Greta Thunberg arrested for disobeying the police:

Ms Thunberg, 20, joined a group of young protesters blockading oil tankers at a port in Malmö in June. Police said she refused to leave when asked to. She could face a six-month prison sentence or a fine.

…

Climate activists around the world have targeted the fossil fuel industry, including the UK group Just Stop Oil which has been disrupting high-profile sports events this summer. Much of the oil and gas industry says that continued production is necessary in order to meet global energy demands.

Well, one, of course it does, because it’s the oil and gas industry. It’s not going to say “shut us down” now is it.

But two, yes, that’s true, but that’s the problem. Global energy demands are going to destroy most life on the planet. Saying “But we neeeeeeeeeeeeeed it” isn’t going to change that.

Peter Tatchell is revolting.

LGB Alliance has negligible support among LGBTs

It’s goal is to split the LGBT+ community, turn LGBs against trans people & oppose trans inclusion & equality

It does very little work to promote LGB rights. It’s promised LGB helpline has never happened

#Mermaids does great work

Mermaids ruins children’s lives.

Freelance journalist Jill Foster says:

Just off phone to one of the brilliant schoolgirls who wrote the ‘Can we have single-sex toilets back please?’ letter to Sunak. Wow.

Intelligent, articulate, focused, can spot gender BS from 100 miles. Oh lads, you thought you had problems with some pesky middle-aged women…

Possible testimony on the side of “they did write the letter themselves.”

The Good Law Project responds with name-calling:

Are you disappointed with the outcome?

The LGB Alliance has a free speech right to attack trans people. But its activities should never have been subsidised with public funds – or recognised as in the public interest – by the Charity Commission. This felt to the sector – and to Good Law Project – like a very important line in the sand to defend. 

But the LGB Alliance doesn’t “attack trans people.” It’s not attacking people to say they’re not the sex they’re not. It’s not attacking a man to tell him “You’re not a woman.” In some contexts, as we know all too well by now, it’s necessary, for the sake of women’s safety or privacy or fair sports or prizes or awards or a whole long list of situations, to say that men are not women and thus should not be violating women’s privacy or invading their sport or taking their prizes. Lesbians aren’t attacking men by not coupling up with them even when they try to look like women. The LGB Alliance isn’t attacking trans people by spelling all this out. The Good Law Project, in short, is telling a whopper here.

[The case] was supported by the LGBT Consortium, of 525 LGBT+ organisations,  who were deeply concerned that an organisation whose actions are about excluding trans people would be able to obtain charity status, with all the benefits this brings. 

Listen here – gay groups are allowed to “exclude” straight people. Feminist groups are allowed to “exclude” men. Reading groups are allowed to “exclude” people who hate to read. Labor unions are allowed to “exclude” people not in the relevant industry. Schools are allowed to “exclude” adults as students. The list is pretty much infinite. People are allowed to form groups based on an array of commonalities. I daresay The Good Law Project “excludes” various categories of people.

The Charity Mermaids was the Claimant because it had been repeatedly and explicitly targeted by LGBA.

The Charity Mermaids urges children to take puberty blockers. It merits “targeting” if by “targeting” we mean criticism and dissent. The Good Law Project also merits “targeting” in the form of criticism and dissent. Here’s mine.

JK Rowling shares a tweet from Jolyon Maugham that pretends Mermaids didn’t really lose, with the comment

The unsophisticated might think Jolyon has had his arse handed to him on a plate, but it’s important to remember that losing is on a spectrum, and Jolyon identifies as someone who would have won if only his side weren’t trying to exercise legal rights they didn’t have. #binary

One thing trans ideology has been good for is nurturing caustic wit in onlookers.

Jeremy Brier KC says:

The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the “technical ground” of standing. The GLP says they “signalled the case is not straightforward” when they began which is “reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision”.

Let’s unpack three key errors:

(1) The word “technical” does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being relevant. So Mermaids “technically” should never have brought the case. So Mermaids “technically” lost.

(2) On analysis, the case was straightforward. Mermaids didn’t have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.

(3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.

Let’s say a lot about how obviously wrong they are.

