The hilarity has generated even more hilarity.

I daresay by now there’s a whole library’s worth of tv companies wanting to do a show where Willoughby and someone hyper famous and talented and busy would spend a week together giggling and gossiping and painting their toenails.

One genius remembered there’s a source document – Willz put his pathetic fantasy on Twitter way back last year, minus the tv company.

I remember that now that it’s been dredged up. I remember the rage. We are not men’s stupid shallow caricatures of women we are real people.

Update: I was pretty sure I’d done a post on it, and I wasn’t wrong. Spa day with Wilz.

Originally a comment by Mostly Cloudy on Decency and Julia.

Der Durchwanderer @41

If we are to be judged by how our words might one day be used by the spiritual descendents of our current political enemies, then none of us should write anything at all, because that is a game none can hope to win. Unless you are fanatically certain that history does indeed have a singular arc and that you will somehow always land on the correct side of it forevermore, that is.

You have a point there. We know that Martin Luther King, for instance, would not have approved of the politics of Rand Paul, and would be dismayed to hear Paul appropriating his words.

I suppose my main issue with George Orwell is that he helped make anti-intellectualism respectable in British society.

Orwell’s status as *the* archetypal literary defender of democratic society against totalitarianism meant that the numerous attacks on intellectuals in Orwell’s work gained a special status.

And since anti-intellectualism in British society has been mainly, since the Thatcher era, associated with the political right, there’s a similarity between Orwell’s comments on intellectuals as “disloyal”, deracinated, and treacherous, and those of later figures like Thatcher and Farage.

This might also explain why “The Sun” was able to recruit Orwell into an editorial describing people opposed to Thatcher’s government as people its readers needed to be “vigilant” against.

And conservatives like William F. Buckley, Norman Podhoretz and Michael Medved also shared the anti-intellectual views of their British counterparts. Hence why they too were able to use lengthy quotes from George Orwell’s work in their attacks on the political left.

Those are the implications I am making- Orwell’s strong dislike of intellectuals make him a uniquely attractive writer for the modern-day political right.

And this might answer the question I raised earlier, that puzzled my teenage self. *Why* is this revolutionary socialist writer always being quoted, so often by defenders of tradition and capitalism?

Is it because of his undeniable literary merit? Maybe.

Is it because his plain style of writing makes it easy for other writers to understand and quote his work? Maybe.

Or is it because Orwell’s dislike of intellectuals (who, by definition, aren’t happy with the status quo) makes him uniquely attractive to these defenders of tradition and capitalism?

If you want to read someone who’s written about this aspect of George Orwell’s work much better than I could, read the chapter on George Orwell in Stefan Collini’s excellent book “Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain.”

Human rights? You sure about that?

One – get those clapping hands out of my face. Clapping at us is not the way to persuade or convince us of anything.

Two – yes using specialty pronouns damn well is optional. People don’t get to pick out their very own pronouns as if they were a party dress and then force other people to use them. My words are not yours to control.

Three – of course it’s not “a huge form of support, respect & love” – don’t be so ridiculous! Calling a man “her” is neither support nor respect nor love.

Four, why do trans people get their very own special day about 700 times a year now? Why do they get to suck up so much oxygen? Are their delusions about their sex really the most urgent thing we have to think about? More urgent than climate change or Hamas or Trump or Putin or poverty or war? Or, by the way, the staggering rate at which rape goes unpunished?

Put your stupid pronouns away and do something useful.

Oh good god can you imagine???

A week with Willoughby???

Of course she wouldn’t do it ffs. First of all she has better things to do, obviously, but second plus third through billionth: with Willoughby. Of course she wouldn’t spend a week with Willoughby: he’s a boring rude self-obsessed demanding bad-tempered shallow blob of nothing. What would this fun project have in it for her? Not a damn thing. It would be hell from beginning to end. Of course she “wouldn’t do it.”

And look at how that utter dimwit thinks women spend their time. Clothes shopping and health spa. That’s how profound their idenniny is – they think they’re Barbie dolls.

Prison for pronouns eh?

JK Rowling has said she would happily do a spell in jail if a future Labour government makes it a hate crime to deliberately call someone by the wrong pronouns. The Harry Potter author said she would rather do time for misgendering than submit to “compelled speech”.

