Starmer promises more forced teams

Jan 30th, 2024 9:36 am | By

Diva magazine gloats that Starmer is going to demolish all women’s rights:

Keir Starmer promised that a Labour Government would bring about major improvements to LGBTQIA rights at home and abroad in his speech at the LGBT+ Labour event in Parliament this evening (29 January). 

Can’t be done. Some of the claimed “rights” in that grab-bag cancel each other out. Lesbians’ right to say no to men, for example.

From modernising the Gender Recognition Act to banning so-called conversion “therapy”, the leader of the Labour Party drew on the Party’s long history with LGBTQIA rights to solidify his commitment to change. 

What long history? There hasn’t been any long history of LGBTQIA rights, because the ever-expanding forced teaming is a very recent development.

The leader of the Labour Party also lamented the actions of the Conservative Party, claiming that they have stoked “culture wars” and “pitted people against each other”.

You know what else has “pitted people against each other”? Forced teaming, that’s what. The more the starmers insist that the T belongs with the L and the G the more the L and the G push back. There’s your pitting.

Of course this stupid article never once spells out exactly what TQIA rights are.

Guest post: Plumbers would have done a better job

Jan 29th, 2024 4:55 pm | By

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Way too offspring-focused.

These offspring-focused risk-avoidance strategies are….

If someone else had written this, it would be considered satire. It’s certainly ludicrous when you translate it into other scenarios:

”These safe-landing focused risk-avoidance strategies are…not without potentially-harmful consequences for people who believe they are pilots.”

”These not-sinking focused risk-avoidance strategies are…not without potentially-harmful consequences for people who believe they are pilots.”

”These no-meltdown focused risk-avoidance strategies are…not without potentially-harmful consequences for people who believe they are nuclear power-plant engineers.”

Let’s look at this load of shite a little more closely.

These approaches reinscribe binarized notions of sex…

Well, sex isn’t “binarized”, it is binary. Its binary nature isn’t a “notion.” It isn’t being “reinscribed” it’s just there as a brute fact. The “experts’” inability to see or unwillingness to admit this should have precluded them from having any say at all on this issue. Nobody is filling in the blanks, or “overwriting” some other reality out of politically motivated spite and malice. Their jumping up and down, holding their breath until they turn blue won’t change that. Words don’t work that way, not even those coming from sociologists. Funny how they try to make it look like the position that conforms to the facts of material reality is the blinkered, unreasonable, ideological one. If someone is pregnant, that someone is female, however they “identify.” They’re speaking from how they would like biology to be, rather than from how it actually is. Stonewall biology anyone?

…resulting in social control in their attempts to safeguard against non-normative potential future outcomes for offspring.

And this is a bad thing if it impinges on the woman’s fantasy that she is male. It’s not “social control” that is transphobically insisting that wrong sex hormones are bad for the developing fetus; it’s just the way things are. It’s a real consequence of the choice TiFs make in pursuit of an impossible “identity.” (just as no longer being able to make the cut on men’s sports teams is a natural consequence of the TiM pursuit of a “female” identity.).If they really were men, they wouldn’t have this problem at all. The fact that they do have this complication, that they must make a decision around the “treatment” they’re insisting on, is simply emphasizing the fact that they are not male. More thorough treatment might have rendered them sterile, but that is a different thing. And as a passing thought, might it not be in society’s interests to reduce the number of birth defects in children? Might it not be in the child’s?

These offspring-focused risk-avoidance strategies and approaches are, we argue, part of the gendered precautionary labour of pregnancy and pregnancy care itself ….

The “labour of pregnancy” is determined by sex, and while there is likely always some degree of “precautionary” care involved that perforce falls to women alone, my understanding is that most women who choose to go through with their pregnancies are aware of this, and are prepared to do this for the health of their children. It is not a bad thing for women to behave in this fashion. A good part of pregnancy care is working towards the birth of a healthy baby. Certainly the health of the mother is vital too, not just as a mother-to-be, but as a person in her own right. Sometimes conflicts between the two will arise, and balances will be need to be struck, depending on the circumstances and consequences. But to disregard the needs of the fetus altogether in service of upholding a mistaken self-image is incredibly selfish. If you don’t want a child, get an abortion. If you do want a child, then take responsibility for it. That this will entail some degree of inconvenience, discomfort, sacrifice, and yes, danger, is a part of that choice. You can’t “Yes, but” your way out of it. It comes with the territory. Putting your unborn child in danger needlessly, for selfish and misguided reasons, is not a good idea, and not the best start at parenting one can imagine. Encouraging women to do this for ideological reasons of deluded “gender identity” isn’t really something to be proud of either.

