No you’re inappropriate.

A civil servant was told by a Whitehall investigator that it was inappropriate to say there are two sides to the trans debate.

…

On March 11 2021, civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions met online for an International Women’s Day event entitled “What trans is and some of the issues faced”. The call, in which officials were encouraged to submit written questions in an online chat, featured a transgender woman civil servant discussing issues faced by trans people in the UK.

In other words the civil service summoned a man to talk about himself for an International Women’s Day event. As if that’s not insulting enough by itself, what he talked about was his fantasy of being a woman.

One civil servant was subsequently investigated and found guilty of breaching the department’s behaviour policy and rules on harassment for their comments on the call.

Among the remarks made by the civil servant, and branded as “inappropriate comments relating to trans women” by a DWP investigator, were the comments: “One of the things I struggle to understand as a lesbian myself is, how can trans women be lesbian as lesbian is same sex attracted, not gender?”, “I find the term cis very offensive”, “Sport is segregated because there is a difference” and “What if you don’t believe in gender? I don’t”.

So the conversation was about men pretending to be women, and a lesbian was punished for saying what she thought. Happy International Women’s Day!

The civil servant’s comment that “I think IWD should centre [on] women really” was found “to exclude trans women from the relevance of International Women’s Day” and was therefore inappropriate.

Hey! You know what’s inappropriate? Talking about men who cosplay as women on International Women’s Day!

When the civil servant was accused on the call by fellow officials of displaying “Terf [Trans exclusionary radical feminists] behaviour”, the civil servant responded by saying: “STOP BEING INSULTING”.

The investigation found the latter comment to be “not the appropriate manner in which to raise concerns about others behaviour/language as writing in all Caps letters is interpreted as aggressive and shouting when read out”.

Jeezus. I hope she sought and found a much better job with much better people.

Hey kids, people swap sexes in myths and fairy tales, therefore it’s totally possible for people to swap sexes in real life. People can fly in myths and fairy tales, therefore etc. Animals can talk in myths and fairy tales, therefore etc. There’s no end to the possibilities!

University of Tennessee religious studies academic has the skinny:

State legislatures across the United States have introduced over 400 bills to limit transgender Americans’ rights. Many of these bills’ sponsors, such as the Christian nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom, cite Christian values as well as the values of the other Abrahamic faiths – Judaism and Islam – to justify their anti-trans positions.

But of course she doesn’t pause to tell us what rights specifically “transgender Americans” have that are different from the rights Americans in general have.

The Alliance Defending Freedom claims that Christians, Jews and Muslims view gender as binary and defined only by biology, though these religions’ diverse followers actually hold a range of views on LGBTQ+ issues. Historically, these religions were often more accepting of varied gender identities before colonialism imposed binary gender as a universal concept.

Religious values from multiple traditions have supported transgender identity. As a scholar of Buddhism and gender, I know that several Buddhist texts treat gender as fluid. One such text is the Lotus Sutra, one of the most popular Buddhist scriptures in East Asia. Its core message is that everyone, no matter their gender or status, has the potential to become a Buddha.

The Lotus Sutra conveys its message of universal Buddhahood in several stories that depict transformations between male and female bodies. For example, a dragon girl instantly transforms into the masculine body of a Buddha, proving that female bodies are not barriers to awakening.

Well, that’s stories for you. Stories can include magic in a way that real life can’t. Stories can have people fly, converse with animals, go back in time – you name it, some storyteller will have thought of it. The fact that it’s in a story, including a “scripture,” doesn’t demonstrate that it’s a reality, it demonstrates only that it’s something people can imagine. We can imagine way more magical stuff than we can actually make happen.

Originally a comment by Sastra on Once and for all.

If you’re going to make an argument which ought to rest on truth and principle, slipping in “it doesn’t happen a lot” is a fatal flaw. It tacitly admits that the truth and principles behind what you’re advocating are weak.

If we think the authorities in Iran should stop punishing women for not wearing a hijab, reassuring them that they can repeal the law because don’t worry, most of the women in Iran will dress properly and they’ll hardly even notice the ones who don’t undercuts women’s freedom from constraint. Now it’s a numbers game. How many women flaunting their uncovered heads should it take for the modesty laws to come back? How many transwomen would have to dominate sports for NWLC to admit that yeah, they were wrong so now let’s ban them from women’s teams? 2%? 10%? 50%? 90%?

The truth is that they’re not justifying a law, they’re using a stalling tactic. If, in 5 or 10 years time, there’s no possible way to deny that TW are indeed taking over women’s sports, the gender ideologues will find a way to celebrate that and pretend they never said a damn thing about how TW are just a negligible blip on the radar, be a sport and let them play. It’ll be “girls born with natural gifts belong there.” Hypocrites.

