Uproar among men who want to cheat in sports. It’s genocide to stop them, genocide I tell you!
“There is no science” to justify separate sports for women, but there is lots and lots and lots of science that says men who claim to be women are indeed women. Uh huh.
Good old Willoughby. Women should all die by age 37, am I right?
Another shameless cheat steps up.
Cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat cheat.
Stewart Rhodes sentenced to 18 years.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison Thursday in the first punishments to be handed down for seditious conspiracy in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. U.S. prosecutors asked for up to 25 years in prison and the longest sentence by far in the rioting to deter future acts of domestic terrorism, arguing Rhodes played a significant role in spreading doubt about the 2020 presidential election and led more than 20 other Americans to seek to use violence against the government to thwart the transfer of power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
Of course it’s really Trump who should be in the slammer.
Rhodes and followers dressed in combat-style gear converged on the Capitol after staging an “arsenal” of weapons at nearby hotels, ready to take up arms at Rhodes’s direction, prosecutors said. Rhodes did not enter the building but was in contact with “ground team” leader Meggs, an auto dealer manager, just before Meggsled a line of members in military-style tactical gear up the East Capitol steps, where they helped a crowd force entry.
…
[P]rosecutors presented evidence that after networks declared the election for Biden on Nov. 7, 2020, Rhodes asked a “Friends of Stone” chat group — that included Stone and Proud Boys leader Henry “Enrique” Tarrio — “What’s the plan?” and shared a Serbian academic’s proposal for storming Congress. Over the next two months, Rhodes amplified Trump’s bogus stolen election claims and used his platform as one of the extremist anti-government movement’s most visible leaders to urge followers to be ready for an “armed rebellion,” including in two open letters to Trump and a personal message intended for him pressing the president to use the military to hold on to power against Democratic opponents.
…
“We will have to rise up in insurrection (rebellion)” if Trump does not act, Rhodes texted one associate on Dec. 10. Four days after Jan. 6, Rhodes was recorded telling another that if Trump was “just gonna let himself be removed illegally, then we should have brought rifles,” and, “We could have fixed it right then and there. I’d hang f—-ing Pelosi from the lamppost,” referring to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Trump is campaigning to be president again.
Jo Bartosch at Spiked on Ed Davey and the LibDems and the odd penis joke:
Davey’s intellectually flaccid flapping over this question points to the war raging within the Liberal Democrats – between those pushing for a return to reality and the party’s longstanding, vocal trans allies. These allies include self-described pansexual MP Layla Moran, who memorably claimed in parliament that she could see the gendered ‘souls’ of trans-identified people. Then there is Baroness Lynne Featherstone, who told ‘those who believe they can… exclude trans women from women-only spaces’ that their views ‘are not welcome in the Liberal Democrats’. And there is Baroness Liz Barker, who pushed for the removal of the word ‘mother’ from a maternity-leave bill.
People who don’t believe that men can be women are not welcome in the Liberal Democrats. It never ceases to amaze me, this kind of thing. It’s as if nearly everyone suddenly decided that Avatar was a real, true, factual story, like any true factual story you might read in the NY Times, and at the same time that refusal to believe it is comparable to refusing to believe the Holocaust happened. Nobody should be required to believe either of those things, let alone both of them! Stay with me now. THEY. ARE. NOT. TRUE.
Despite being known as the party of softly spoken sandal wearers, the Lib Dem leadership has sent a hard message to members who deviate from the ‘transwomen are women’ line. At the Lib Dem conference earlier this year, Liberal Voice for Women claimed on Twitter that its attempts to debate a motion on ‘women’s representation on internal committees was prevented from being heard’. On the final day of the conference, party publication Lib Dem Voice produced an article headlined ‘It’s time for gender-critical people to leave’, which proclaimed that ‘there is no space for bigotry in this party’.
See? See what I mean? A grown-up political party calling people bigots for failing to believe in a magical gender soul that overrides the physical body. It’s framed as being similar to not believing that other races are fully human, but IT IS NOT LIKE THAT. It’s not like that at all. It’s very very different.
