The Daily Mail:

The Met today reopened its investigation into a transgender activist and convicted attempted murderer who told activists at a London march to ‘punch TERFs’ in the [fucking] face. 

Sarah Jane Baker, who spent 30 years in jail for kidnap and then the attempted murder of a fellow prisoner, provoked outrage over her inflammatory comments on Saturday against feminists who are critical of trans ideology. 

…

Astonishingly, Baker was defended by the organisers of Trans+ Pride, who said Baker ‘holds a lot of anger’ which she had the ‘right to express… through their words’. 

Astonishingly but not all that astonishingly if you’ve been paying attention to trans ideology and “activism.”

She was reported to the police for inciting violence, but a Met officer told a complainant that it was not in the public interest to pursue the case. They said the call for violence was ‘hypothetical’ and allowed under free speech laws.

No it wasn’t. You can claim it was hyperbole if you want, but not hypothetical. That would be “What if we all punched a terf in the fucking face?” That’s not what he said; he told people to do it. He can always claim he didn’t mean it, but he’s in the video saying it.

However, the Met has since confirmed to MailOnline that the crime report has now been reopened and ‘enquiries remain ongoing’.  

It’s almost as if claiming to be trans is a cloak of invisibility for threats of violence. Normally a man telling a crowd to punch women in the fucking face would be considered sexist and abusive, but when it’s a “trans woman” doing it then it’s righteous.

Twitter has limited visibility of a reply I made to a tweet of Peter Tatchell’s.

This one:

It’s an idiotic thing to say. Of course it wasn’t one person! It was also the crowd who cheered!

So I replied:

I appealed the ruling, but who knows if Twit will pay any attention. It doesn’t matter particularly, it’s just that they missed the point so completely. The whole issue is this guy who joyously screamed about punching women in the fucking face, and Twitter chooses to think I’m the one being naughty.

Update: Oh, I’ll be damned – they did pay attention and restore visibility. At the speed of light, too.

So here is Ian Kennedy’s wisdom on why women don’t want men in women’s sports:

Transgender women in hockey. 

It’s a topic being used by politicians to pass harmful legislation removing rights from transgender people. Meanwhile the presence of transgender women in women’s sport is being defended by human rights advocates, allies, sports governing bodies, and the LGBTQ+ community. 

Why? Why are human rights advocates defending men intruding in women’s sport? Women’s sport is for women, so obviously men should stay out of it. Adults don’t play on Little League teams and men don’t play in women’s sports…unless they’re selfish narcissistic pigs.

At the roots however, research and scholarly analysis has shown that the exclusion of transgender women from women’s sport is based on the same discriminatory premise that historically has excluded cisgender women from sport, and founded gender categorization in the first place. The current push to exclude trans women from women’s sport is founded in the policing of women’s bodies, and the devaluation of women and women’s sport as lesser than men’s.

Wrong. The premise that excluded women from sport was not at all the same premise as the one that created separate sports for women. The motivation is different, the reasons are different. Also, it’s not “policing bodies” to know that men are not women.

The attempt to subjugate women, and now trans women, are rooted in the same sexist and misogynistic ideas of the inferiority of women compared to men, and that women who deviate from societal norms need to be controlled and paternalistically protected. 

Nope. Seeing women as inferior is not the same thing as seeing men as not women. Men really are not women. Women really are not inferior. Those are two independent statements.

In hockey, this presents as cisgender women fighting to exclude transgender women, which ultimately places all women at a lower value in sport and society.

No it doesn’t. Saying men are not women doesn’t place women at a lower value. Women are not men, and saying so doesn’t place men at a lower value. See how that works?

Jon Pike on the Foucauldian trope about “policing women’s bodies”:

Here’s a supposed gotcha, that bugs me, and deserves a thread on ‘policing women’s bodies’ as a criticism of arguments for fair sport for women. The objection is presumably Foucauldian in inspiration, derived from Discipline and Punish and the [concern] with bio-politics.

My reading of Foucault is heavily indebted to Nancy Fraser’s critique: ‘Empirical insights and normative confusions’ sums it up nicely. Those who talk today about ‘policing women’s bodies’ in the context of sport are normatively confused. That’s to say, any practice that secures sex-based spaces necessarily involves regulating bodies, on the basis of sex. So, if sex based spaces are sometimes a good thing then regulating bodies on the basis of sex is a good thing.

