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

Mr Menno does.

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

From the NY Times live reporting of the Carroll-Trump matter:

Carroll’s brand before 2019 was that of a respected columnist, Crowley says. Let’s talk about [the] Trump brand, she tells the jury: “What could be more on brand for Donald Trump than malice?”

This is what I’m saying.

I for one can’t think of anything else like it. People with mean streaks sure; people who play dirty, who are ruthless, who do damage, yes, but not people who are constantly energetically noisily mean and rude and sadistic and insulting. People who have nothing but venom and contempt toward everyone but the Self. People who are never embarrassed or ashamed to carry on that way in public. And this is the guy who is so popular with The People that he’s all too likely to return to destroy what’s left.

From NY Times live coverage of the Trump defamation trial:

Michael Madaio, Trump’s lawyer, objects when Crowley [Carrol’s lawyer] accuses Trump of defaming her. Judge Kaplan asks why. “Defamatory,” Madaio says, objecting to the use of the word even though a jury in May found she had been defamed. Judge Kaplan overrules him.

That’s bold. Trump lawyer says it’s defamtory to say that Trump is defamatory even though a jury found he was defamatory just a few months ago.

In addition to that, of course, one could make a good case that defamatory is what Trump is – not just what he does now and then, but what he is. He’s a dedicated full-time defamer; he defames people any time his mouth is not full of cheeseburger. Defaming people is his life, his talent, his raison d’être. He loves talking shit about people; he loves it the way a dog loves chasing the ball. He’s a mean bastard all the way down.

Cozying up to Erdoğan:

The Turkish government paid for the wife of the First Minister to attend a summit in Istanbul, according to the Scottish Government’s latest list of ministers’ interests.

Nadia El-Nakla and an SNP press officer attended Emine Erdoğan’s “United for Peace in Palestine” conference on November 15, following an invitation from the Turkish consulate in Edinburgh.

…

Earlier this month it emerged that Turkey had given Mr Yousaf’s in-laws short-term refugee status to help them escape Gaza.

Last week, The Herald revealed that the First Minister had invited Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Scotland when the two men met at COP28 in December.

What’s next? A camping trip with Putin?

Sigh.

It’s not a “belief.” It’s a fact. An ordinary humdrum fact. Nobody has to waste any energy “believing” it; it’s just there. Of course humans “exist in two sexes.” If they didn’t there would be no Stephen Whittle saying they don’t.

What is “acting on your belief” that there are two sexes? What does that mean at all? Does Whittle mean we’re not allowed to say men are not women? Is that the subtle thought?

Even the Telegraph reports on this subject using the terms of the cheaters instead of the non-cheater, reality-based ones. It makes their reporting worthless, because it’s not reporting to keep repeating a blatant lie.

Thomas’s triumph in the 500-yard freestyle event in Atlanta, Georgia, almost two years ago made global headlines and sparked a major furore in the United States and beyond over her participation in women’s races.

Her landmark victory came less than three years after she began transitioning – she had previously been ranked just 65th over the same distance in the division’s male category – and led to protests from rival swimmers.

The ugly fallout, which continues to this day, has included accusations Thomas had been allowed to use women’s locker rooms during events, thereby exposing other competitors to her “male genitalia”.

Her her, she she, and then “the ugly fallout” – why ugly? Why are the people who object to the cheating ugly while William Thomas is poor sad fragile she-her?

A growing number of sports governing bodies have been bringing in similar policies amid mounting pressure from athletes, campaigners and politicians to prioritise fairness and safety over inclusion, which a victory for Thomas would leave open to further legal challenges.

That “inclusion” is not really inclusion, because it excludes women from winning for the benefit of men. Women don’t have to be “inclusive” of men in all circumstances; the idea that we do have to is extremely rapey as well as a grotesque injustice. You might as well rule that women have to give birth on live tv with the camera aimed straight between their legs.

Less than a month before World Aquatics introduced its own policy in June of that year, Thomas said in an interview with Good Morning America: “It’s been a goal of mine to swim at Olympic trials for a very long time, and I would love to see that through.”

So what??? Lots of people would love to swim at Olympic trials; that doesn’t make it ok for them to cheat to get there. Spare us prattle of William’s hopes n dreams.

Thomas’s lawyer, Carlos Sayao, himself a former competitive swimmer, branded World Aquatics’ rules a “trans ban”, saying it was “discriminatory” and caused “profound harm to trans women”.

“Trans women are particularly vulnerable in society and they suffer from higher rates of violence, abuse and harassment than cis women,” he added.

William Thomas is not more vulnerable than women, you misogynist pig.

Lia Thomas is suing.

The US swimmer Lia Thomas, who rose to global prominence by becoming the first transgender athlete to win a NCAA college title, is taking legal action in a bid to compete again in elite female sport – including the Olympics.