Ah what a fine parade of headlines:

The Guardian:

Trans charity Mermaids fails to have charitable status stripped from LGB Alliance

BBC News:

Trans charity Mermaids loses challenge against LGB Alliance

The Telegraph:

Trans group Mermaids loses bid to have gay rights charity shut down

The Guardian account is surprisingly free of snide insinuations:

The transgender children’s charity Mermaids has lost its attempt to have charitable status stripped from the new gay rights organisation LGB Alliance.

Golly! The Guardian calls it “the new gay rights organisation” instead of calling it “the anti-trans rights organisation.”

In the hearing last autumn, the two organisations set out their opposing views. The legal discussion pitched the LGB Alliance’s position that there are only two sexes and that gender is a social construct against Mermaids’ position that the gender identity of trans people should be affirmed. It focused attention on increasingly divisive debates over sex and gender identity, and the legal definitions of same-sex attraction and sexual orientation.

That too is a much more reasonable account of the gender critical view than we’re accustomed to seeing. It doesn’t quite get the opposition right though – the part that describes the LGBA is ontology while the part that describes Mermaids is ethics, aka what sex or gender is versus what we should do about people who are confused on the subject. To make the two positions match it should be something like “the LGB Alliance’s position that there are only two sexes and that gender is a social construct against Mermaids’ position that gender identity is as real as sex”…or real in the same way sex is, or something like that. Ontology v ontology, not ontology v what should we do now. Matchy matchy.

The LGB Alliance points out that it never wanted this very expensive fight.

“Two years ago, we were clear that Mermaids had no standing to challenge our registration, and today the tribunal has confirmed that we were correct. While this is a battle we did not seek, neither would we flee from it. But the cost to us and to our supporters has been huge.

“Our legal fees amount to more than £250K and that money has come from small supporter donations. So, while our win is great news for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, we can’t help but reflect on the fact that a sum like that would have been better spent on projects such as our helpline for young people.”

Mermaids says it’s considering an appeal. Of course it does.

We must not stop using oil, says oil executive, and what possible reason could an oil executive have to tell us to keep using oil while the planet heats up like an oven that heats up to infinity?

Cutting oil and gas production would be “dangerous and irresponsible”, the boss of energy giant Shell has told the BBC. Wael Sawan insisted that the world still “desperately needs oil and gas” as moves to renewable energy were not happening fast enough to replace it.

But the world also desperately needs not to keep heating up.

Mr Sawan angered climate scientists who said Shell’s plan to continue current oil production until 2030 was wrong. Professor Emily Shuckburgh, a climate scientist at the University of Cambridge, said firms such as Shell should focus on accelerating the green transition “rather than trying to suggest the most vulnerable in society are in any way best served by prolonging our use of oil and gas”.

Mr Sawan told the BBC: “I respectfully disagree.” He added: “What would be dangerous and irresponsible is cutting oil and gas production so that the cost of living, as we saw last year, starts to shoot up again.”

In other words we’re screwed either way.

Stark raving mad. The Times:

A women’s rights and gender equality campaigner is having her bank account shut without explanation, her family said last night.

Professor Lesley Sawers, 64, the Equalities and Human Rights commissioner for Scotland, has been with the Royal Bank of Scotland, a subsidiary of the NatWest Group, for 32 years.

However, two weeks ago, she and husband, Allan McKechnie, were told that their joint account, containing thousands of pounds, would be shut next month. In a letter, RBS said that it would be ceasing its “banking relationship” with the couple and they would have to make other banking arrangements “outside of the Natwest group”.

RBS added that it was “not able to discuss this decision with you or provide you with any further information in relation to our decision-making”.

Wtf do they mean “not able”? Of course they’re able; they don’t want to.

Sawers has been in her role since 2016. She has not been involved in any controversies but the role deals with women’s and LGBT rights.

McKechnie, a private pilot from South Ayrshire, said that they had spoken to another bank about an account only to be told that Sawers has a “mark against her name”.

They were given no further details. McKechnie added: “It is extraordinary. It’s a terrible way to treat someone and a very serious thing.”

It’s stark raving mad, I tell you.

We’re going up up up…and not in a good way.

The world’s average temperature climbed to its highest level since records began, according to provisional data from U.S. researchers, underscoring the pressing need to slash greenhouse gas emissions fueling the climate emergency.

The planet’s average daily temperature climbed to 17.18 degrees Celsius (62.9 degrees Fahrenheit) on Tuesday, according to the University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer, an unofficial tool that is often used by climate scientists as a reference to the world’s condition.