Guardian US columnist Moira Donegan tries to convince us that abortion rights and “trans rights” are much the same sort of thing (when in fact they’re antagonists).
Be it through forced pregnancy or prohibited transition, the state of Nebraska now claims the right to determine what its citizens will do with their sexed bodies – what those bodies will look like, how they will function and what they will mean. It is a part of the right’s ongoing project to roll back the victories of the feminist and gay rights movements…
Trans “rights” are mostly antagonistic to lesbian and gay rights too. Governments of course already do in some senses “claim the right to determine what its citizens will do with their sexed bodies.” We can’t use our bodies, “sexed” or otherwise, to murder or steal or kidnap or set fires – the list is long. We are our bodies, so laws that govern us govern our bodies. Trans people aren’t special in this way.
Abortion bans have been proliferating wildly in the year since the US supreme court eliminated the right in their Dobbs decision, declaring that any state can compel women to remain pregnant, and creating different, lesser entitlements to bodily freedom and self-determination based on sex. But as the abortion bans have spread like an infection across the American south, midwest, and mountain west, they have been accompanied by a related political disease: laws seeking to prohibit minors and sometimes adults, from accessing medical treatments that facilitate gender transitions.
It’s not related though. Trying to change your sex via surgeries and hormones is not related to ending a pregnancy. The two are different, and it’s not cute to try to link women’s right to say no to a pregnancy to narcissists’ putative right to amputate healthy body parts in a doomed effort to mimic the opposite sex.
It is not a coincidence that the states which have the most punitive and draconian bans on abortion have also adopted the most aggressive targeting of transgender people and medical care. The bills are part of the same project by conservatives, who have been emboldened in their campaign of gender revanchism in the wake of Dobbs. Both abortion bans and transition care bans further the same goal: to transform the social category of gender into an enforceable legal status, linked to the sexed body at birth and to prescribe a narrow and claustrophobic view of what that gender status must mean.
No. It may sound plausible but it’s not really true. Abortion bans aren’t about enforcing gender rules on women, though they have that effect in some ways. Abortion bans are about forcing women to bear children against their will. The lawmakers don’t care if those women wear jeans and hiking boots, they care about forcing them to push out that baby just as God intended.
Abortion and trans rights activists have long insisted that both abortion and transition are healthcare.
So what? People can insist things that aren’t true.
Abortion and trans rights activists have long insisted that both abortion and transition are healthcare. It’s an apt and worthy argument, considering that both involve the interventions of medical professionals, both facilitate the wellbeing and happiness of those who receive them, and both result in horrific health complications when denied, from the high rates of mental distress and horrific, needless pregnancy complications that have been ushered in by Dobbs, to the dramatic rates of suicidal ideation and mental health problems in trans people who are denied the ability to transition.
She forgot to mention the horrific health complications of transition. Botched surgeries, regrets, despair – they all happen.
Tim Harris is our poet laureate.
A BALLAD, a whole BALLAD?
Oh, I forbid ye ladies a’
Unless ye hae nae fear,
To come or gae by Starbuck Ha’
For fell Ms Spain works there.
There’s nane that gaes to Starbuck Ha’
But they maun get the pronouns reet,
Gif they ken, or gif they dinna,
Else Ms Spain will greet.
(‘greet’ in Scots means cry or whimper)
But that’s enough.
I think a limerick might be easier
There once was a lady called Spain
Who had rages again and again.
When others misgendered
Pronouns she’d tendered,
She wanted to cause them pain.
Starbucks drama king still yelling and screaming about his tedious game of Pretend I’m a Woman Or Else.
A video of the incident went viral, but Ms Spain has broken her silence, claiming that the footage does not tell the whole story.
She insisted: ‘I’m the victim of a transphobic hate crime, but I’m being treated like a criminal. The viral video doesn’t show the customer calling us trannies and going on a rant about gender.
‘It doesn’t show how it started with her screaming about why we don’t accept cash and demanding that we do. The internet’s been filled with lies.’