Or, to put it more clearly and accurately, the male US swimmer William “Lia” Thomas, who rose to global prominence by pretending to be a woman and thus winning women’s races, is taking legal action in hopes of cheating women that way again.

Thomas has always denied transitioning to get ahead. “The biggest misconception, I think, is the reason I transitioned,” Thomas said in 2022. “People will say: ‘Oh, she just transitioned so she would have an advantage, so she could win.’ I transitioned to be happy, to be true to myself.”

Well he would say that, wouldn’t he. He’s not going to say “Yes, I pretended to be a woman so that I could win.” But that’s what he did all the same.

And guess what, if he really had “transitioned” to be happy and true to himself then he never would have done the cheating part. Why? Because that wasn’t the goal so why do it? Why invite all the grief? Why not just settle down in blissful womanyhood while not making a whole lot of women detest him?

Susanna Rustin in the Guardian:

I can clearly remember the moment I found out that Maya Forstater, the NGO researcher who lost her job in 2018 because of her gender-critical beliefs, had lost her employment tribunal. This was in December 2019, and it chilled me because I share Forstater’s view about the importance of biological sex. In a verdict that was later overturned, Judge James Tayler ruled that her opinions were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, and thus not protected under the Equality Act or the articles of the European convention on human rights concerned with freedom of thought and expression.

The “opinion” that men are not women is not worthy of respect. Old news, I know, and yet it still surprises.

Whatever their views on sex and gender, liberals should be curious about why women are being ostracised and punished for their conviction that sex differences are important. So should trade unionists, whose job it is to protect people’s rights at work….Outside courtrooms as well as within them, gender-critical women will continue to seek accountability for what has gone on. Yes, there are other problems in the world to worry about. But we won’t forget the 18 months during which our long-held feminist beliefs about sex were officially deemed “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” – or stop being grateful for the courage of women such as Jo Phoenix and Rachel Meade.

Never forget and never surrender.

Brendan O’Neill points out that the phrase “her penis” is not strictly accurate.

‘Her penis’ is back. Just when you thought the weirdos had put it away, here it is again, flopped all over the newspapers. A ‘trans woman’ allegedly ‘played with her penis’ in front of two young girls, reported the Daily Echo this week. ‘She’ allegedly ‘loved’ exposing ‘her penis’ to minors, says Portsmouth News. This ‘56-year-old charity shop worker’ is charged with ‘exposing her penis’ to horrified kids, says Talk TV. ‘Her penis’, they all say, over and over, like members of a lunatic cult, with no clue as to how unhinged they sound to those of us who know that the only possessive pronoun that should ever appear before the words penis, dick, todger and knob is his.

And note that these are ostensibly news outlets. Not story-tellers, not songwriters, not cartoonists, but news organizations. They’re supposed to get basic facts right.

They’re reporting on the case of Samantha Norris, who is a bloke. We know he’s a bloke because he has a cock. Mr Norris – yes, Mr – is accused of exposing his penis – yes, his – to two 11-year-old girls. He’s on trial at Southampton Crown Court. Even worse than the media’s slavish, post-truth flattery of Mr Norris’s deluded belief that he is a woman is the court’s indulgence of such anti-social insanity.

Another institution that really ought to get the facts right.

Nothing better captures the moral derangement of our times than those two words, ‘her penis’…. That such a sexist, unscientific term now falls from the gobs of so many in the elites – the press, the police, the courts – should horrify us all. For it confirms the victory of identity over truth. It confirms that everything – even science, even logic – now plays second fiddle to validating the self-delusion of the individual. 

Only some brands of identity though. Not women’s identity, for instance. Boutique identities only need apply.

There just aren’t any women, you see.

Australian surf brand Rip Curl has come under fire after featuring a transgender boarder in a campaign to promote women’s surfing. 

Male transgender boarder. It’s funny how they always leave that out. It’s implied, of course, but it damn well shouldn’t be implied, it should be spelled out. Every single time. Just combining “transgender” and “under fire” and “women’s surfing” is not good enough. Spell out the damn insult.

Sasha Lowerson, 44, featured on the Rip Curl Women Instagram page on Thursday as part of the company’s Meet The Local Heroes of Western Australia campaign.

It comes just months after Rip Curl dropped former brand ambassador Bethany Hamilton – one of the world’s most famous surfers – reportedly over her opposition to transgender people competing in women’s sport.

That’s nice. Drop a woman because she doesn’t want men in her sport, then feature another man in a campaign to promote women’s surfing. Go big or go home, yeah?

Nones are the majority.

When Americans are asked to check a box indicating their religious affiliation, 28% now check ‘none.’

A new study from Pew Research finds that the religiously unaffiliated – a group comprised of atheists, agnostic and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular” – is now the largest cohort in the U.S. They’re more prevalent among American adults than Catholics (23%) or evangelical Protestants (24%).