…and not without potentially-harmful consequences for trans people.

I wouldn’t trust the sociologists’ determination of the “potentially harmful consequences” for trans people, given that they likely claim “misgendering” is “actual violence.” So on one side we have unwarranted threat inflation of unspecified “potential harm” being promoted by people who think calling a man a man, or a woman a woman, is to be ranked with GBH. What of the actual harmful consequences to the unborn child whose heath and well-being they are so cavalierly discounting?

Why was this “panel of experts” consulted at all on this matter? What have they contributed, apart from counselling selfish irresponsibility that aligns with their ideology? Do they also consult on matters of plumbing, or subatomic physics? They’d be equally qualified to do so, meaning not qualified at all. Going in the other direction, I’m sure plumbers would have done a better job,

Lower than a snake’s belly

Jan 29th, 2024 4:16 pm | By

Stephen Whittle really is an awful shit.

We’re supposed to think Helen Joyce is calling for trans people to be genocided, which of course is ludicrous. Telling people they hold a mistaken belief is not calling for them to be killed off.

Whittle in April last year:

Rape via deception

Jan 29th, 2024 10:16 am | By

Oh gawd. A new pit of hell opens.

They WHAT?????????

Don’t tell me, let me point out how obvious it is – they changed the rules to benefit men who call themselves women, at the expense of women, and they did their best to conceal the fact that they did so.

Useful background:

And finally the CPS itself September 2022:

The CPS is conducting a public consultation on a proposed revision to its legal guidance on Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO), specifically Chapter 6: Consent, the section on Deception as to Gender. The purpose of the consultation is to provide interested persons with an opportunity to provide comments and to ensure the final version of the guidance is informed by as wide a range of views as possible. The proposed revision may be accessed via the link above or in the sidebar/below, depending on your device.

The proposed revision is intended to provide guidance to prosecutors when dealing with cases in which deception as to gender is a live issue. In October 2020 the CPS published interim updated RASSO guidance which included a section on deception as to gender. This guidance was subject to public consultation and in May 2021 the final guidance was published. 

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on 1 May 2004. Section 74 of the Act defines consent as follows: “for the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice”.

Since the Act came in to force the Court of Appeal has considered the interpretation of section 74 in a number of cases. In the case of R v Justine McNally [2013] EWCA Crim 1051 the Court determined that “depending on the circumstances, deception as to gender can vitiate consent”. 

We know where this is going. Of course we do.

These cases involve complex and sensitive decision making. The main changes relate to the section on evidential considerations. This section now contains much more detailed guidance on how prosecutors should assess the evidence in these cases. The aim is to alert prosecutors to the various complexities of gender identity, so that they are properly considered, where relevant, to the issues in any case being reviewed. The guidance also sets out a three-staged approach that prosecutors should adopt when considering the question of deception as to gender. The guidance outlines questions that should be asked at each stage and relevant factors that should be considered.

Ah yes the various complexities of gender idenniny, like what to do when men use those “complexities” to trick women into consenting to sex.

The consultation seeks your views on the following questions:

  • Question 1: Do you think that the language used is appropriate and sensitive to the issues addressed? If not, please identify concerns and share how it can be improved.
  • Question 2: When considering the factors that are relevant to prove deception and lack of consent, does the guidance strike the right balance between recognising the rights of trans persons to live fully in their new gender identity and the need not to put an undue onus on complainants to discover or confirm the gender status of the suspect?

Is there in fact a “right” to live fully in a “gender identity” that is the opposite of one’s sex? So fully that it includes tricking people into having sex?

Absolutely shocking, as Dennis says.


Jan 29th, 2024 8:56 am | By

This is why the “LGBTQ+” label is so useful to the trans-enforcers: because it enables them to pretend that not believing trans ideology=hatred of lesbians and gay men.