Nobody cares, child. The way to deal with an unreasonably angry customer is to be very detached and calm and non-reactive, not to fly into a screaming rage and clap your hands in her face.
Ms Thomas claimed the whole row stemmed from her using the word ‘lady’ to describe a member of staff serving her without realising that they did not identify as a woman.
They were discussing why Starbucks did not accept cash and as Ms Spain, who was standing nearby intervened, Ms Thomas claims that she told her: ‘I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to the lady behind the counter.’
This prompted Ms Spain, who was standing close by, to confront her for using the wrong gender to describe her colleague.
Ms Spain insisted that Ms Thomas’s use of the word ‘lady’ was ‘deliberate and spiteful’.
Other way around, chum. It’s this stupid and ludicrous idea that people have to pretend that strangers are a customized sex that they obviously aren’t, when all we want to do is get our coffee or pay for our tomatoes and bread or get to our destination and walk away, that is Deliberate and Spiteful. Nobody cares. Nobody. Nobody cares about other people’s luxury pronouns, or their highly polished gender identity. It’s extremely simple: nobody you encounter in shops or coffee places or buses or dressing rooms is as interested in you as you are. This is one of the first things people need to learn about the world, and it’s tragic to see how badly the pronoun people have been neglected here. What were their parents and teachers doing???
I wonder if he’ll still be raving about the Starbucks Karen 50 years from now.
Two months ago but still relevant.
It’s not something you can choose. That’s your whole problem right there: it’s not a choice. You can’t choose to be born, you can’t choose to be human (or not), you can’t choose to be a mammal (or not), you can’t choose to be immortal, you can’t choose to be a contemporary of Euripides. You can’t choose to be a woman.
There’s a lot in life that we just never get a choice about, and what sex we are is one item on that massive list.
Everybody, literally everybody, used to know this. The baby talk in that tweet is astounding to me.
Here’s the Channel 4 hit job on Falkner:
Starting at 3:29 they tell us where the “bloke in lipstick” remark came from. Emma Laslett is the guy who inspired news outlets to claim that the quiz show Brain of Britain had had its first all-women panel, when in fact it wasn’t an all-women panel, because it had Emma Laslett on it. Channel 4 solemnly listens while the guy tells us how terrible terrible terrible it all is.
Well. He is a bloke. He did not make that panel an all-woman panel. He does fit this pattern of men taking things meant for women while publicly trashing women who resist.
He’s also very very very unmistakably male.
[Falkner] has made it her mission to attempt to find consensus in the vicious clash between women, same sex attracted people and the transgender community since she began chairing the Equality and Human Rights Commission in 2020, but has quickly been forced to fight fires internally instead.
Senior leaders at the taxpayer-funded body say they were left “blindsided” when a dossier, titled “Governance Concerns” from an unknown number of complainants, began circulating in February.
It contained dozens of generic allegations of ‘bullying”, “harassment” and “discrimination” and claimed that “unacceptable behaviour from the chairwoman is becoming normalised”, without providing many examples.
Trans activism in a nutshell innit – endless howling about disskriminashun by which is meant knowing that men are not women.
The complaints coincide with Baroness Falkner’s most recent intervention in the trans debate, following lengthy discussions with board members, to recommend that the Government consider protecting “biological sex” rather than just “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act to “bring legal clarity” to areas such as sports, which Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, will now take forward. This infuriated transgender activists.
Why? Because “transgender activists” are determined to put purported “trans rights” way ahead of women’s rights – determined, in fact, to allow them to demolish women’s rights. It’s like handing the union over to the bosses.
On Tuesday night, Channel 4 News claimed it had spoken to 20 current and former staff members with complaints about the EHRC’s direction, including allegations that they were “on calls where staff were crying”, that they feel they “are effectively puppets on strings… to deliver a Tory agenda”.
Oh no, staff were crying! Not at all manipulatively! Real, scalding, salty tears!
Among those who have criticised the EHRC recently are Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the UN’s independent expert on gender identity, who said he was “shocked to hear” about its recommendation to clarify the meaning of biological sex in equality law and this would be “discriminatory” as, he said, “a trans woman who does have a Gender Recognition Certificate is a woman under the current case law”.