She spoke out after The Mail on Sunday revealed that Labour plans to introduce stricter sentences for abuse targeted at transgender people.

This would bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.

What does that mean? It’s not “abuse” to use normal pronouns, nor is it harassment. If anything it’s the other way around – it borders on abusive to try to force other people to use the wrong pronouns when referring to One’s Precious Self.

And is Labour seriously contemplating jailing people for two years for using normal pronouns? While 99% of rapes go unpunished?

Replying to a post on Twitter/X, Rowling said: “I’ll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex.

“Bring on the court case, I say. It’ll be more fun than I’ve ever had on a red carpet.”

The court case could be fun. Two years in prison not so much.

H/t Mostly Cloudy

Hur hur woman of the year event hur hur

Meanwhile in Ghana:

Awusife Kagbitor paces anxiously on a dry patch of land overlooking her collapsed and completely submerged three-bedroom home in Mepe in Ghana’s Volta Region. She says she saw water gushing into her house from a nearby stream, and within 10 minutes the water level had reached her neck. On hearing that his mother’s home was flooding, her son Kenneth rushed to the scene and swam his way through the rising waters to save his mother and young siblings.

The 56-year-old farmer is one of thousands of victims of the floods in south-east Ghana. It’s a disaster she is struggling to come to terms with. They were taken unawares and couldn’t salvage anything, she tells me as beads of tears roll down her face. “My entire farm is under the water and so is my house. I was only able to take my clothes. It took me about 14 years to build this house – there is nowhere to go, there is no other land to build on,” Ms Kagbitor said.

Elsewhere the cruise ships ply to and fro.

The Times Scotland:

JK Rowling brands Scottish Greens a ‘disgrace’ over trans protest

Author hits out at politicians who stood beside activists swearing at women

Author doesn’t “hit out at” anyone, of course.

JK Rowling has branded the Scottish Greens a “disgrace” after its councillors stood alongside protesters “campaigning against women”.

The author hit out 24 hours after speaking at a feminist event in Glasgow, organised by Filia, an international organisation campaigning for women’s human rights.

The author did not hit out.

Reacting to video of the protest posted on social media, Rowling said: “That elected officials from the Greens stood proudly beside protesters screaming ‘f*** you’ at women, including those from Afghanistan and Africa, who were meeting in Glasgow to discuss sex-specific harms such as FGM [female genital mutilation] disgraces them and their party.”

The author was responding to a post from another activist who was discussing the protest outside the conference and the Green councillor’s presence.

This is really sloppy journalism. The Times “reporter,” Mike Wade, is apparently talking about Twitter, but never manages to say so. She was responding to “a post” where, bro?

Anyway. He ends on a more cheerful (and less sloppy) note.

Rowling stunned the crowd on Sunday by speaking for nearly an hour about sexism and the bullying facing women. The author, who is outspoken on women’s rights, received two standing ovations from the audience.

“The crowd went absolutely wild,” one audience member said. “She doesn’t do talks. She doesn’t do public appearances. She has had death threats, and yet she chose to do this for a feminist, grassroots organisation which shows just how committed she is. It was joyful and buzzing and everyone was walking on air [after] seeing her.”

She was a surprise panelist, because imagine the chaos there would have been otherwise.

No matter how hard he tries.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of tigerhood by those hateful people’s standards.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of oaktreehood by those hateful people’s standards.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of mountainhood by those hateful people’s standards.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of planethood by those hateful people’s standards.

Sorry, Dylan, that’s just how it works. There are some things we can become via trying hard, and there are other things we can’t. We can become teachers, lawyers, journalists, legislators by trying hard. We can become better people by trying hard. We can’t become other species, or furniture, or celestial bodies by trying hard. Some ontologies are simply closed to us.

A thread that’s quite relevant to what I was just saying about the impossibility of believing the dogma, and the strangeness of the fact that the impossibility goes unmentioned.

That. You can repeat the nonsense all day long, but you cannot state the truth.

It’s utterly bizarre.

Nathan Williams at The Critic on “queerphobia”:

Last week I wrote an article about the nasty treatment people in the Green Party have faced when they have questioned the prevailing ideology on gender and sex. The exact figure depends on the question asked, but in general a majority of the public agree that biological sex is real and matters (these are known as “gender critical” or “GC” beliefs). The party appears to be calling most of the electorate “bigots”, which is not a great electoral strategy.