Like that. Of course Maya isn’t doing any such thing, and he knows she isn’t, but he gets to pretend she is by using that stupid catch-all label. The T is nothing to do with the LG; the T is often the enemy of the LG.

One little letter forced into the initials that used to name lesbian and gay liberation now means we can’t ever separate the two because there are always manipulative venomous twerps like Thomas Willett mashing them back together.

Hatred of women is political ackshly

Jan 29th, 2024 8:03 am | By

Sex Matters writes to Network Rail about that 5 Guys display:

I didn’t know that Network Rail has a policy of no political advertising at its stations. What the HELL do they call that photo then? Five men and zero women standing in front of a giant phallus advertising trans ideology and various “queer” flags is not political advertising???

That Shane Andrews fella though – his account has vanished. Did he jump or was he pushed?

Way too offspring-focused

Jan 29th, 2024 3:20 am | By

Daily Mail (sorry) reports:

Pregnant transmen shouldn’t be pressured to stop taking testosterone despite the risks it poses to babies, researchers have controversially claimed in a Government-funded study.

Current maternity care guidance for transmen — biological women who identify as the opposite gender — recommends they stop hormone treatment in pregnancy. The NHS warns it could ‘affect the baby’s development’, with some studies linking exposure to the male sex hormone in the womb to genital abnormalities. 

Testosterone is listed as a ‘category X’ substance in pregnancy in the US because of the dangers it poses to a foetus. But a panel of experts, including three from Britain, said the current advice centres too heavily on preventing babies from developing birth defects. 

“Too” heavily. Yes really: what’s all this fuss about birth defects, anyway? It’s time to start queering birth and being inclusive of birth defects instead of trying not to have any.

Instead, the team — given a £500,000 grant by a subsidiary of Britain’s UK Research and Innovation to conduct research on trans male experiences — suggested NHS guidelines should be shifted to better support trans men to live out their gender identity. 

The three British experts were sociologists hailing from the universities of Sheffield, Westminster and Glasgow.

Oh that kind of “experts.” Not experts on medicine or cross-sex hormones or birth defects, but sociologists.

Writing in the journal SSM – Qualitative Research in Health, the researchers, which consisted of experts from the US, Australia and Italy, argued such concerns should take a backseat compared to the harms trans men might experience from not taking their hormones. 

‘Both patients and providers tend to pursue precautionary, offspring-focused treatment approaches,’ they wrote. ‘These approaches reinscribe binarized notions of sex, resulting in social control in their attempts to safeguard against non-normative potential future outcomes for offspring. These offspring-focused risk-avoidance strategies and approaches are, we argue, part of the gendered precautionary labour of pregnancy and pregnancy care itself, and not without potentially-harmful consequences for trans people.’ 

Jeeezus. “These offspring-focused risk-avoidance strategies” – that wins some kind of prize for smarty-pants callous trolling. I bet they high-fived each other for being so transgressive.

Oh jeez, we didn’t get it

Jan 28th, 2024 4:34 pm | By

The Open University says sorry.

Professor Tim Blackman, Vice-Chancellor of The Open University responds to the ruling:

This judgment made for difficult reading for all of us. In several areas we fell very short. We apologise unreservedly to Professor Phoenix for the hurt and distress this has caused.

This is not The Open University we want to be.

The University has supported and continues to support the work of the Gender Critical Research Network (GCRN) as part of the many important research activities that take place  at the OU. But our understanding of academic freedom and freedom of speech at the time meant we did not intervene about the open letter, statements and social media posts that followed the GCRN’s launch. The tribunal ruling makes it clear that we should have acted differently to address the impact of this reaction on Professor Phoenix and the working environment that she experienced.

That’s not very convincing.

The people in charge of the OU really didn’t grasp that an organized dedicated noisy campaign of bullying directed at one female professor by her colleagues would be, shall we say, unpleasant?

Come on. They can’t be that stupid.

Furthermore I don’t believe it was their understanding of academic freedom and freedom of speech at the time that “meant” they did not intervene. (Note the careful passivity of that impersonal “meant” – they didn’t do anything or fail to do anything, it’s just that their non-actions “meant” they…failed to do anything.) I think that’s a self-exonerating excuse. I think they didn’t want to intervene, because they didn’t want to be called names and shouted at either. Everyone is terrified to say boo about trans ideology, so terrified that they dress their terror up as somehow having a defective understanding of free speech.

