Now that’s a remarkably stupid thing to say.
We “won’t make that case”??? We won’t make the case that rejection of trans ideology is not in any way comparable to racism or anti-semitism or homophobia? We make that case all the time. We point out that it’s false and evidence-free and stupid and bad.
Also notice that he didn’t include the branch of group-hatred that is about half of humanity. Notice that he doesn’t compare what he calls “transphobia” to misogyny. Women? Meh. Who cares.
It would be nice if the climate change issue were just politics, but unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case. I don’t think it’s a hoax that the Colorado River is drying up – there are too many people who could tell us so if it were. Same with those floods in India and Pakistan last year, and the massive wildfires in Australia, and the shrinking ice in Greenland and Antarctica, and other little blips like that.
Ron DeSantis has been accused of a “catastrophic” approach to the climate crisis after he launched his campaign for US president by saying he rejects the “politicization of the weather” and questioning whether hurricanes hitting his home state of Florida have been worsened by climate change.
DeSantis, the Republican Florida governor who announced his bid for the White House via a glitch-heavy Twitter stream on Wednesday, has previously dismissed concerns about global heating as “leftwing stuff” and he expanded upon this theme during a Fox News interview following his campaign launch.
How comforting that would be if true, but…
While governor, DeSantis has adopted bills banning Florida’s cities from adopting 100% clean energy goals and barred the state’s pension fund from making investment decisions that consider the climate crisis due to what he called a corporate attempt to “impose an ideological agenda on the American people”. He has also attacked the US military for being “woke” for warning about the national security risks posed by climate impacts.
“The cost of taking his anti-climate record to the national stage as president would be catastrophic,” said Pete Maysmith, senior vice-president of campaigns for the League of Conservation Voters. “DeSantis has already made clear he would unleash his war on climate science, clean energy jobs, and strong pollution safeguards against clean air and clean water.”
If only we could vote climate change out.
Two out of five. A mere 40 percent! What are you women whining about?!
It’s always worse than we thought. Susie Green told the Tavistock how to “treat” kids who were questioning their gender.
Susie Green, then chairman of the charity Mermaids, was part of a task group reviewing services at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation trans clinic.
…
The Tavistock claimed that it did not have emails or minutes of meetings with Ms Green but after the information regulator threatened court action, it released more than 300 pages.
They show that Ms Green had a direct line to Dr Polly Carmichael, Tavistock’s director, and demanded to be regarded as a professional so she could refer children for treatment when their GPs refused. Ms Green, who has no known formal medical training, held an advisory role on two of the studies that the clinic was involved in on the long-term effect of gender identity.
That’s pretty staggering. Green has no known medical training but she ordered the Tavistock to pretend she did so that she could make medical decisions about children, and the Tavistock complied.
They are the documents that the NHS Tavistock gender clinic claimed did not exist. More than 300 pages of emails and minutes that lay bare for the first time the extent of Mermaids’ involvement in England’s only clinic for transgender children.
The controversial transgender charity has long been named by some whistleblowers as one of the reasons why the Tavistock lost its way, with claims that activists pressured staff to prescribe potentially life-altering drugs.
Now The Telegraph can reveal how Susie Green, then chairman of Mermaids, had a direct line to the clinic’s director Dr Polly Carmichael and was able to make referrals even when a child’s GP repeatedly refused.
Stunning.
Aha, so we know who wrote that dopy crude letter saying Make Stock Go Away that some dopy Oxford academics signed. We know because he’s boasting of it.
He shouldn’t be proud. It’s a bad letter.
Doc Stock hints as much, but much more politely than I did.
Originally a comment by Cluecat on Calling themselves “Gold Command”.
It’s interesting, though isn’t it, that they have to do this each time.
They absolutely must go all out, every time, to attack, smear, dismiss any woman who dares to try to set a boundary. Any boundary. Particularly around a definition of female that excludes males – as with Sex being correctly defined as reality, not Vewy Speshul Identitay.
Women must not be permitted to say “no”. That’s the whole thing – it gives the game away entirely.
If women can say “No, males are not female”, then they will start getting the idea that they can say “no” to males under other circumstances, and that is totally unacceptable to these doodz (and the male-identified women supporting them – feeding the crocodile in the hope that he’ll be too full to eat them. It doesn’t work).