But on the upside, it’s such fun.

The Green Party has now issued a document that seeks to correct this, by branding almost the entire population as bigots. Their long awaited Queerphobia guidance is nine pages of near incomprehensible word salad.

…

These are sensitive issues where different people will draw the dividing line in different places. It’s precisely the sort of subject where we need to feel free to speak honestly and respectfully — about, for instance, the potential harms of choking, or autoerotic asphyxiation. The guidance prohibits such a debate, however, by defining it as bigotry to question any form of sexual attraction, whilst also making it a further offence to point out the obvious dangers of having no boundary.

Listen here, choking is kink, and kink is a good thing, and it’s sacrilege to say otherwise.

At least we’re on steadier ground with familiar terms like “lesbian”, right? If only. Unsurprisingly, the word “lesbian” is here assumed to refer to anyone who is attracted to women and identifies as a woman, so it includes trans women. But in a twist I wasn’t expecting, it can also include trans men if they wish to describe themselves as lesbian. The guidance is clear that trans men are real men and indeed are male (more on that later). So, the guidance is saying that it’s possible for someone to be male, and in every sense a man, but also a lesbian.

It’s really very simple. It goes like this: whatever the good people say is right.You’re welcome.

Where things get serious is in the section on transphobia, when the document strays into territory that could lead to the party breaking the law. As you might expect, the guidance takes the most extreme line on issues of sex and gender. Whilst the question of what the word “woman” means appears to have finally been settled in the rest of the country, the Greens have jumped the gender fluid shark to redefine “male” and “female” as well.

According to the guidance, all trans women are not only “real women” but are female. Remember that many trans women — likely the majority, though there’s a lack of good data — have undergone no medical transition. They are legally and physically no different from a typical male. According to the document, though, by uttering some magic words, they have transformed their sex such that they are now female — despite having the same gametes, chromosomes, hormones and physical characteristics that they did when they were male.

Well that’s the dogma. We’re not allowed to question it. Questioning it will be greeted with rage, ostracism, punishment, contempt, disgust, shunning, loss of friends, possible loss of job and career.

When I asked one of the authors how they could justify their claim that trans women are female, I was pointed towards a website. Nothing there provided any evidence that humans, uniquely amongst mammals, are able to spontaneously change their own sex. Apparently the key line is that “bio-essentialism plays into the hands of extreme right-wing ideologies”. Personally, I think basing your politics around an obvious untruth, so that it’s the Trumpian lunatics who end up looking like the sensible ones, is what plays into the hands of extreme right-wing ideologies — but perhaps that’s just me.

A party that aspires to power is not only promoting such a belief, but suggesting that it is an offence not to believe. 

Others don’t suggest, they shout it as loudly and often as they can.

 As I wrote in my previous piece, the party has apparently received advice confirming that members cannot be discriminated against or censured for holding gender critical beliefs without a breach of the Equality Act (EqA).

…

The legal advice confirms that members can not only have GC views but express them: for instance, saying “the majority of transwomen are intact males” is a lawful, protected statement of gender critical beliefs. The party seems to think its guidance can ignore the law — even if its own lawyers say otherwise…

It might seem bizarre that a political party would issue an anti-discrimination policy that breaks anti-discrimination law, but we’ve been here before. Last year the Liberal Democrats adopted a definition of transphobia every bit as draconian as the Green Party’s — including a prohibition on referring to a trans woman as a “biological man”

Look, it’s not that it’s illegally forbidden or anything, it’s just that it’s not allowed.

I’ve been observing a discussion, or more accurately a pile-on, on a friend’s Facebook post that dissents (very politely) from the gender dogma. It’s a sight to behold, grown-ass adults flying into verbal rages because people can’t believe that men are literally women. David Gorski is there, Matt Dillahunty is there, Hayley Stevens is there, Ashley Miller is there – all of them furiously reiterating the dogma and name-calling anyone who doesn’t submit.