Therefore women have no rights a man is bound to respect. Thanks, Victor Madrigal-Borloz.
Ian Acheson, who was the chief operating officer of the EHRC from 2012 to 2015, said: “I spent an enormous amount of my time looking inwards to the organisation trying to deal with multiple factional disputes by a politicised workforce, more than delivering the core mission of a fairer Britain.
“I am saddened but not surprised that Baroness Falkner finds herself in this position because there will still be significant numbers of staff within the organisation who remain ideologically opposed to both the government of the day and that anything other than unconditional acceptance of people’s declaration of their gender identity is acceptable, along with the implications for the safety and dignity of women and girls.”
That is, numbers of staff who remain ideologically opposed to the government of the day and adamant that anything other than unconditional acceptance of people’s declaration of their gender identity is unacceptable.
The BBC on the campaign to shun Falkner:
The head of Britain’s equality watchdog is being investigated after bullying and discrimination allegations were made by staff. The claims against Baroness Falkner, and other members of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) board, were seen by Channel 4 News.
Baroness Falkner said she will present a “detailed rebuttal” to the investigators working on the case. Some campaigners say the EHRC is not protecting transgender rights.
But of course what “transgender rights” are is carefully never spelled out, because that would make it too obvious how they cancel women’s rights.
…Baroness Falkner advised the UK government that it was worth considering redefining sex as “biological sex” in the Equality Act, in an area that she described as “polarised and contentious”. A clarification to the Equality Act could make it easier to exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces.
That is, a clarification to the Equality Act could make it easier to exclude men from women’s spaces. Well guess what: men should be excluded from women’s spaces. If men are not excluded from women’s spaces then there are no women’s spaces any more.
Earlier this month, 30 LGBTQ+ charities led by Stonewall wrote to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, saying the EHRC was a “failed institution” and “set on a course that would lead directly to a rolling back of trans people’s rights in Great Britain”.
But Stonewall thinks “trans rights” get to cancel women’s rights. Women think we should continue to have rights.
Originally a comment by maddog on More compash, but not for you.
The Liberal Democrat leader insisted discussions around single-sex spaces were not new and that more compassion towards trans people was needed in society.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but he’s making a huge unstated assumption there: everyone in these discussions simply assumes that it’s only the (actual, biological) women who need to have “more compassion” — in the usual, patriarchal, and sexist-steteotypical way of giving up and ceding to the desires of the men. T advocates like Sir Ed Davey are talking (down) to entirely the wrong party. Their exhortations to show “more compassion” to trans-identified males ought to be directed to the other men.
The entire supposed “justification” for allowing trans-identified men into women’s spaces is that other men will commit violence against insufficiently masculine trans-identified men. That is 100% gold-plated male-on-male violence. That is a problem for the males to solve among themselves. It is not women’s job to solve it for them. Let the men solve their own violence problem. If men had more compassion for men who do not perform typical norms of masculinity, then the “justification” for trans-identified men to invade women’s toilets and locker rooms vanishes. If a (trans-identified) man fears going into the men’s room because other men might attack him, let him carry the burden of figuring out how to do so safely. Let him ask a male friend to go with him. Let him advocate for men to be more compassionate toward one another, including gender-nonconforming men. Take responsibility for yourselves, men. It’s not women’s problem.
Oh good grief.
Pretending not to understand why we refuse to answer to the label “cis woman.”
“…so it’s how we differentiate a difference between a trans woman and a cis woman…”
Yes we know that, but there is no need for such a differentiation, because trans women are not women. It’s only women who are women. Men are not women. That’s how we differentiate them: the words “women” and “men”. The word “cis” is completely extraneous, and it has meaning only if you accept the ridiculous new belief system that claims men become women with the power of thought.
It’s really not that hard to understand.
Joan Smith on the abusive targeting of Kishwer Falkner:
For years we’ve been told there’s no conflict between women’s rights and the demands of trans activists. If that were really the case, no one could possibly object to putting the word “biological” in front of “sex” in equality legislation, could they?