“Be Kind!” isn’t working any more, since a lot of women have spotted the pattern – it’s only ever us that will be expected to shut up and let the males trample all over us. Same as it ever was.
It’s why the attacks on women who say “no” to men are so vicious, why there are whole campaigns to destroy reputations and lives, and why these people will not stop. They can’t. Their whole worldview will come tumbling down, and they can’t admit that.
We cannot be allowed to say “no”. We cannot be permitted to be fully human, otherwise the attacks on us are unacceptable, and others would have to admit that they were wrong, that we do not deserve this.
We will not recant.
The BBC reports on the Stock Spiral:
A group of Oxford University academics have signed a letter supporting the right of transgender students to speak out against Kathleen Stock, a prominent gender-critical figure.
“They have every right to try to shut her up!”
Another group of Oxford academics have already said objections to her invite go against free speech.
But the new letter said it was not a free-speech issue as revoking an invite “is not preventing them from speaking”.
When did we decide “invite” is a noun? When did we decide it’s the better word for “invitation”? When did we decide “invitation” is just too long and formal to bother typing? Four whole extra letters!
Anyway, to the substance – yes, of course revoking an invitation is a free speech issue. Of course particular instances of speech-refusal are free speech issues. That’s not to say I think speech-refusal should never happen, it’s just to say it is an issue.
The open letter shared on Saturday by the university’s LGBTQI+ society, signed by 100 academics and seen by the BBC, said: “We believe that trans students should not be made to debate their existence.”
A hundred academics signed that? How embarrassing for them. The quoted sentence is childishly crude and stupid. Nobody is disputing anybody’s existence; the issue is self-description. If you tell me you’re Queen Elizabeth I and I decline to believe you, I’m not debating your existence, I’m disbelieving your claim about yourself. It would work the same way if you told me you were a snow leopard or an airplane or a bowl of rice pudding. If I didn’t believe you existed I wouldn’t bother to disbelieve your claims.
What the inarticulate students mean of course is that they think students who are trans shouldn’t have to be in the same town as a philosopher who has Disapproved views on what “trans” means. Calling it being made to debate their existence is 1000 times more melodramatic, so that’s what they go with.
“We also refute that this is a free speech issue – disinviting someone is not preventing them from speaking.”
Urgh. Rookie mistake. They didn’t refute anything. Refute does not mean disagree with or reject.
Also, of course, yes, disinviting someone is preventing her from speaking on a given occasion. It’s a calculated insult at best, so it’s not something to do lightly.
“Freedom of speech matters, but we shouldn’t forget the right to protest… debate is essential for a vibrant democracy and we champion it.”
Ahahahahahahaha that’s hilarious. No they don’t.
Helen Webberley orders us all to submit or else.
Funny that she dehumanizes us in the process of telling us we’re hate criminals. The wording should be “This is a message to all those people who think” – not “that” think. She must think we’re subhuman, and here she is saying so in public. To the dungeons with her.
But more seriously – this shit has got to stop. Men are men, and medical doctors have no business trying to bully us into saying men are women. Helen Webberley should rethink her life.
It seems Australia is making it illegal to say that inducing an imitation of lactation in men and then feeding the pseudo-milk to infants is dangerous to those infants. Nothing must be allowed to interfere with men’s fantasies.
Last week a notice was given to my friend and former breastfeeding counsellor Jasmine Sussex by Twitter, advising her of an Australian law infraction. I met Jasmine in person just over a year ago at a Brisbane radical feminist conference, but she first contacted me in 2021 when I wrote an article in The Spectator Oz titled On “Chestfeeding”.
At this time Jasmine’s long relationship with the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) was ending in some level of pain and bitterness. As I wrote in my article, the ABA was collaborating with an organisation called Rainbow Families. The result was the adoption by the ABA of some gender identity ideology-based practices that Jasmine found problematic and dangerous.
Jasmine raised concerns with the ABA, that the inclusion of men in their purview meant an alignment with very shoddy and experimental medicine, just to name one of the many red flags that she raised. Jasmine lost her position as a breastfeeding counsellor and has become entrenched in activism on the gender identity vs sex issue.