Weasel words in short. The vice-chancellor is weasel-wording.

Update: forgot to h/t NightCrow


Jan 28th, 2024 11:43 am | By

The phobias are proliferating. Don’t be a proproliferator.

They seek him here, they seek him there

Jan 28th, 2024 11:34 am | By

Ok cool the next big thing is to stick Dennis rolling his eyes on all the absurdities. Hours of fun for the whole family.

Just kidding about the lesbians part

Jan 28th, 2024 9:23 am | By

Lesbians but not THOSE lesbians.

The conference was more than a year ago but still…this is interesting. The group or organization is called Lesbians Who Tech & Allies, and (of course) the people doing all the talking are not the lesbians but the “allies” aka appropriators.

About Lesbians Who Tech & Allies:


What are “LGBTQ women”? They can’t be G surely, nor can they be T. Why call them “LGBTQ women” at all, why not just stick with lesbians? Why start with “lesbians” and then immediately translate that to LGBTQ women?

And then, if it’s Lesbians who tech, why add non-binary and trans people? Why can’t lesbians have something for lesbians?

To Get More Women, POC, and Queer and Trans People in Technology

Right now, women are some of the most gifted folks in technology. Yet there are far fewer of than there should be: Women account for 1 in 5 people in STEM fields. (That stat is even lower for queer women.) Because there aren’t enough women, trans, and GNC people in tech, they are rarely quoted as experts by the mainstream media and blogs, serve on panels, and serve in high positions at top tech companies.

That’s interesting. There are far fewer women in tech than there should be, they say, and then immediately go on to dilute the “women” part by adding lots of kinds of people who aren’t women.

Whatever. Don’t worry. We call it “Lesbians and” but it’s really not for lesbians. That would be silly.

Do I Have to Be a Lesbian to Join?

No — One of the best things about our community is its diversity. Our 100,000 members are LGBTQ women, non-binary, trans, and gender nonconforming. We also have many other intersecting identities when it comes to race, ethnicity, ability, age, and more. We work together to promote the visibility and inclusion of women, queer people, and others from other backgrounds underrepresented in technology. If you work to move this mission forward, we want you on our team. We welcome allies.

See? It’s really not about lesbians or women at all. They’re just window-dressing.

A “burn the witch” ideology

Jan 27th, 2024 4:09 pm | By

Gwyneth Rees at the Telegraph talks to Jo Phoenix:

She explains how the gender critical research network, which launched in June 2021 with just a handful of people, initially had the backing of OU. Prof Phoenix and her fellow lead, Prof Jon Pike, promoted it with a podcast and interest poured in from academics across the world. It was, she says, one of the proudest moments of her life

But then, less than 24 hours after its launch, trans activists got wind of the project and the “onslaught began”. She admits now that she was terribly naive: “I thought I was protected because I was a senior professor.”

I don’t call that naïve. The level of bullying and backstabbing that goes with being a “trans ally” is astounding. Remember when feminism was reawakened back in the 1970s and everyone who resisted was hounded out of careers and friendships? No, of course you don’t, because it didn’t happen. Why has it happened, and with such intensity, over the nonsense of trans ideology? I have no idea; I’ll never understand it. It’s not naïve to find it incomprehensible.

She had, in fact, already been drawing attention to herself for her views. In October 2018, she was one of 54 academics who signed an open letter to the Guardian voicing concern over the stifling of gender-critical research at universities.

Five months later, in March 2019, Prof Phoenix gave a talk for Woman’s Place UK where she said she did not believe trans women were women.

Both of these incidents led to fierce backlash – online and in person – from colleagues, students and trans activists. A criminology talk she had been scheduled to give at Essex University in December 2019 was cancelled at the last minute, after protesters labelled her a transphobe and the university said it couldn’t guarantee her safety.

“I spent two years being silenced, ostracised and isolated,” she says. “Colleagues and trans activists were sending emails to my dean asking for me to be removed.”

All because she knows that men are not women.

I suppose that’s why the bullying is so off the charts. It’s because the thing the bullying is defending is so utterly stupid. The bullies compensate for the childish belief system by pouring on the venom and acid.