Nothing could be further from the truth, as the head of the UK’s equal rights watchdog, Kishwer, Baroness Falkner, has discovered. She has endured weeks of abuse since the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) wrote to the Government, proposing consideration of a technical amendment to the Equality Act 2010 to make it clear that sex means biological sex.
Sigh. It’s like getting in a rage if someone says a toaster is not an airplane, or a papaya is not Mars.
Falkner has been called a ‘“Nazi”, a particularly vicious slur given that her husband is German. She’s been attacked by a slew of Labour MPs, who’ve made the baseless accusation that she’s trying to take “rights and protections” away from trans people. Now it’s emerged that a group of employees at the EHRC has compiled a dossier of complaints against her, including “transphobia” and harassment. Falkner is said to be “heartbroken” about the allegations, which her supporters describe as a witch-hunt, but she’s standing her ground.
Lots of us have some idea what that’s like, in far less consequential roles. I’m just a scribbler, but I’m well familiar with having people you thought were colleagues hold you up as a target for all the rotten tomatoes they can find.
What’s happening is a nasty, personal campaign against any woman who advocates strengthening the legal protections women already have. Even the Labour Party, with its shameful record of appeasing trans extremists, has said it supports the EHRC’s proposed review of the Equality Act. When the stakes are so high, we need politicians across the board to hold their nerve.
On the upside, there’s nothing like watching people behave like complete assholes to stiffen the sinews and summon up the blood.
A man is indignant that a woman knows a man is a man.
Trans women are blokes. If they weren’t they would just be called “women.” The meaning of “trans woman” is man who claims to be woman.
Bloke in necklace says if your job is to protect people from discrimination and you’re peddling that kind of discrimination then you’re not fit for the job and shouldn’t be doing it any more.
But it’s not “discrimination” in the sense he means to say that men are men. It’s not unfair or based on prejudice or unkind or phobic. Knowing the difference between women and men is not evil. Women, especially, have a very fundamental need to know which is which, for their own safety. It’s not the job of the guy in the stripey shirt to tell us we can’t, and that if we do we should be kicked out of our jobs.
The head of Britain’s equality watchdog is being investigated by a senior lawyer over complaints made by colleagues.
A king’s counsel (KC) has been called in by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to carry out an independent investigation into dozens of allegations made against its chair, Kishwer Falkner.
The Guardian understands that 40 complaints have been made by 12 current or former staff members at the EHRC. The nature of the allegations has not been revealed by the watchdog…
The Daily Mail, which first revealed the investigation into Lady Falkner, quoted sources saying that she denied the allegations. They claimed that they were “ideologically motivated” because she is “the woman breaking woke”.
They suggested she is the victim of a witch-hunt because of the position the watchdog has taken on trans rights under her leadership.
Last year, the EHRC wrote to the Scottish government asking it to pause plans to simplify the legal requirements for gender recognition via self-identification. It also published guidance saying that transgender people can be legitimately excluded from single-sex services if the reasons are “justifiable and proportionate”.
That is, men who claim to be trans can be legitimately excluded from women’s services if the reasons are reasons. How dare she.
Last month, in response to a request for advice from the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, Falkner wrote back in support of changing the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of sex meant biological sex.
The EHRC’s interventions on the subject have angered LGBT+ groups as well as some of its own staff. In January, Vice News reported that seven senior officials including a board member had recently quit the EHRC over its alleged “transphobic direction”, having previously reported other resignations over the issue.
They want the EHRC to continue in a womanphobic direction instead.
A woman can “quite clearly” have a penis, Sir Ed Davey has said as he suggested the debate around transgender issues had already been settled.
The Liberal Democrat leader insisted discussions around single-sex spaces were not new and that more compassion towards trans people was needed in society.
During a phone-in with LBC’s Nick Ferrari, Sir Ed was asked a question by a caller named Mary from Cambridge who said she was speaking “on behalf of 51 per cent of the population”.