Originally a comment by NightCrow on Once and for all.

From Wikipedia, s.v. National Women’s Law Center, citing annual reports from 2013–2016:

The organization receives financial support from a variety of institutions aligned on women’s rights policies. This includes … reproductive health organizations, and pharmaceutical companies. Notable donors are Bayer, … Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), … among others.

For some reason, the latest annual report made public by NWLC is the one for 2015– 2016, which can be found linked from this page.

I note that Bayer Pharmaceuticals is in the list of donors who gave $100,000 and above. One of their products, Androcur, is a hormone medication used as a feminizing treatment for males.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is listed simply as PhRMA. They are a lobby group, reportedly. Their donation was in the $5,000 – $9,999 bracket.

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer gave between $25,000 & $49,999. They sell spironolactone, a testosterone suppressant, under the trade name Aldactone.

Another donor in the $5,000 – $9,999 bracket, Agile Therapeutics, apparently offers ‘pelvic and gender health physical therapy’ to help patients having problems after ‘gender-affirming surgeries’.

The list of donors is a long one, and there may well be more on the list who are making a nice thing out of the transitioning craze.

I do wonder why National Women’s Law Center hasn’t posted any annual reports for 2016–2017, 2027–2018, 2018–2019, etc etc. They have posted annual financial statements up to 2022, but those don’t include the names of donors.

A month ago the National Women’s Law Center announced:

Once and For All: This Is Why We Support Trans Women and Girls in Sports

It’s a nice touch, that “once and for all” – like a fed-up parent to a whiny child persistently demanding ice cream right before dinner. They frame themselves as the adults and feminists who know that men are not women as bratty stubborn won’t shut up toddlers.

In this blog, we are going to debunk—once and for all—some of the biggest lies we’ve been force fed by fake feminists.  

Lies? Force fed? Fake?

This is, remember, the National Women’s Law Center, yet they talk to us like this.

Lie #1: Trans women have an unfair advantage in sports. 

First off, the small number of trans and intersex girls and women athletes have NOT demonstrated any categorical “dominance” or overwhelming advantage.

Oh I see…no categorical dominance or overwhelming advantage. It’s just mild cheating, so it’s ok. Is that it? They’re going with that?

Second, this notion that trans girls have an overall competitive advantage in sports also implies that every single cisgender woman is physically inferior, which feeds into sexist stereotypes and pits women against women. 

Oh do shut up. That ship sailed long ago. They might as well say the notion that women have an advantage in the ability to make new humans feeds into sexist stereotypes. Men can’t make new humans; that’s not a stereotype but a reality.

Finally, this notion overlooks the fact that class and money are often responsible for competitive advantages in sports (i.e., access to private coaching, better facilities, better sports equipment, and specialized training).  

No it doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t. The claim is not that the male advantage in sports is the only advantage there is, it’s just that men have an advantage in sports. That last one is incredibly feeble for a bunch of lawyers.

Lie #2: Trans women will take opportunities away from cis women. 

We have SO much to say on this point. 

First, there are actually very few trans people in competitive sports—and the success of those trans people has, for the most part, been exaggerated to perpetuate transphobia.

So a little bit of unfairness to women and girls is fine.

They are so lost.

When even the Post Office is on the TQ train…

The Post Office has defended its use of the word “queer”  following an outcry from activists.

Responding to criticisms about its use of the term, the Post Office wrote online: “Allow us to educate. ‘Queer’ can be used as an umbrella term for those who do not identify as heterosexual or straight. It can mean many different things to people but is a way of uniting those to identify as their authentic self.”

Nope not gonna allow you to “educate,” you patronizing clueless gits.

The critics said the word was a hateful slur often used by violent homophobes.

They added that the Post Office wouldn’t “dream” of advocating use of the N-word, which they felt was similarly offensive.

But the Post Office rebuffed condemnation and said its partnership with charity and museum Queer Britain was evidence the description was acceptable.

Acceptable to the kind of people who accept that kind of thing. Yes of course it is, as is everything, while other say they are wrong to accept that kind of thing.

Bev Jackson, the co-founder of LGB Alliance, told The Telegraph: “Many lesbians and gay men reject the word ‘queer’ as a slur, one often uttered before a vicious beating. Others reject it because it has been claimed by straight people as a fashionable identity.”

Last year, LGB Alliance released a report entitled Don’t Call Me Queer which found 90 per cent of those surveyed felt uncomfortable with the word.