The spectacle has caused me to do another round of the “could I believe it if I really tried hard enough?” routine. Nothing has changed. I still, to this day, to this minute, cannot for the life of me understand how adults can expect other adults to nod enthusiastically to the claim that sex is in people’s minds rather than their bodies. I still cannot understand how adults can expect us to agree that we can all change our sex with the power of thought. It’s an inherently outlandish claim – it’s like saying people can fly or live forever or travel back in time.

I still don’t get it. I never will. They didn’t think that themselves ten or fifteen years ago, so how do they manage to convince themselves that everyone must think it now and that everyone who fails to do so is an extremely bad person? I’ll never never never understand it.

More gag ordering for Trump:

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan has put into writing her limited gag order that bars Donald Trump from making public statements about witnesses who might testify against him in the federal election subversion case as well as prosecutors and court staff.

Trump’s public statements pose “grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings,” especially those that could be construed as harassment and intimidation, Chutkan said in the order released Tuesday.

The written order expands upon what Chutkan articulated during Monday’s hearing about restricting what Trump can say while awaiting trial.

I’m seeing a lot of headlines saying it won’t make a damn bit of difference.

Trump has publicly railed against the so-called gag order, calling it “unconstitutional” and vowing to appeal.

Like he knows what’s constitutional and what isn’t. Please.

Chutkan made clear that the main reason she is imposing the order is that Trump’s statements could prompt intimidation and harassment. She pointed in particular to his statements about special counsel Jack Smith and his office and possible witnesses like former Attorney General Bill Barr, Gen. Mark Milley and Pence, as well as his statements about court staff in a civil fraud case he’s facing in New York.

“Defendant has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are liars, or ‘thugs,’ or deserve death,” Chutkan said in the written order. “The court finds that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk.”

That’s exactly why he makes them.

The rise in pseudo-science is it? Concerned about that are you? All of it are you?

But Humanists UK apparently has no problem with the pseudo-science of magic gender.

In the first in a series of posts from LGBT Humanists where guest authors offer humanist perspectives on issues faced by the LGBT community in the UK, LGBT Humanists Campaigns Officer Kristína Zaťková marks Transgender Day of Visibility (31 March) by looking at the persistent attacks on trans people – from media rhetoric to bullying in schools to hate crime. The series of posts will continue with Lesbian Visibility Day (26 April), Celebrate Bisexuality Day (23 September), and National Coming Out Day (11 October).

Interesting that “trans people” were first in line, and that the foundational belief that people can change sex is…cough…pseudo-science.

Another university puts out another “statement” full of wild generalizations that can’t possibly be obeyed without creating total havoc.

Trans and Gender Diverse Community

The University is committed to being a Trans-inclusive institution that champions diversity and celebrates the gender identities of students and staff. The University will at no time discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression. We seek to provide a positive learning and working environment free from discrimination, harassment, or victimisation.

How, I wonder, does the university go about “celebrating the gender identities of students and staff”? And why gender identities in particular? What about all the other precious identities?

Promoting and supporting the diverse identities at the University not only creates an environment where students and staff feel supported but also have the confidence to achieve their full potential. 

Is that true? What about the diverse identities of, say, lesbians who don’t want to partner with men who say they are women?

Statement of Support

University of Hertfordshire statement, 2023:

“Considering the ongoing coverage in the media and an intensification of transphobia and transmisogyny in our culture, we would like to reiterate our support for and solidarity with all our trans and gender diverse staff, students and alumni at the University of Hertfordshire. 

​​​​​​​We are fully committed to equality of opportunity for all our community and will not tolerate transphobia or transmisogyny or any kind of discrimination towards our trans staff or students.

Define “transphobia.” Define “transmisogyny.” Define “any kind of discrimination towards our trans staff or students.”

We believe everyone has the right to live and be respected for their gender identity,  and should always feel comfortable presenting themselves to the world in a way that matches how they self-identify. 

So a huge tall man has “the right” to be respected for his “gender identity” as a dainty pretty laydee and should always feel comfortable presenting himself to the world that way? No matter what? Why? Please explain. Not reiterate or assert or announce; explain.

We are committed to promoting an inclusive culture at the University where everyone can thrive in a safe, supportive and welcoming environment that’s free from bullying, harassment or discrimination.