The milestone comes just one day after global average temperatures topped 17 degrees Celsius for the first time in 44 years, when the data was first collected. The previous record of 16.92 degrees Celsius had stood since Aug. 14, 2016 — the warmest year ever recorded.

“Monday, July 3rd was the hottest day ever recorded on Planet Earth. A record that lasted until … Tuesday, July 4th,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, via Twitter.

Better take one of those cruises to Alaska or Antarctica to cool off.

Lies must be set free.

A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about broad swaths of content online, a ruling that could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues.

The order, which could have significant First Amendment implications, is a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.

It was a victory for Republicans who have often accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube of disproportionately taking down right-leaning content, sometimes in collaboration with government.

That’s because right-leaning content also leans heavily toward lies.

In the ruling, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, could not talk to social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Lies must be free!

When even banks and the police are on board, it’s time to realize your cause may not be all that progressive.

The Bank of England has stated that people of any gender identity can become pregnant.

Then the Bank of England has said a deeply stupid thing. “Any gender identity” will necessarily include males, and males cannot become pregnant.

In any case “gender identity” is irrelevant to pregnancy. A person’s sex is relevant to pregnancy. The female sex is the one that can get pregnant; the male sex is the one that can’t. Next question?

Andrew Bailey’s under-pressure central bank, which is battling to bring inflation under control, also offers to help staff to pay for gender reassignment treatment using private medical insurance.

The Bank of England’s views and actions were included in its 2022 submission to be included in the list of the 100 top employers published by Stonewall, the LGBT lobby group, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times.

What, the Bank of England wants to be one of the cool kids? Since when do banks aspire to Stonewall stardom? When have banks ever given this much of a shit about women?

The Bank is to introduce a recruitment system that will include “broader gender definitions” and wants to create “quantitative targets” in respect of LGBT employees. Stonewall suggested a focus on categories such as parents, LGBT staff aged under 26 or over 50, those at board level and people of faith. It added: “Stonewall can support with developing this area through creating bespoke workshops.”

The Bank of England said: “The Bank is committed to being an inclusive place to work for all of its colleagues who are all dedicated to delivering monetary and financial stability.”

Surely this is parody. Surely.

Conor Friedersdorf on the hypocrisy of mandatory diversity statements:

John D. Haltigan sued the University of California at Santa Cruz in May. He wants to work there as a professor of psychology. But he alleges that its hiring practices violate the First Amendment by imposing an ideological litmus test on prospective hires: To be considered, an applicant must submit a statement detailing their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

That sounds like a stretch to me, but I’m not a lawyer. But whether it violates amendment #1 or not, it is at least an irritating mode of gatekeeping. It’s jargon, and jargon of that kind tends to put people off more than it inspires them to help minorities dismantle barriers. Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s good to help minorities kick over those barriers, it’s just that I think pious jargon isn’t the way to do that.

The lawsuit compares the DEI-statement requirement to Red Scare–era loyalty oaths that asked people to affirm that they were not members of the Communist Party. It calls the statements “a thinly veiled attempt to ensure dogmatic conformity throughout the university system.”

Plus it’s pious jargon.

Imagine if we get dueling pious jargons – the air won’t be fit to breathe.

The Haltigan lawsuit—filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a right-leaning nonprofit—is the first major free-speech challenge to a public institution that requires these statements. If Haltigan prevails, state institutions may be unable to mandate diversity statements in the future, or may find themselves constrained in how they solicit or assess such statements.

…

Alternatively, a victory for UC Santa Cruz may entrench the trend of compelling academics to submit DEI statements in institutions that are under the control of the left—and serve as a blueprint for the populist right to impose its own analogous requirements in state college systems it controls. For example, Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute, who was appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis to help overhaul higher education in Florida, advocates replacing diversity, equity, and inclusion with equality, merit, and colorblindness. If California can lawfully force professors to detail their contributions to DEI, Florida can presumably force all of its professors to detail their contributions to EMC. And innovative state legislatures could create any number of new favored-concept triads to impose on professors in their states.

One, two, many Pious Jargons!

This specialty gatekeeping seems to have developed and ballooned very quickly.

The regime these administrators created is a case study in concept creep. Around 2005, the UC system began to change how it evaluated professors. As ever, they would be judged based on teaching, research, and service. But the system-wide personnel manual was updated with a novel provision: Job candidates who showed that they promoted “diversity and equal opportunity” in teaching, research, or service could get credit for doing so. 