But of course calling that “policing” implies that it’s a bad thing, a bad sneaky domineering powery bad thing.

Sometimes, like in the case of female sport, sex-based spaces are a good thing, so it follows that having eligibility rules (aka ‘policing women’s bodies’) is good in these circumstances. In the same way, of course, governing bodies police aged bodies when they have age eligibility rules. So I’m with (Fraser’s) Foucault who says – ‘notice what is happening here, you are regulating bodies.’ and with Fraser who says ‘ – Yes, and?’

We “regulate bodies” in that way all the time, without even thinking about it. When adults play catch with children they don’t throw the ball with all their strength. Now apply that to countless other activities involving adults and children.

Of course, we can comment on and discuss the ways in which eligibility conditions for female sport are established and enforced, and we can discuss the content of them: That’s what this debate is about. So those who, dismissively, talk about ‘policing women’s bodies’ seem to want #nodebate (again) or want the end of women’s sport altogether. They won’t say this, because, as Nancy points out, they are normatively confused (and Michel is at fault here).

Three final points. (i) The key political move about ‘policing women’s bodies’ is directed at reproductive rights, and it’s pretty unpleasant to shift the slogan around to an attack on women’s autonomy and their right to fair sport.

Yes it god damn well is. Pretty unpleasant aka fucking enraging.

ii) Yes, this is a sub tweet about that silliness from the Canadian hockey journalist.

(iii) Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical Insights and Normative Confusions, Nancy Fraser, which is in Unruly Practices, 2008 University of Minnesota Press (from p.17)

I think the Canadian hockey journalist must be this guy:

What brazen nonsense. Keeping men out of women’s sports is not at all similar or parallel to keeping women out of sports in general.

Joan Smith on the both-sidesing of trans “activists” who threaten women with violence:

On Saturday, a convicted criminal got up in front of a cheering crowd in central London and publicly incited violence against women. “If you see a terf, punch them in the fucking face,” he declared to whoops of approval from his audience at Hyde Park Corner.

…

After Baker called for assaults on women at Saturday’s London Trans Pride event, the organisers defended him. They insisted they did not condone violence, but added that “Sarah and many others in our community hold a lot of rage and anger and they have the right to express that anger through their words.” 

In other words many trans people are rageoholics. We know. That’s one reason we think trans ideology is so poisonous.

This goes to the heart of the matter. Time and time again, we are told that transgender people are the most oppressed and marginalised in society, and that their rage is justified. Politicians, including the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who published a grovelling message of support before the march, claim that trans people don’t have full human rights — but are unable to specify which rights they are being denied. (I asked Khan three years ago; I never got a reply.) 

The claim is untrue. Trans people have the same legal rights as the rest of us. What militant activists are demanding is a wholesale takeover of women-only spaces by men who claim to be women.

Women-only spaces, scholarships, prizes, sports – women-only everything of value. They don’t so much want to take over scrubbing toilets and being vulnerable to male violence.

The response, when we politely and reasonably refuse, is a form of aggression instantly recognisable to any woman who has witnessed male violence.

Male violence and male rage. Males don’t always have to resort to physical violence to terrorize women, because their rage does such a good job of signaling what comes next.

The dishonesty doesn’t stop there, however. The notion that “the debate is toxic on both sides” only aids trans activism. There is not a grain of truth in it, but the movement has so successfully indoctrinated supporters that it’s repeated even by Parliamentarians who should know better.

Thus the Labour MP Clive Lewis condemned Baker’s advocacy of violence,  but went on to claim that “violent language and actions are not unique to one side on this issue”. Really? When did feminists bang on windows and let off smoke bombs to disrupt peaceful meetings? When did we threaten to rape people with whom we disagree?

When did we stand up at protests and shout at each other to punch men in the fucking face?

Sir sir can we have some rights please? Sir just a few sir? Not being punching bags please sir?

Not just a convicted violent felon but a wit, too.

Hur hur thank you to the police for not caring that a violent felon incited violence against women hur hur.

Finally some news coverage. The Daily Mail has it and so does the Telegraph. Gee, thanks, Guardian and BBC and Independent; nice to know you’re studiously avoiding news about male felons who incite violence against women.