See also: “bitch.” That’s a word that a hell of a lot of people think is “acceptable,” including in its traditional role as an insult to women. They’re all wrong.

A Post Office spokesman said: “We support Pride month and events every year and respond to questions about our support on our social media channels. We’re proud to have previously worked with the charity Queer Britain, the UK’s LGBTQ+ museum.

“They say that language changes and that whilst the term ‘queer’ has long been a term of abuse for LGBTQ+ people, it is being reclaimed by younger people especially who they say embrace it proudly as their identity.”

Therefore it’s brilliant for the Post Office to embrace it too? Seriously??? It agrees that it has long been a term of abuse but says younger people are “reclaiming” it and that somehow makes it acceptable for a not at all young institution to “reclaim” it too, even after many people point out the it remains a term of abuse???

Unbelievable.

Womb-renting dressed up as “diversity” and “choice”:

Surrogacy isn’t “diversity” in the touchy-feely pwogwessive way they want us to think. It’s different, but it ain’t progressive.

Replies are harsh.

The Royal College of Midwives piece is creepy as fuck.

My Surrogacy Journey (MSJ) bring this webinar to raise awareness for all healthcare professionals involved in maternity services.

But it’s not “maternity” services; it’s rent-a-womb services.

Michael and Wes, the co-founders of MSJ, will be sharing their experiences of maternity services and their pathway to parenthood, focussing on both the difference that high quality, equitable care from midwives can make, and the harmful impact poor, stigmatised care can have on a surrogate and intended parents.

All about the men, the men who rent women to gestate and push out their luxury bespoke paid-for babies.

They will also provide a brief overview of their extensive campaigning and the change in direction of both of their careers, all due to them both becoming parents through surrogacy.

Parents through renting women.

It’s the National WOMEN’S Law Center…but now it systematically hides that filthy word.

No, it won’t force “people” to wait until they’re on the brink of death, it will force WOMEN to do that.

If you treat the word “women” as an obscenity then get out. Go set up your own group; get out of any group that was set up as and has always been a group for and about and by women. If you think that word is poison then get out get out get OUT.

Who does Aidan Comerford think he is??

Bev of course is not doing any such thing, and many people are swapping their current headers for the one Comerford objects to. Neener neener bully-boy.

Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on Everyone is on the same level.

A part of me agrees with having singular standards. I’d quite like it if Konstantin Kisin gave it a bash.

You see the standard I have is that one shouldn’t take what someone says in a specific context completely out of that context in order to demonize them.

And that appears to me to be what is happening to Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy here.

To put what she is saying into context, her filmography includes A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness. It is about a girl who survived an attempted honor killing by her father and uncle, only for the Pakistani public to pressure her into forgiveness – so the people who tried to kill would get to go back home.

An earlier documentary was Saving Face, about two women who survived acid attacks. Women in the Holy Kingdom is about feminists in Saudi Arabia.

As a man I do not object to being disturbed by subject matter like this. She should absolutely be happy that men find this stuff disturbing, and it is the precise sort of stuff that should be made with that in mind.

I am extremely opposed to this idea that I should never be disturbed, and generally when the shoe is on the other foot, well, if the shoe was on the other foot Kisin would be championing Sharmeen’s right to express ideas people find disturbing.

So far as to whether she’s the right person to revive Starwars, I don’t know. Her background in politics and economics could be useful for fixing the biggest flaw in Disney Starwars – the lack of solid world building.

In the OT – we know why the emperor wants to build the Death Star, it is because he wants to devolve governance to the system lords, and the Death Star is there to keep them from taking the opportunity to rebel. The conflict is between the empire that rules by fear, and the resistance which believes in rule by consent.

You never really get just what the First Order really believes in, what its ultimate big picture vision for the galaxy is. Having someone come in with a background in politics and economics, if she can bring some of that into the story, may well be what the series needs.

Listen listen listen it turns out that Trump is all God’s idea. Makes sense.

Polls show that a large percentage of Trump supporters believe that God personally picked the twice-impeached, thrice-married, four-time-indicted former president to lead the United States — and Trump himself is now encouraging that belief.

Sure; why wouldn’t that be true? Naturally a god would pick an ignorant greedy mean lazy corrupt sadistic empty suit to take the top job in a nuclear-armed nation with a history of reckless adventures.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump promoted a video that flat-out declared that “God gave us Trump” as His personal representative to lead the United States of America.

Among other things, the video declared that God needed Trump to “fight the Marxists” in America while also working past midnight every night, despite the fact that leaked White House schedules showed that Trump spent almost every night watching Fox News instead of meeting with world leaders.

The video then purported to quote God as saying, “I need somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle the Deep State and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild.”