…

If matters stood there, the UC approach to “diversity and equal opportunity” might not face legal challenges. But administrators successfully pushed for a more radical approach. What began as an option to highlight work that advanced “diversity and equal opportunity” morphed over time into mandatory statements on contributions to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The shift circa 2018 from the possibility of credit for something to a forced accounting of it was important. So was the shift from the widely shared value of equal opportunity to equity (a contested and controversial concept with no widely agreed-upon meaning) and inclusion. The bundled triad of DEI is typically justified by positing that hiring a racially and ethnically diverse faculty or admitting a diverse student body is not enough—for the institution and everyone in it to thrive, the best approach (in this telling) is to treat some groups differently than others to account for structural disadvantages they suffer and to make sure everyone feels welcome, hence “inclusion.”

…

Perhaps the most extreme developments in the UC system’s use of DEI statements are taking place on the Davis, Santa Cruz, Berkeley, and Riverside campuses, where pilot programs treat mandatory diversity statements not as one factor among many in an overall evaluation of candidates, but as a threshold test. In other words, if a group of academics applied for jobs, their DEI statements would be read and scored, and only applicants with the highest DEI statement scores would make it to the next round. The others would never be evaluated on their research, teaching, or service.

Wo. That’s startling. It’s not an add-on at the very end, it’s the first gate.

This approach—one that is under direct challenge in the Haltigan lawsuit—was scrutinized in detail by Daniel M. Ortner of the Pacific Legal Foundation in an article for the Catholic University Law Review. When UC Berkeley hired for life-sciences jobs through its pilot program, Ortner reports, 679 qualified applicants were eliminated based on their DEI statements alone. “Seventy-six percent of qualified applicants were rejected without even considering their teaching skills, their publication history, their potential for academic excellence, or their ability to contribute to their field,” he wrote. “As far as the university knew, these applicants could have well been the next Albert Einstein or Jonas Salk, or they might have been outstanding and innovative educators who would make a significant difference in students’ lives.”

I hate to agree with Catholic University on anything, but that’s appalling if it’s true.

And the cruise ships still ply to and fro.

Travelers are drawn to Antarctica for what they can find there—the wildlife, the scenery, the sense of adventure—and for what they can’t: cars, buildings, cell towers. They talk about the overwhelming silence. The Norwegian explorer Erling Kagge called it “the quietest place I have ever been.”

All of these attractions are getting harder to find in the rest of the world. They’re disappearing in Antarctica too. The continent is melting; whole chunks are prematurely tumbling into the ocean. And more people than ever are in Antarctica because tourism is on a tear.

“Antarctica is so brilliant because it’s quiet and empty of people, so I’m going to go there!” The human story in a nutshell.

Four decades ago, the continent saw only a few hundred visitors each summer. More than 100,000 people traveled there this past season, the majority arriving on cruises. 

That is, on cruise ships, the ones that burn 85 thousand gallons of fuel a day when in motion.

Perversely, the climate change that imperils Antarctica is making the continent easier to visit; melting sea ice has extended the cruising season. Travel companies are scrambling to add capacity. Cruise lines have launched several new ships over the past couple of years. Silversea’s ultra-luxurious Silver Endeavour is being used for “fast-track” trips—time-crunched travelers can save a few days by flying directly to Antarctica in business class.

Well if there’s anything you want when visiting Antarctica it’s ultra-luxury.

Traveling to Antarctica is a carbon-intensive activity. Flights and cruises must cross thousands of miles in extreme conditions, contributing to the climate change that is causing ice loss and threatening whales, seals, and penguins. By one estimate, the carbon footprint for a person’s Antarctic cruise can be roughly equivalent to the average European’s output for a year, because cruise ships are heavy polluters and tourists have to fly so far. 

To repeat: cruise ships burn 85 thousand gallons of fuel a day. And this is purely recreational aka luxury travel – it serves no purpose other than the enjoyment of the people on the cruise ships and planes. Enjoyment is a good thing, but slowing the destruction of the Antarctic is a better thing.

Antarctic tourism also directly imperils an already fragile ecosystem. Soot deposits from ship engines accelerate snow melting. Hikes can damage flora that take well over a decade to regrow in the harsh environment. Humans risk introducing disease and invasive species. Their very presence, North Carolina State scientists have shown, stresses out penguins, and could affect the animals’ breeding.