Prof Phoenix was particularly hurt when 368 of her OU colleagues signed an open letter against her, accusing the network – and by association, her – of being transphobic. One colleague likened her to a “racist uncle”, another compared to a holocaust denier.

Pointedly, she tells me that the university never protected her, not once putting out a statement to clarify her work was valid research. “I always wanted to work for OU. They were set up to break down barriers, and with women in mind. I took a huge pay cut to move there. I have been heartbroken that it came to this.”

The Open University stopped being Open.

Fast forward to today, and she has been almost totally vindicated. This week, the tribunal judgment upheld 20 out of 22 claims against the university. It also made it clear that their discrimination against Prof Phoenix was motivated by a “fear of the pro-gender-identity section” of the university.

So not belief in the ideology, but fear of the ideologues. What an excellent situation for a university to be in.

She feels the attacks on her and other academics are nothing other than “good old-fashioned sexism” – a “burn the witch” ideology against women speaking up for female rights.

That’s exactly what it is, and it’s women carrying some of the torches. “Burn her, not me.”

Her life has, thankfully, moved on. She is now deputy head of the school of law at Reading University, which she credits for being her “safe harbour”.

As for the network, “It’s limping on,” she says, adding: “There is a chance I will set up a new gender critical research network… so watch this space.

“But that’s what this ruling does – allows researchers to know they can go about their work freely, and if they are attacked or harassed, the universities have to protect them or face the consequences.


Guest post: 200 metric tonnes per day as a minimum

Jan 27th, 2024 12:50 pm | By

Originally a comment by Freeminder on 24% more energy efficient than required.

For a ship this big, I’d expect to see a fuel usage of 200 metric tonnes per day as a minimum. Constantly running generators, for propulsion and electricity needs, would take some serious usage. Wonder how much generating ‘reserve’ capacity the ship has, if maxed out with crew and passengers?

And when does the cruise ship market say “That’s big enough” and “We have enough”? One of these things arriving in a small harbour would feel like an invasion. My other concerns are safety (what if this one sinks or is ablaze, can they evacuate in time?) and security (potentially 9,950 people on board makes it a very tempting target). Despite all the modern navigation and safety aids, no ship is unsinkable. The wakes from these ships moving at speed can be incredible and are banned from approaching certain places unless at walking speed.

For most of the crew, the ship would be a floating hotel. For the bridge crew and engineers it is a mobile town.

There are two more of the same class being built. Will another company try upping the size record with their order? Instead of fastest, will tonnage/passenger capacity be the new Blue Riband? I am very glad not to be at sea any more. Bigger is not always better.

24% more energy efficient than required

Jan 27th, 2024 10:42 am | By

The Beeb answers some of those questions.

The 365m-long (1,197 ft) Icon of the Seas has 20 decks, and can house a maximum of 7,600 passengers on board. It is owned by Royal Caribbean Group. The vessel is going on a seven-day island-hopping voyage in the tropics.

But environmentalists warn that the liquefied natural gas-powered ship will leak harmful methane into the air. “It’s a step in the wrong direction,” Bryan Comer, director of the Marine Programme at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency. “We would estimate that using LNG as a marine fuel emits over 120% more life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than marine gas oil,” he said.

Yebbut all those people get to go island-hopping.

A powerful greenhouse gas, methane in the atmosphere traps 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide over 20 years. Cutting these emissions is seen as crucial to slowing down global warming.

A Royal Caribbean spokesperson is quoted by media outlets as saying that Icon of the Seas is 24% more energy efficient than required [by] the International Maritime Organization for modern ships. The company plans to introduce a net-zero ship by 2035.

That’s like saying our recreational torching of your house will take longer to burn it to the ground than a different and worse form of torching would take.

Biggest evarrrrr

Jan 27th, 2024 10:32 am | By

Ah yes, very good, the world melts and fries and burns thanks to global warming so the thing to do is keep building bigger cruise ships.

The world’s largest cruise ship is set to begin its maiden voyage Saturday as it gets underway from the Port of Miami.

Royal Caribbean’s Icon of the Seas, which runs nearly 1,200 feet from bow to stern, is leaving South Florida for its first seven-day island-hopping voyage through the tropics.

Great. Fabulous. It’s definitely worth speeding up warming that little bit for the sake of taking tourists “island-hopping” for a week.