Ew. That’s a mental image I could have lived without. Also he doesn’t have a gentle bone in his body or thought in his head. He’s the most casually brutal human being most of us have ever seen.

That’s a very very very intelligent thing to say:

“If you can’t say it about women, you shouldn’t be able to say it about men without the same repercussions.”

So, you can’t talk about rape. You can’t say that women rape women because women aren’t equipped to rape women, and therefore you can’t say that men rape women, even though men are equipped to rape women and, as a sex, have a long history of raping women. What a handy way to shut women up!

Apparently there’s no such thing as a power imbalance of any kind ever, so you can’t talk about rich bosses exploiting poor workers, you can’t talk about prosperous safe powerful people exploiting and/or punishing struggling threatened powerless people. You have to pretend that everyone is on an equal footing right now this minute and therefore no one can accuse anyone of committing any form of injustice.

When did all this get straightened out and why weren’t we told?

Showing the more:

A young woman named Roya Heshmati shared her horrific ordeal of receiving 74 lashes for refusing to cover her hair. Despite her punishment, she remained defiant, refusing to wear the hijab during and after her lashing. Singing courageously, “In the name of women, in the name of life, the chains of slavery have been torn apart.” At the same time, Taliban arrested women of Afghanistan for “bad hijab”.

I call on all women across the globe to condemn this barbaric laws, and show their solidarity with the women of Iran and Afghanistan, who are suffering under the Taliban and Islamic Republic.

This is 21st century, and we need global unity to END gender apartheid regimes.

Read part of Roya’s story:

“This morning, I faced my sentence of 74 lashes for defying the mandatory hijab. Accompanied by my lawyer, I entered the District 7 prosecutor’s office, deliberately removing my hijab. Ignoring the officials’ orders to cover up, I stood my ground.

An officer threatened additional punishment if I didn’t comply, but I refused to wear the hijab. Defiantly, I was handcuffed and led to a basement room, akin to a medieval torture chamber.

In the execution room, with concrete walls and an ominous execution bed, the judge asked if I was okay. I remained silent, showing my resistance. Ordered to prepare for the lashes, I hung up my coat and scarf, refusing to wear the hijab despite their insistence.

As the lashes commenced, I silently recited a poem about liberation and resistance. Despite the pain, I didn’t let them see my suffering. After the punishment, I continued to defy their demands to wear the hijab, a symbol of my unwavering stance against oppression.” This is the reality of living under Sharia Laws. #LetUsTalk

Arguing over the campaign to get rid of Claudine Gay:

[T]he fallout at one of the nation’s elite universities is also illuminating the ways in which the political right is increasingly targeting education, with deliberate efforts to “take on” elite schools by stripping them of federal student loan money and undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and a parallel movement to undo K–12 education with laws that limit the teaching of history or ban books and classroom libraries.

The trouble here is that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs aren’t an unmistakable good even to people who aren’t on the political right. The lunacy that bubbles and festers around “trans rights” has made a lot of lefty jargon suspect even to many lefties. Like the word “inclusion” for instance – which means things like “including” men in everything that belongs to women, if those men say they are women. That kind of verbal manipulation tends to provoke suspicion of all progressive jargon, because how can we be confident it’s not all that stupid?

All too true.

See also: Can you remove all these references to Jews?

It’s not just the BBC.

It’s also – of course – the Guardian.

Sir Nicholas Winton, who saved hundreds of children from the Nazis, was so modest that he rejected an initial proposal to make a film about him, according to the producer of One Life, the soon-to-be released biographical drama about the British humanitarian.

Iain Canning told the Observer that, about five years before Winton’s death in 2015 aged 106, he and fellow producer Emile Sherman visited him at his Maidenhead home during a break from shooting their film, The King’s Speech.

Over tea, they broached the subject of making a film about the man who helped save 669 children from German-occupied Czechoslovakia, just before the beginning of the second world war, but Winton politely turned them down.

…

[Anthony Hopkins] was inspired to play a man who, alongside others, saved the lives of children who were otherwise destined for the gas chambers and furnaces of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Belsen.

One Life, released on 1 January, tells the story of “Nicky” Winton who, as a young London broker, visited Prague in December 1938 and found families who had fled the rise of the Nazis in Germany and Austria. They were living in desperate conditions with little or no shelter or food, and under threat of Nazi invasion. He immediately responded to their plight and, in a race against time, tried to save as many children as he could before the borders closed.

Why were the children destined for the gas chambers? Why did the families flee the rise of the Nazis? It’s a secret; it must not be mentioned. The Guardian does very well: there’s not a single appearance of the words “Jew” and “Jewish” in the entire article.