London Trans Pride has defended a convicted kidnapper who called for protesters to “punch” gender critical people “in the f—— face.”

Sarah Jane Baker, a trans activist who campaigns on behalf of trans prisoners, addressed attendees at the march on Saturday.

She was released from prison three years ago after serving 30 years for the kidnapping and attempted murder of her stepmother’s brother, and for attempting to kill another prisoner while incarcerated.

At the march on Saturday, Baker told a cheering crowd: “I was going to come here and be really fluffy, be really nice and be really lovely and queer and gay and laugh.

“But if you see a Terf, punch them in the f—— face.”

Break their eye sockets, break their noses, smash their teeth, break their jaws, give them TBIs. All in good fluffy fun of course.

London mayor

When asked if Mr Khan supported Baker’s comments, a spokesman said: “The mayor is a proud LGBTQI+ ally and has been clear in his support for the trans community. He is also clear that violence is never acceptable.”

So he supports the trans community but not the women community? Why’s that? Why do trans people – or rather, let’s face it, trans women, who are men – matter while women don’t matter? Why doesn’t the Mayor of London support the women’s community? Does he hate women, look down on women, think women don’t matter?

The London Trans Pride speakers demonstrated at Wellington Arch in London’s Hyde Park Corner on Jul 8. There were 10 scheduled speakers of which Baker was not one, organisers said. She instead took to the stage during the “open-mic” portion of the event.

However, organisers said that while it does not condone violence, many speakers at the event “hold a lot of rage” which they “have the right to express” through words.

So it claims it doesn’t condone violence, while condoning incitement to violence.

A London Trans Pride spokesman said: “Sarah and many others in our community hold a lot of rage and anger and they have the right to express that anger through their words.

“We do not condone violence, we do not back a call to arms for violence of any kind. We do condone righteous anger and the right to the free speech that was expressed yesterday. We have and will continue to march in peace.”

So the spokesman is just a liar. Condoning the right to say “punch women in the face” is in fact condoning a call for violence. You can’t punch a woman in the face non-violently.

It’s not a Both Sides issue.

It’s really really not.

Where does that feeling of male entitlement to make and act on threats of violence against women and girls come from? From human sexual dimorphism, of course. Men are stronger than women, so they know they can punch us with impunity while we know the opposite. That’s their entitlement: they know they can, so they do. We know we can’t, so we don’t, and we also know they can, so we are subject to fear.

I don’t think we should let this Clive Lewis thing fade away. I think he should be pressured to explain why he lied about us and shrugged off the threat against us.

Inciting violence against women is perfectly fine, says someone who claims to speak for the police.

That doesn’t sound like the police to me. It sounds like a teenager who is maybe there to sweep the floors and empty the bins. It sounds ignorant and wrong. The issue isn’t “a hate crime” so much as it is incitement to violence, in particular from a violent ex-con out on lifetime parole. “The female” is not a female, he’s a male, calling for violence against women. The issue isn’t the hate, it’s the violence. Freedom of expression has exceptions, and incitement to murder or violence is high on the list of exceptions. If whatever fool wrote that bilge is really a cop, London is in even more trouble than I thought.

Sarah Jane Baker, the “punch a terf in the face” guy, is running for office.

JOIN SARAH JANE BAKER FOR MP

AND MAKE BRITAIN A NICER, SAFER, AND FRIENDLIER PLACE

FOR US ALL TO LIVE IN

How to make Britain a nicer, safer, and friendlier place to live in: address a rally to tell people to punch feminist women in the face.

Our mission is to inspire and promote impactful solutions to some of the most critical issues we face through the power of civic engagement. Join our community of activists and allies as we work towards a better and more just world.

And by “impactful” he means punching women in the face.

And a male Labour MP says feminist women do it too, without troubling himself to offer a shred of evidence.

But of course they’re absolutely not something everyone would condemn regardless of sex/gender views. We’ve already seen that Labour MP Clive Lewis brushes them off with the ridiculous lie that radical feminists also call for punching trans people in the face.

Of course they won’t. Stonewall thinks we deserve to be punched in the face.

It is indeed so depressing.

This is pretty appalling coming from an MP.

We’ll be aware of no such fucking thing, because it’s not true.

What a stinking cowardly woman-hating liar.

I think the BBC is telling a whopper here.