Yet as tourism gets more popular, companies are competing to offer high-contact experiences that are more exciting than gazing at glaciers from the deck of a ship. Last year, for instance, a company named White Desert opened its latest luxury camp in Antarctica. Its sleeping domes, roughly 60 miles from the coast, are perched near an emperor-penguin colony and can be reached only by private jet. Guests, who pay at least $65,000 a stay, are encouraged to explore the continent by plane, Ski-Doos, and Arctic truck before enjoying a gourmet meal whose ingredients are flown in from South Africa.

Yeah that’s great, zip around on Ski-Doos and disrupt Emperor Penguins’ breeding. Whatever floats your jet ski.

In 2007, the MS Explorer, a 250-foot expedition cruise ship, sank near penguin breeding grounds on the South Shetland Islands, leaving behind a wreck and a mile-long oil slick. Most cruise ships are registered in what Stephens calls “flag-convenient countries” that are lax on oversight.

That’s nice. That’s an impressive touch.

It’s Wednesday. I think that’s the only day in the week there isn’t a cruise ship or two at the pier due west of where I’m sitting right now.

It’s not the future any more.

The world’s average temperature reached a new high on Monday 3 July, topping 17 degrees Celsius for the first time. Scientists say the reading was the highest in any instrumental record dating back to the end of the 19th century. The high heat is due to a combination of the El Niño weather event and ongoing emissions of carbon dioxide.

Researchers believe there will be more records in the coming months as El Niño strengthens.

Stay in the shade.

If you’re a man who claims to be trans you can do whatever you want.

A transwoman who admitted having dozens of indecent images of children has been spared jail after magistrates said they took an “unusual” decision.

Images of children being sexually abused, that is.

Tanya Howes, 66, was told by magistrates that the offences “would normally attract immediate custody”.

But they said they had decided to suspend a 12 month jail term, something they conceded was “unusual”.

But you see he’s a Member of the Trans Communniny so it wouldn’t do to punish him.

A ban on trans women with male genitalia who are violent or sexual offenders serving sentences in female prisons came into force earlier this year.

No trans women should be serving sentences in female prisons.

Howes, of Netherwood Green, Norwich, was sentenced to a total of 12 months imprisonment, suspended for two years.

Ian Taylor, chair of the bench of magistrates, said: “These offences would normally attract immediate custody.”

“But you’re trans so you can do whatever you want all the time.”

Damien Moore, mitigating, said: “This case has attracted publicity that has inevitably had consequences for her in her personal life. It’s very, very clear that she will forever more have to live with the shame and embarrassment that these offences bring upon someone”.

Or maybe he doesn’t feel any shame and embarrassment.

Transgender Trend shares a heartbreaking and enraging letter to Rishi Sunak from five teenage girls asking for single-sex toilets in schools.

Five teenage girls from schools across England have got together to write to the Prime Minister asking for the re-establishment of single-sex toilets in schools, for the privacy, dignity and safety of girls, and to state this unequivocally in the forthcoming trans schools guidance. The girls have used pseudonyms to protect their identities, which we also think sends a strong message about the situation for girls now in schools, that they are too afraid of being ostracised or bullied for holding gender-critical views [to make this reasonable request openly].

Dear Rishi Sunak

Single-sex facilities are an essential safeguarding feature, however we – five girls in secondary school – are concerned that this matter may be overlooked in the upcoming schools transgender guidance in place of a recommendation for a mixture of single-sex and mixed-sex toilets. If this is the case, it will severely lessen the safeguards set in place to protect girls and will place many at risk. We urge the Prime Minister, as the father of two young daughters, to ensure our rights are upheld in the upcoming schools transgender guidance. 

Secondary school can be an incredibly turbulent time for girls – our bodies are changing, the social relationships between boys are girls are different, and we may not feel entirely uncomfortable with everything happening to and around us. This can be an extremely distressing time, and single-sex spaces such as toilets can be a place for us to deal with stress in a private environment – but when you introduce the opposite sex into the equation, any dignity we retain is immediately obliterated.  

But girls don’t need dignity, right? Girls don’t need anything? Girls are the ruling class? Girls are the oppressors of trans people? Girls are cis-white Karens?