…
Women like Jasmine speak up because they can’t turn from what they see. In the world of breastfeeding, the inclusion of gender identity ideology in women’s support infrastructure, is leading to the assumption that male people can produce milk suitable for an infant, and these males should be supported in the pursuit of feeding an infant from their body by the entirety of the medical profession, including birth and lactation specialists. Apart from the coercion that is required to implement such a practice, the process by which endocrinologists are getting human males to exude a substance from their nipples, seems to be ethically debased and scientifically unsupported.
It’s hard to read about this subject without nausea. “Yay we got some kind of stuff to come out of your manly tits, now go nurse that infant!”
Jasmine Sussex and a Brisbane women’s rights activist recently took to Twitter to highlight the disturbing promotion of males feeding infants through an untested chemically induced process. Both women have received notices that their tweets are in violation of Australian law, and the tweets are now hidden from Australian audiences.
So the wounded fee-fees of men who want to poison infants are more important than the health and safety of infants. Why is that, exactly?
I saw this from Dennis so I hared off to find the details.
Calling themselves “Gold Command” ffs. Apparently it’s a police thing, and Gold is of course the top rank, so they’re like Eisenhower on D-Day. Not that they’re at all stuck on themselves.
So I quested and found the Telegraph:
An investigation into Baroness Falkner of Margravine’s work as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission chairman, which has been condemned by her allies as spurious, was suspended on Friday following a backlash from 54 peers and outcry across the political spectrum.
Officials had filed a dossier of 40 complaints alleging “bullying”, “discrimination”, “harassment” and a “lack of psychological safety”, targeted at both [Kishwer Falkner] and her board of 12 expert commissioners, who have powers in statute to make all its policy decisions on equality law.
…
The complaints began when the EHRC pivoted to settle the transgender debate since Lady Falkner took charge, including by taking gender-critical views into account, which has infuriated trans activists.
Pivoted to settle the debate? It’s not clear to me what that means. The rest of the sentence is clear enough though.
Her allies said it was a “victory for Board over Blob” and called on Marcial Boo, the EHRC chief executive, to resign over the row.
A source close to the EHRC said…
“It’s just tragic. There was an elite group of EHRC people who got together to arrange how they would get rid of her and referred to themselves as ‘gold command’. They came to a consensus view that the only way forward was to get a silk to do an investigation and give the silk all the evidence he would need to find her guilty.”
The dossier, which was said to contain 40 allegedly vague allegations, bemoaned “a lack of psychological safety, i.e. the fear of who will be attacked next” and staff were “worried that the commission is becoming an unsafe place to work”. Another took issue with Baroness Falkner allegedly referring to a trans quiz show contestant as a “bloke in lipstick” in a board meeting, which her allies said was taken out of context.
It looks as if the adults have wrested the controls away from the drunk teenagers…for the moment. Mind how you go; don’t make any sudden moves.
A little compilation for your weekend enjoyment.
Platform number one to Brighton. But of course.
The investigation into Kishwer Falkner has been suspended.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has announced it has “paused” an independent investigation into its Chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner.
On Tuesday, this programme revealed that Baroness Falkner was under investigation by an external barrister after allegations about her conduct from a number of staff. Our report also examined claims of a toxic culture at the Commission, allegations of bullying and harassment, claims that there is a high level of staff turnover and internal concerns about its independence and impartiality. The report sparked a lively debate, with accusations that Falkner was the target of a “hit job” by radical pro-trans activists inside the Commission. Today the Board said it had decided to pause the investigation so that it could seek legal advice on the impact of leaked confidential information. It said it must ensure the investigation’s integrity and that it is fair to all parties concerned.
Interesting.
Let’s look at the Bridges statement in more detail.
British Cycling has just banned us from racing. This was to be announced at 11 am today. But I’m done with this whole conversation being on their terms, and being controlled by them.
They have no authority to control this conversation anymore. Does it surprise me that the same organisation funded directly by a state that ships vulnerable refugees to Rwanda, violently clamps down on any political dissent that they disapprove of, or starves their people?
He lost track of his wording there. He surely can’t be claiming that British Cycling violently clamps down on dissent or starves their people, but that’s what he wrote. He seems to have meant can this organization funded by this state that does these bad things itself do bad things to me, yes of course it can.
At any rate the point is he had the fucking audacity to compare his being prevented from cheating women in sports to actual significant human rights abuses. That takes some impressive entitlement.