Back in 2007, Nones made up just 16% of Americans, but Pew’s new survey of more than 3,300 U.S. adults shows that number has now risen dramatically.

Better late than never, yeah?

Pew asked respondents what – if anything – they believe. 

Well that’s a silly way to put it. Everybody believes countless things; we couldn’t function if we didn’t. We believe the next step we take won’t plunge us into a black hole.

Most Nones believe in God or another higher power, but very few attend any kind of religious service.

If there’s a higher power, why doesn’t it do something? Take away our car keys for instance?

Wow, powerful argument.

Being used to the body you’ve always been is not an idenniny, it’s just being used to what you’ve always been.

Idenniny is much more magical and profound and meaningfulish than mere being used to what you’re used to.

He’s not kidding about the shit cartoons part.

Mermaids is doing what now?

Dennis stepped in.

Yet another one. I may find myself doing these for years to come – there’s so much of it.

[High squeaky contemptuous voice]: You suggest everyone thinks like that.

No, not everyone, because we know there are fools like you, but certainly most people, you absolute monster of a smug censorious heartless last person who should be working for a rape crisis center goon. Everyone did “think like that” until about ten years ago, and now a small but intolerable minority of people have allowed themselves to become confused about it.

Even worse, in a way, is the “we are transinclusive service and that is what we do.” Well that’s not supposed to be what you do. You’re supposed to be a service for victims of rape. Being “transinclusive” has nothing to do with that.

Is this happening everywhere? Bakeries? Public transportation? Plumbing? They’ve all stopped baking or driving buses or installing new toilets and are instead busy being transinclusive?

More.

What is “ownership of their own identity”? This fool seems to take it to mean “people are what they say they are” – which is an abjectly ridiculous claim. No people don’t “own” their idenniny in the sense that if they say they’re a mouse then they’re a mouse.

We own very little, in fact. We’re thrown into the world, as the existentialists put it. We can change, we can acquire talents, we can curl our hair, but the range is pretty narrow. That’s just reality.

Yeah it’s like chocolate – some people like it, some don’t.

So policy is to lie to raped women, to tell them they’ll be seeing a woman when in fact they’ll be seeing a man. How enlightened.

Shameless lie after shameless lie.

The BBC in July 2018:

More than 300 transgender children a year are now starting on a course of puberty-blocking drugs, figures seen by the Victoria Derbyshire programme show.

One of the transgender children we have been following for four years has now begun her treatment, which gives youngsters time to decide if they want to live as a man or a woman. “I’m happy I’ve been given [the drugs] because now I know that I won’t grow facial hair. I just don’t want a beard – I’m a girl,” says 11-year-old Jessica.

So the BBC is admitting it started “following” this deluded child when he was seven years old.

The UK’s main centre specialising in gender issues in under-18s is the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, based in London and Leeds. The number of under-18s who visited the clinic in the last year has risen by 25% to 2,519 – around 50 a week.

Doctors there say there is no single explanation for the increase but there is growing recognition of transgender people in society and more awareness of treatment options.

In large part thanks to institutions like the BBC that actively promote the “treatment options” aka medical malpractice.

Isn’t it shocking how the BBC doesn’t devote any time to trans people especially trans women.

The studios teaching trans women how to be more feminine

Trans woman Nicole Thornbur goes to specialist studios to learn how to become more feminine.

Privately-run Born Studio in Manchester offers services including make-up lessons and voice coaching to people in the trans community.

BBC reporter William Lee Adams went with Nicole to the studio to find out more.

Nicole is built like a brick shithouse but whatever.

Remember Zoe Williams (Guardian columnist) yesterday saying this?

Genuinely think that if Woman’s Hour is going to give this much uncritical airtime to GCs, then for balance the BBC should have a Trans Ally hour where we get to complain about them _the entire time_.

Yes? Well, about that…

More wisdom from KT age 23:

NC: Miren said this am that she could not think of any expression of GC / sex realist beliefs that is not transphobic. Do you agree with that? Any expression is necessarily transphobic?
KT: I’ve not heard every sex-realist view expressed, so, can’t say all transphobic. Too simplifying to say that.
NC: Can you think of an expression of it you would not regard as transphobic?
KT: Not sure what you are looking for. 

NC: Do you understand what I mean by SR beliefs? Know what they are? Sex is binary, 2 sexes; everyone is M or F; you can’t change between them; sometimes sex matters. Is that transphobic?
KT: Yes the way those views expressed are often at the expense of trans people.

“Those views.”

NC: The way I just said them. Was that transphobic?
KT: Making judgement on just a few sentences – lacks any nuance. 

Nuance ffs.

This isn’t poetry, it isn’t art, it isn’t the wonderful world of creativity. It’s just reality. Humans are not rabbits; plants are not stones; houses are not bicycles. We don’t need nuance every time we say something – often we need the opposite of nuance, i.e. complete clarity. “Did you order the Code Red?” is not a quest for nuance.