Periods, for instance, are something that solely girls experience at school. When dealing with menstruation, girls must have private spaces where we can sort this out with dignity, away from potential shaming from boys and the humiliation of having everyone know you’re on your period. However, boys continue to mock girls for menstruating…

If there were no menstruation, there would be no boys to be mocking girls for doing it. How about a little empathy or even gratitude, instead of mockery and disgust?

At one of our schools, there have been multiple complaints from students – for instance, at a student council meeting, the pupils grouped together to ask for change; the boys explaining they found the feminine hygiene products “disgusting”, and the girls stating they felt afraid and upset being forced to use the same toilets as the boys, which have gaps at the top and bottom. However, the school refused to change anything, and to this day, half the toilets in that specific school remain mixed-sex.

Too bad, JuniorKarens. Sucks to be you.

In another school, one of us started an online petition asking for single-sex spaces, however the petition, once reaching 12,800 signatures, was deleted by Change.org. 

Trans people>girls.

Originally a comment by Arty Morty on A seven-page dossier.

I’m glad the Free Speech Union is defending Colonel Wright. I recently ditched my little canvas New Yorker tote bag for a little canvas Free Speech Union bag that I proudly carry every time I go to the market.

I’m not entirely surprised the army is so hostile to gender-critical views, considering the military is lousy with crossdressers. For reasons still not quite understood, military men are far more likely to become transvestites than men in any other profession. The trope of the secretly-crossdressing general has been around since at least the 18th century. It’s incredible how many of the most famous trans activists of the 20th and 21st centuries were soldiers:

Private Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, famed Wikileaks whistleblower.

Admiral Richard “Rachel” Levine, Assistant Secretary of Health.

Sergeant First Class James “Jamie/Ellie Rae” Shupe, first legally-recognized “nonbinary” American.

Lieutenant Colonel James “Jennifer” Pritzker, founder of the Pritzker Military Library.

G.I. George “Christine” Jorgensen, the first famous transsexual.

Lance Corporal James “Jan” Morris, CBE, journalist and bestselling author; famed for accompanying Hillary on his Everest expedition.

No wonder the “trans in the military ban” was the first major campaign the nascent transgender movement took on. I have a friend who works in a government job that serves veterans — he says you wouldn’t believe how many crossdressers/trans identifying men he has to deal with.

There’s a great scene in Tim Burton’s Ed Wood, where the director Ed Wood, played by Johnny Depp, confesses to a film producer that he’s a transvestite (but definitely not gay) in an attempt to win the bid to direct a Christine Jorgensen bio-pic:

Producer: “So, you’re not a fruit?”

Wood: “No, I’m all man. I even fought in WW2. Course I was wearing women’s undergarments under my uniform.”

Producer: “You gotta be kidding me.”

Wood: “Confidentially, I even paratrooped wearing a brassiere and panties. I’ll tell ya, I wasn’t scared of being killed, but I was terrified of getting wounded and having the medics discover my secret.”

Starts at about the 1:30 mark.

All perfectly normal.

Over the weekend, Elon Musk appeared in a Twitter post to endorse the idea of taking the right to vote away from people without children.

Yet again, where are the editors? Musk didn’t appear in a Twitter post. That’s silly: nobody can appear in a Twitter post. But anyway – Musk said the thing.

The billionaire Tesla co-founder replied “Yup,” to a series of posts from Twitter user @fentasyl, which argued “democracy is probably unworkable long term without limiting suffrage to parents.”

Yo Eelzee baby, maybe it’s the other way around. Ja ever think of that? Maybe it’s parents who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, because they’re so likely to favor their children over everyone else.

These opinions are hardly surprising for Mr Musk, who has long expressed concerns about declining birth rates in the US and the lack of “smart” people having enough children, views which critics have argued are verging on eugenicist.

In 2022, Musk, who has fathered nine children, wrote on Twitter that, “A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far.”

Super nice of him to do his bit. Mind you, his bit is a whole hell of a lot easier than the woman’s bit, so he’s not really making much of a sacrifice.

Earlier this year, he elaborated, telling former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson that society hasn’t “evolved” to respond to abortions and contraception, which the billionaire incorrectly claimed were invented in the last 50 years.