Anything missing here?

The family of Sir Nicholas Winton, who organised the rescue of more than 600 children from the Nazis, say he refused to think of himself as a hero. The philanthropist is now the subject of a film which tells the story of him bringing them from German-occupied Czechoslovakia to the UK in 1939.

His grandson Laurence, who lives in Herefordshire, said the making of the film had been an emotional process. It also had a pertinent message about refugees today, he added.

Sir Nicholas, known as Nicky to his friends and family, saved 669 young children in the nine months leading up to the outbreak of World War Two.

Missing: the word “Jewish.” It seems it’s become an obscenity to the BBC.

Watch out, guys, don’t let women get away with anything. One minute it’s saying something, the next it’s your balls in a pickle jar.

Oscar-winning filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy is attached [sic] to direct an upcoming “Star Wars” film, making her the first woman to helm a film in the iconic franchise—but right-wing critics are blasting the movie as “woke” after Obaid-Chinoy said it’s “about time” a woman directed a “Star Wars” installment.

Hell yes, what business does a woman have saying women should participate in the common culture?

Obaid-Chinoy, a filmmaker known for directing feminist documentaries, was announced in April 2023 as director of an upcoming, unnamed film set in the “Star Wars” universe and starring Daisy Ridley—who portrayed protagonist Rey in the sequel trilogy of the main “Star Wars” series.

Obaid-Chinoy will be the first woman and the first person of color to direct a film set in the “Star Wars” universe.

Some right-wing pundits criticized Obaid-Chinoy, deeming her comments “woke,” and resurfaced remarks she made at a 2015 Women in the World summit in which she said she likes to “make men uncomfortable” through her art.

Shut up guys. Men make women uncomfortable via the movies they create all the time. Some men make some movies that are about nothing else. Lots of men love to make women uncomfortable.

Conservative pundits criticized Obaid-Chinoy’s comments, including Benny Johnson, who claimed the “Star Wars” franchise is “doomed.” Pundit Matt Walsh posted a video of Obaid-Chinoy’s Women in the World summit interview, stating the film is “destined to be Disney’s biggest flop yet.” “It’s like they ENJOY losing money,” the popular right-wing account Libs of TikTok posted in response to Walsh.

Blah blah blah. Women are supposed to make dinner and spread their legs. Men are supposed to make the culture. It’s God’s plan.

Gee, I’d have thought that was illegal, and in fact it is illegal.

Trump businesses received $7.8 million in foreign payments during presidency

You don’t want that, see, because it can motivate the prez to do things for $$$ instead of for the common good.

During Donald Trump’s presidency, his businesses received at least $7.8 million in payments from the foreign governments and officials of 20 countries, including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, according to a report released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

The report argues that the payments violated the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, a provision that bars federal officials, including the president, from accepting money or gifts from foreign governments without permission from Congress. That clause was central to a protracted legal debate when Democrats controlled the House and sought access to Trump’s financial records. The issue eventually landed at the Supreme Court, but there was no definitive ruling on whether Trump illegally profited from his presidency. Instead, the justices in 2021 said the cases were moot because Trump no longer held office.

In other words Trump and the Supremes waited it out. Score!

“These payments were made while these governments were promoting specific foreign policy goals with the Trump Administration and even, at times, with President Trump himself, and as they were requesting specific actions from the United States to advance their own national policy objectives,” according to the 155-page report released Thursday.

Sheer coincidence.

Trump is campaigning on his prowess as a treasonous criminal.

“Trump heading into the 2024 election has decided to go all in as being the pro-Jan. 6 candidate,” said Tom Joscelyn, a counterterrorism expert who served as a senior staff member on the Congressional Select Committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack. “He’s gone full steam ahead in praising and in his own way endorsing the Jan. 6 rioters and extremists who attacked the Capitol.”

And what is January 6? An attempted coup.

Trump launched the first rally of his 2024 presidential campaign by playing a rendition of the “Star-Spangled Banner” sung by Jan. 6 defendants in jail. He frequently refers to that day as “beautiful” and says his supporters facing criminal charges are “January 6 patriots.” He refers to people in prison on Jan. 6-related charges as “hostages” in his stump speech. He has also hosted fundraisers for a controversial nonprofit group that financially supports Jan. 6 defendants, and campaign finance records show that his political action committee donated $10,000 to the group.

…

Trump’s stated promise to act as a “dictator” on day one of his presidency, alongside his description of his political enemies as “vermin,” his call for the “termination” of provisions in the Constitution and his claim that unauthorized immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country, have led his critics to fear how he will use presidential power.

Ya think?