“Icon of the Seas is the culmination of more than 50 years of dreaming, innovating and living our mission – to deliver the world’s best vacation experiences responsibly,” Royal Caribbean Group President and CEO Jason Liberty said earlier this week.

Responsibly? Where’s the responsibly in this situation?

The Icon of the Seas is divided into eight neighborhoods across 20 decks. The ship includes six waterslides, seven swimming pools, an ice-skating rink, a theater and more than 40 restaurants, bars and lounges. The ship can carry up to 7,600 passengers at maximum capacity, along with 2,350 crew members.

How much fuel does it use? How much carbon does it add?

Cruising is surging in popularity. Last year, passenger volume outpaced pre-pandemic numbers, and this year is expected to hit a new high of 36 million as spending on experiences has climbed 65% since 2019.

People enthusiastically eliminating their children’s futures.

Hefty, raucous, acrimonious

Jan 27th, 2024 7:09 am | By

Law boffins say Trump’s showy rudeness in court probably influenced the jury to give him a sharp shock.

A federal jury saddled former President Donald Trump with a hefty $83.3 million decision in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation trial against him on Friday, closing the curtain on a raucous week-and-a-half of acrimonious legal proceedings.

The jury deliberated for under three hours before delivering their verdict, which included $18.8 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages for Carroll.

The significant sum comes after Trump displayed a brazen lack of legal decorum throughout the duration of the trial, repeatedly railing against Carroll online and going head-to-head with US District Judge Lewis Kaplan during his much-anticipated but ultimately brief testimony.

Dialing the rudeness up to a million has worked for him in way too many ways, but not in this one. It failed to persuade the jury to minimize the payout.

Trump and his legal team’s behavior made what was already a difficult defense nearly impossible for the former president, John Jones, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania, told Business Insider.

That’s former federal judge John Jones who ruled in the Kitzmiller v Dover case back in 2005. He’s a star.

“When lawyers and litigants run roughshod over a judge or disregard his admonitions, juries don’t like that,” said Jones, who is now the president of Dickinson College.

Juries tend to grow attached to their presiding trial judge, Jones said, adding that they often come to see the judge as a protector of sorts. Thus, Trump and Habba’s apparent disregard for Kaplan during the trial likely didn’t go unnoticed by the jury.

And likely didn’t endear the vicious shouty toad to the jury.

Legal experts said the $83.3 million total in damages will be a significant hit to the former president’s finances — and Trump is almost certainly on the hook to pay all or most of it.

Let’s hope so.

It’s All Lives Matter Holocaust Memorial Day

Jan 27th, 2024 6:32 am | By

Et tu National Secular Society?

Seriously? All Lives Matter on Holocaust Memorial Day?

The name “Holocaust” is specific to the genocide of six million Jews.

It’s not a good look to hide the genocide of six million Jews on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Stinging and expensive

Jan 26th, 2024 5:17 pm | By

88 million bucks.

A jury awarded $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll on Friday in a stinging and expensive rebuke to former President Donald Trump for his continued social media attacks against the longtime advice columnist over her claims that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store.

The award, when coupled with a $5 million sexual assault and defamation verdict last year from another jury in a case brought by Carroll, raised to $88.3 million what Trump must pay her. Protesting vigorously, he said he would appeal.

“Vigorously” is one word for it. I can think of others.

Carroll’s attorneys had requested $24 million in compensatory damages and “an unusually high punitive award.” The jury awarded $18.3 million in compensatory damages and another $65 million in punitive damages — meant to deter future behavior.

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, urged jurors in her closing argument Friday to punish Trump enough that he would stop a steady stream of public statements smearing Carroll as a liar and a “whack job.”

Will he stop? I really doubt it.

Zero bollocks

Jan 26th, 2024 3:40 pm | By

Remember the recent outrage about Munroe Bergdorf’s appointment as a UN Women UK champion?

Mr Menno does.

No free speech forum for you!

Jan 26th, 2024 3:17 pm | By

Well if you decide you dislike someone and want to make sure she isn’t allowed to speak, the thing to do is just tell one brazen lie after another. That’ll fix it.

Hi Jacqui,

Let’s shut up those pesky women by telling a stream of lies about them.

Love ya,

Rodney Croome