British Cycling is a failed organisation, the racing scene is dying under your watch and all you do is take money from petrochemical companies and engage in culture wars. You don’t care about making sport more diverse, you want to make yourself look better and you’re even failing at that. Cycling is still one of the whitest, straightest sports out there, and you couldn’t care less.
So he’s pretending that his participation in women’s cycling would make cycling less white and less straight. How would that work exactly? I’m not seeing the mechanism.
This is a violent act. When the Government is expressing admiration towards Ron DeSantis fascist state which kidnaps children, and is itching to pass legislation to ban us from public life, this is a violent act. British Cycling are supporting this, they are furthering a genocide against us.
He says preventing him from cheating women in sport is a violent act. What’s violent about it? His cheating is closer to violence than enforcing a rule against cheating is. His cheating is “violent” in the sense that it’s physical: he’s bigger and stronger and that’s why he wins.
He also says it’s “furthering” genocide, which is grotesque on its face. No it isn’t. He can stay alive and compete against men. He may lose races. That’s not genocide.
I know a lot of people will think I’m being dramatic, or overplaying how scary things are at the moment. I’m having to consider an exit plan from this terrible island and figure out what point enough is enough. It terrifies me to exist at the moment, I have friends getting hate crimed all the time, and my reality is that I can’t look ahead to the future or make plans because I don’t know if I’II be allowed to live that long. Do you have any idea what that does to someone psychologically? To constantly see your existence being put up for debate, and the other side openly calling for our eradication?
Do you have any idea how ludicrous all that is? Of course you do. Does he have any idea of the stats on violence against women? Does he care? Of course he doesn’t.
What a thoroughly horrible person.
This.
It’s not “furthering genocide” to keep men (however they identify) out of women’s sports. Men don’t drop dead on being told they can’t compete against women.
It is, in fact, simply another outrage to add to the long list, to appropriate the word “genocide” to name one’s unjustifiable resentment at being told “No you can’t destroy women’s sports.” The egotism and entitlement of it should be glaringly obvious even to the BBC.
Another thing about the reporting on this, by the way…in case it’s not clear enough already…is the way the news media ignore the reason “trans women” are so keen to do this: because it’s cheating. “Emily” isn’t really upset because “transphobia” or because he’s not being “validated” as a genuine authentic really real solid gold woman, he’s upset because he can no longer cheat.
The BBC implies (without actually saying) that it’s all about “trans rights” and incloosion and diversittee and respect and love and idenniny and yadda yadda when it must know damn well that it’s all about gaining an unfair advantage. They’re not children, they’re the god damn BBC, they’re not so stupid they don’t notice the fuss is all about the male cheats, but they pretend otherwise.
Makes me want to puke.
BBC World at One’s reporting on the British Cycling ruling is jaw-droppingly disgusting. Everybody who talks is practically in floods of tears for poor darling fragile victim “Emily” Bridges and other men who want to cheat, and completely indifferent to women who don’t want to be forced to compete against men in their own sport. It’s so bad and unbalanced and just fucking misogynist I can hardly believe what I’m listening to.
The part where a woman voices Bridges’s statement starts at 12:06.
The BBC’s reporting on it is of course ridiculous.
British Cycling is to ban transgender women from the female category of its competitions following a nine-month review and consultation. Under a new participation policy that the governing body said was “predicated on fairness”, such athletes will compete in an ‘open category’ with men. Female races will be “for those whose sex was assigned female at birth”.
The changes will prevent riders such as Emily Bridges potentially being part of the British women’s team.
The Beeb goes on to quote at vast length from Bridges’s “who gives a fuck about women” statement. Oddly enough there is no matching statement quoted at vast length from one of the women harmed by Bridges’s invasion of women’s cycling.
Critics of transgender athletes’ participation in some women’s sports argue that gives them a disproportionate advantage over their peers and limits opportunities for their rivals.
However, others argue there is not enough detailed research in the area, that the science is not clear, and that with very few elite transgender athletes, sport should be more inclusive, with open categories criticised for being discriminatory.
Utter bullshit. We don’t let adults do this to children and we don’t whine that the science isn’t clear that adults have an advantage.
The BBC is helping India Willoughby and Emily Bridges campaign to destroy women’s rights.
And he knows why “Emily” doesn’t sound like that, too. The BBC as a whole knows, but still it’s eager to enforce the fiction and stomp all over women in the process. It’s nauseating.
Willoughby really is leaning into the witch-hunting.