Well that’s just nonsensical. How can female people “thrive in a safe, supportive and welcoming environment that’s free from bullying, harassment or discrimination” when the environment contains men who must be “respected for their gender identity” as women?

News flash: if you order female people to pretend that men are women then you are making it impossible for those female people to thrive in a safe, supportive and welcoming environment that’s free from bullying, harassment or discrimination. Absolutely impossible. There is no route out of this maze. If women are forbidden to know which people are men then women are in danger.

As a member of Stonewalls Diversity Champions programme, we have committed to submit for the Workplace Equality Index which will help the University to advance equality of opportunity and develop an inclusive culture for our LGBTQ+ community. 

Well that’s a frank admission. They have committed to submit, they say. Yes you certainly have, at the expense of your female students and staff.

When the rivers dry up…

Rivers in the heart of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil fell to their lowest levels in over a century on Monday as a record drought upends the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and damages the jungle ecosystem.

The port of Manaus, the region’s most populous city, at the meeting of the Rio Negro and the Amazon River, recorded 13.59 meters (44.6 feet) of water on Monday, compared to 17.60 a year ago, according to its website. That is the lowest level since records began in 121 years ago in 1902, passing a previous all-time low set in 2010.

Rapidly drying tributaries to the mighty Amazon have left boats stranded, cutting off food and water supplies to remote villages, while high water temperatures are suspected of killing more than 100 endangered river dolphins.

Never mind, we can grow artificial rivers in the lab.

Brazil’s Science Ministry blames the drought on the onset of the El Niño climate phenomenon this year, which is driving extreme weather patterns globally. In a statement earlier this month, the ministry said it expects the drought will last until at least December, when El Niño’s effects are forecast to peak.

Underlying El Niño is the long-term trend of global warming, which is leading to more frequent and more intense extreme weather events, like drought and heat.

In other words when El Niño is made worse by global warming things get very very bad.

Eva Kurilova draws up a partial list of the contradictions of trans ideology. There are so many and they are so contradictory.

“Trans women” are in danger in men’s spaces and that’s why they deserve access to women’s spaces.

Women who worry about their spaces becoming mixed sex are bigots.

…

Trans people are a very tiny minority and so they must be listened to.

Detransitioners are a very tiny minority and so they must not be listened to.

---

Gender is a social construct.

But “trans women” need to be treated as literally female in all aspects of life.

That’s a biggy, isn’t it. The biggy. Women are women via social convention, but trans women really are women and don’t you forget it.

If the perpetrator of a crime is a trans-identified man, he is reported as a woman.

If the victim of a crime is a trans-identified man, he is reported as a trans woman.

Oof. I hadn’t noticed that one.

Trans women make the covers of magazines for achievements in science, technology, and sports.

Trans men make the covers of magazines for being pregnant. Progress!

That one’s not so much a contradiction as a different rules problem.

Physical differences between men and women don’t matter in sports.

But “trans women” need to compete in the women’s category because HRT makes them weaker and disadvantaged against other men.

So much different rules problem.

So Owen Jones thinks Hamas gets its views on gay rights from the British empire?

And if it weren’t for that there would be a gay bar on every corner, yes? Because Islamists are so notoriously broad-minded about such things?

Did the British Mandate Criminal Code also prohibit women’s rights?

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on What would you spend that 9k on?

I have no idea about the health risks, but I think people are underestimating the privacy risks.

Anyone who donates eggs or sperm is incurring the risk that some years down the line, they or their family members will be contacted by the child. I don’t care what privacy protections you were promised when you made the donation, or even what laws exist in your jurisdiction to provide privacy — you don’t know what the law is going to be 20 years from now, and the general direction has been towards “I have a right to know my genetic heritage!”

More importantly, the law may be irrelevant, because the official clinic records won’t be needed in many instances. With so many people eagerly signing up to put their DNA in the databases of Ancestry.com and the like, it’s not going to be hard for people to find their genetic relatives. Even if you, the donor, are careful not to participate in anything like that, you can’t guarantee that your siblings or other relatives won’t.

Of course some people will view this as a positive thing. What could be better than one day discovering and getting to meet some new relatives, right? In which case, I guess, have at it, though note that any future spouse and children might not share your enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, advertising aimed at convincing women that selling their eggs is a fab fun way to pay for a trip.

Ah how sweet.