the Supreme Court made clear that “sex”, “woman” and “man” mean, and were always intended to refer to, biological sex, and that single-sex services are based on sex. 

Truly obstinate deep-seated hatred of women.

Spot the irony.

Says the magazine that calls itself “Mother Jones” – not Father Jones, not Trans-mother Jones, not Non-binary Jones, not Parent Jones, but MOTHER Jones.

BBC version also bad, of course.

They’re not women. They’re men who claim to be transgender – there’s no way of verifying, of course, because it’s all in the mind. How convenient. Can I idennify as Elon Musk and have all his money?

The point of course is to put the poor darling oppressed persecuted helpless men who claim to be women front and center, and demote the women who want their rights back to a shadowy afterthought. That’s always the point.

However, the substance (as opposed to the headline) of the BBC version is more truthy than usual.

More than two dozen states have enacted bans since Idaho did so in 2020.

Under those bans, a transgender woman – a biological male who identifies as a woman – is not permitted to compete in female sports at schools and colleges.

Welp, there it is. A biological male is not permitted to compete in female sports. No shit, Sherlock. Female sports=female sports.

What a disgusting way of putting it.

It’s not any kind of blow to lesbian rights or gay rights or bisexual rights. It’s also not a blow to trans rights, because trans rights don’t mean men can play in women’s sports. Men don’t have any right to play in women’s sports, no matter how they “identify”.

The news article is just as bad and there’s more of it.

WASHINGTON — Delivering another major blow to LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld state laws that ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports.

Go to hell, NBC News. Why do you put the putative rights of trans people ahead of those of girls and women? Why do you put the highly contested “rights” of men who claim to be women ahead of those of girls and women? Why do you frame men who claim to be women as massively important and women as trivial spiteful nothings? Why do you buy into this abusive grotesque ass-backward framing?

I don’t suppose we’ll ever know.

Interesting conversation.

Kristof’s full reply:

Elon, I can give you many, many names of people who have died because of your aid cuts.:

*Yamah Freeman was a 23-year-old woman who died in childbirth because you stopped paying for the diesel for ambulances in her part of Liberia. I talked to her parents and sister in their village.

*Gbessey Kiadu, age 1, died of malaria because of your cuts in Liberia. I talked to his mom in her village.

*Ibrahim Koroma, an infant, died of AIDS in Sierra Leone after you interrupted HIV supplies. I talked to health workers who cared for him.

*Achol Deng was an 8-year-old girl with HIV in South Sudan who died when you cut funding for the health care worker who provided her medicines. I talked to him.

I could go on and on. In almost every village you go to in South Sudan, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone or other countries I reported in, you find people dying because of aid cuts. I challenge you: Come with me on a reporting trip, and we’ll talk to these moms and dads, and you’ll see the dying children themselves. I think if you see the kids whose lives are at stake, maybe you’ll change your mind.

That last sentence is very generous to Musk. I don’t think anything will change his mind.

You do the math.

Weirdness from New Zealand.

New Zealand First is celebrating the opportunity to ask MPs “What is a Woman?”. What would its proposed law change achieve?

A New Zealand First MP’s bill aims to clearly define men and women according to their biological sex – but legal experts say its potential impact is being overstated.

Wut?

New Zealand needs a bill to define what women and men are? Don’t we already know? By “we” I mean people, people in general, people over the age of 2.

The proposed law change would define woman as “adult human biological female” and man as “adult human biological male” in the Legislation Act – meaning all laws and regulations which contained these words would be seen through the lens of the new definition.

Um. The new definition? It’s new? Really? What is the old definition? How long has it been the definition? What’s the source of the old definition – the one that’s not human biological female?

Stuff sought an interview with the bill’s sponsor, Jenny Marcroft, but was told she was “unavailable for comment”.

Supporters of her bill said it was focused on the safety of women in schools, changing rooms, sports and prisons.

Lawyers who had reviewed the draft legislation said it was questionable whether it would achieve those goals.

Barrister Graeme Edgeler said that if the bill passed in its current form, it would have little practical effect.

“Laws you might expect to be affected, for example rules around sex discrimination under the Human Rights Act, just don’t use any of the words the bill actually proposes to define. Nor, for the last 20 years or so, do criminal laws around rape.”

Erm – what? Criminal laws around rape don’t define women as human biological females? What do they define them as then?

Edgeler noted that the Human Rights Act already permitted sex-segregated facilities and sex-differentiated sports in New Zealand. “But none of these rules have anything do with the definition of man or woman or male or female.”

Well then what do these rules mean by sex-segregated facilities and sex-differentiated sports?

In a legal analysis published last year, public and human rights lawyer Matt McKillop asked whether the bill was a “solution looking for a problem”.

He considered whether concerns about trans women having access to women’s refuges, bathrooms, prisons and sports teams required law changes which clarified language around sex and gender.

“I conclude not,” he wrote in Law News. “New Zealand law already permits services or facilities for women in most of these circumstances based on biological sex. The bill would therefore not affect the legal position in those commonly cited circumstances where women might have reasonable concerns about safety and privacy.”

What? The law recognizes biological sex therefore we should shut up about biological sex? That makes no sense.

My head hurts.

H/t Rob

Musk is angry.

Elon Musk—showing increasing anger over allegations the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development by his short-lived Department of Government Efficiency had fatal consequences—lashed out at critics on the social platform he owns, even as a number of studies support those claims.

Musk, in a post on X on Sunday, claimed those who say DOGE’s USAID cuts resulted in deaths “cannot cite a single name of someone who died out of the ‘millions’ they falsely claim have died. Not a single name!”

They probably can’t describe what clothes they were wearing, either, but how does that change anything?

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who last year identified specific people he says died after USAID-backed services were disrupted, quickly responded with the names of four he said died because of the cuts, including an 8-year-old girl, and suggested the world’s richest person travel to Africa with him to “talk to these moms and dads, and you’ll see the dying children themselves.”

But he doesn’t want to see them, he wants to keep saying they don’t exist.

Musk has disputed claims the USAID cuts caused deaths multiple times over the last year: In March 2025, Musk argued “no one has died as a result of a brief pause to do a sanity check on foreign aid funding”…

So he knows for sure that no one has died as a result of what he says is a brief pause in funding for food programs?

I really really really doubt that he knows that.