“I’m sort of worried that hey, civilisation, if we don’t make enough people to at least sustain our numbers, perhaps increase a little bit, then civilisation’s going to crumble,” Musk said. “The old question of, will civilisation end with a bang or a whimper?”

What “old question” would that be exactly? It’s certainly not what T. S. Eliot meant by the phrase.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Are you now or have you ever been a diversity statement?

If you do think that the different men/women ratios in roles such as primary-school teaching and nursing, versus, say, construction work, being a lumberjack and computer coding, are all about socialisation and very little to do with biological differences, then, well, I think you’re wrong.

It would help things immensly if we were looking at this in an environment where socialization was neutral, but we’re not. I think it’s far too early to rule out socialization. Horribly naive in fact. Even without the subtle (and not so subtle) coaching and influence of even the most well-meaning and enlightened parents, there’s still the rest of the world to deal with outside the small bubble of progressive parenting. The classroom, the schoolyard, the shopping mall, the internet, all have their lessons to pass on, some overt, others less so. You can’t prevent children from seeing and absorbing these influences, however good and non-sexist a parent you are. You can teach your kids how to swim, but they’re still going to get wet. The values, attitudes, and expectations are out there, and will have to be countered and reacted to; even if resisted successfully, it’s still a strain, a burden and yes, an influence all the same. It’s all “socialization,” even if you do not adopt the unacceptable mores in which you find yourself immersed. It’s still a current you have to swim against, one that requires effort, focus, and energy that could have been directed elsewhere had they not been pushing against you. Sure struggle can “build character,” but needless, pointless, bloody-minded idiocy can be a fucking drain, too. The current is wide, and it is constant, and it is strong. Pink Lego is is not value neutral. It’s a physical manifestation of the cultures demands and expectations, coded into a toy. But sure, let’s just dismiss socialization as a factor that has an impact on the sex ratios in jobs and careers.

Women haven’t caught up with men in so many ways in the “developed world” and if you look at the situation from a global perspective, things are even more tenuous for women. Until women get equal pay, equal access to and possession of property and wealth, reproductive choice, supportive childcare, and girls get equal access and provision for education, nobody will be able to run the experiment. We still have cultures where some adults would rather let girls die rather than escape a burning building without modestly covering their heads, that would kill their own daughters if they “dishonour” their families, that will let women die before aborting a doomed fetus, where the police put more effort into prosecuting tweets and limericks than rape. What messages does this send to girls and women in these socities? When do we level this playing field? How free are women in any of these cultures? Maybe we should work out this kind of life and death calculus before we decide that we can safely disregard the influence of socialization in a woman’s decision to become a teacher rather than a lumberjack?

But wait, ther’s more. now women are having to fight a rearguard action against the encroachments of trans activists before they’ve achieved parity with men generally. Another current to fight against, another drain on time energy, and attention. The very word “women” has been declared up for grabs by men claiming it as their own and huge swathes of government, media, and industry are helping them. Children are lured into life long medicalization, stunted development and sterility, again with the enabling hand of powerful, influencial institutions paving the way. Telling kids they can change sex is “socialization” too. Too many kids, and their parents are falling for these blatant lies before we’ve even stopped telling the more subtle and pervasive lies of sexist, patriarchal sex roles that start with pink or blue baby booties. We haven’t acheived justice yet, but are all too eager to swallow madness. These are sex roles with a vengeance. Again, girls are learning lessons in real time about their worth and value as human beings from school boards, universities, sporting bodies, the media and more, who all allow and encourage male invasion of female sports and facilities. It’s a wonder there aren’t more girls trying to flee femaleness when they can see that their rights are so easily violated and cast aside in the interests of male feelings. And if they dare to say “No?” Welcome to pariahhood, Karen. Who wouldn’t rather be special and lionized than worthless and vilified? Not everyone has the strength to fight this kind of battle, to swim against this current. Children shouldn’t have to. But sure Coel, let’s pretend that we can just say that it’s all down to underlying, biological, sex-based preferences, and stop worrying about the the wrongheaded belief that occupational outcomes have anything at all to do with the influence of the cultures that kids are brought up in.

Note: YNnB followed up that comment with “Rereading my post above, I’d like to apologize in advance to Coel for my rhetorical excess in ascribing to him an all or nothing, either/or nature/nurture argument which he has not. I still think he’s far too dismissive of cultural influence, and I think we’re a lot farther from having any sort of control group than he thinks.”