A teenage boy who was sexually assaulted by two women woke up with his clothes removed and injuries to his head and body, Sussex Police have said. The 15-year-old was walking along Cants Lane in Burgess Hill before heading through a wooded area towards World’s End at about 18:15 BST on 4 June. He was assaulted and woke up on the floor, police said.

The floor? The forested area has a floor? Ffs Beeb, you’re not teenagers. He woke up on the ground.

But more to the point – I don’t believe you. Women don’t sexually assault teenage boys. Why would they? What would be the payoff?

Both women were between 18 and 20 years old, one being 6ft 3in (1.9m) tall and with bright dyed red hair.

A 6ft 3in woman sexually assaulting a boy in a wooded area? Nope, I don’t believe you.

Pouring gasoline on the fire.

H/t Rev David Brindley

This is nice.

So enlightened and progressive.

Shock-horror:

Young V&A removes trans poster and LGBTQ+ books

A poster supporting transgender rights and two books discussing LGBTQ+ identities have been removed from the Young V&A (YVA) ahead of the museum’s reopening on Saturday (1 July).

According to an email sent to Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union members at the V&A, shared anonymously with Arts Professional, the decision to remove the poster and books was made by V&A Director, Tristram Hunt, last week.

The poster was produced by charity Stonewall and read: ‘Some people are trans, get over it!’. The books removed from the YVA bookshop – Seeing Gender and Here and Queer – are illustrated books, the first on expressing and understanding the complexities of gender and the second a guide aimed at girls to educate on aspects of queer life, such as coming out and Pride.

Well, museums do change their exhibits regularly. I daresay they even alter exhibits sometimes. Why wouldn’t they? Curators aren’t there just to take up space.

I think a poster with that silly message merits removal, on grounds of silliness plus rudeness. It’s not actually true that “some people are trans” in the sense of “some people are the other sex.” Some people think of themselves as trans, yes, but that doesn’t mean we have to agree with them, much less that we have to “get over it.”

But then posters in museums aren’t necessarily there because they make truthful statements. (The Holocaust Museum is full of lies, because it’s there to document them.) The Stonewall poster is a piece of propaganda for the idea that people can and should change sex. Maybe the V&A, or at least its director, has decided it doesn’t want to display that particular brand of propaganda at this time. I think they’re allowed to do that.

The letter says PCS union has been working with the V&A Staff LGBTQ Working Group and fellow trade union Prospect to explore ways to have the objects returned to display before the museum reopens.

It adds the working group, Propsect representatives and several PCS representatives met with Hunt to discuss the issue on Monday afternoon. 

In the meeting, the request to return the poster and books was rejected.

…

Asked for comment, Steven Warwick, PCS Culture Group Secretary, said: “PCS is absolutely clear that we oppose the removal of these objects and urges the V&A to reverse this decision. The poster was simply a statement of fact that ‘Some people are trans’. That the director of the V&A considers this to be a controversial statement is disappointing.”

Ah but it’s not simply a statement of fact. Some people say they are trans; that’s a statement of fact; but the claim that they are trans is hotly contested. Some of us don’t believe there’s any such thing as being trans.

Happy birthday to WRN!

This headline looks like a rebuke of Steven Spielberg’s absurd “climate activism” in light of his purchase of a gigantic yacht, but the article offers no hint of rebuke or even surprise.

Outspoken climate activist Steven Spielberg has taken delivery of his $250 million superyacht – Even longer than a football field, the diesel-powered 4,444 ton vessel has two swimming pools and, in all possibility, a plush movie theater and a helipad.

Mind you, that’s also not a headline – it’s a lede where a headline should be.

Anyway. Spielberg sold one giant yacht and bought another. Conclusion: Spielberg is in no sense a “climate activist.” A climate vandal, yes, but activist, no.

The $250 million vessel built in 2022 can accommodate 14 guests in 7 suites serviced by a crew of 30. While details are scarce at this point, Superyachtfan has observed a large swimming pool on the main deck and a spa pool on the sundeck. As the predecessor flaunted cabins with wardrobes, desk space, a private bathroom, a ballroom size main saloon, 17 televisions, several spas, and stellar diving equipment, the new pleasure craft will undoubtedly bring more to the table.

Yes: an enormous climate burden for one guy.