She told him: “I’m a tactical voter and I would like to support the Lib Dems. But can you answer the question ‘what is a woman?’, please?”
Sir Ed said: “The truth is, Mary, the vast majority of people whose biological sex is a woman at birth, they feel they’re women. They feel their gender [is] the same at birth. But there’s this very small number of people who don’t feel like that, and the law has recognised them for over 20 years now.”
It’s not about “feel.” What if I “feel” I am Sir Ed Davey? Men can “feel” they are women all they like, but they can’t take our stuff.
Arguing there was a need to “take the heat out of” the gender discourse, he added: “There is a small number of people who actually they’ve got… They have a tough time, they’re harassed, discriminated against. And I think we need to manage this and think about it and debate it with a bit more maturity and a bit more compassion.”
I wonder if Sir Ed is at all aware that women too are harassed and discriminated against. Maybe he “feels” they are not.
So now I have to remind myself who Reem Alsalem is. I’ve posted about her before.
First time was December 1 last year, when the Guardian reported that Nicola Sturgeon rejected Alsaleem’s concerns about “reform” of Scotland’s gender law.
Second time was 17 days later when the BBC reported
Last month, a UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warned the Scottish bill could endanger women.
Reem Alsalem said it “would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a gender certificate and the rights that are associated with it”.
This was disputed by a separate independent UN expert on gender identity, who said the legislation would bring Scotland in line with international human right standards.
The “expert on gender identity” was of course the notorious Victor Madrigal-Borloz. BBC again:
SNP MP and lawyer Joanna Cherry challenged claims the legislation would bring Scotland into line with international human rights standards.
Ms Cherry, who has been critical of the Scottish government’s plans, argued self-identification was not required to comply with international human rights standards.
Responding to Mr Madrigal-Borloz, she tweeted: “This ‘legal opinion’ contains no analysis of the potential conflict between the proposed system of self-identification and the Equality Act and, in particular, of how self-ID could undermine the sex based rights of women & same sex attracted people.”
The struggle continues.
A press release from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the UN:
GENEVA (22 May 2023) – Threats and intimidation against women expressing their opinions on sex and sexual orientation is deeply concerning, said Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls in a statement today. In the context of disagreements between some women’s rights activists and transgender in a number of countries in the Global North. Alsalem warned that violence against women and intimidation against people for expressing differing views.
There are some glitches in the wording there, but we get the gist. Women get to talk about women’s rights, and trans activists need to stop bullying us for doing so.
“Discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation is prohibited in international and regional human rights law.
I am concerned by the shrinking space in several countries in the Global North for women and feminist organisations and their allies to gather and/or express themselves peacefully in demanding respect for their needs based on their sex and/or sexual orientation.
Law enforcement has a crucial role in protecting lawful gatherings of women and ensuring women’s safety and rights to freedom of assembly and speech without intimidation, coercion, or being effectively silenced. It is clear that where law enforcement has failed to provide the necessary safeguards, we have witnessed incidents of verbal and physical abuse, harassment, and intimidation, with the purpose of sabotaging and derailing such events as well as silencing the women who wish to speak at them.
I am disturbed by the frequent tactic of smear campaigns against women, girls and their allies on the basis of their beliefs on non-discrimination based on sex and same-sex relations. Branding them as “Nazis,” “genocidaires” or “extremists” is a means of attack and intimidation with the purpose of deterring women from speaking and expressing their views. Such actions are deeply troubling, as they are intended to instill fear in them, shame them into silence, and incite violence and hatred against them. Such acts severely affect the dignified participation of women and girls in society.”
Yes they do.
I am also concerned by the way in which provisions that criminalise hate speech based on a number of grounds, including gender expression or gender identity, have been interpreted in some countries. Women and girls have a right to discuss any subject free of intimidation and threats of violence. This includes issues that are important to them, particularly if they relate to parts of their innate identity, and on which discrimination is prohibited. Holding and expressing views about the scope of rights in society based on sex and gender identity should not be delegitimised, trivialised, or dismissed.
According to international human rights law, any restriction on freedom of expression should be carried out strictly in accordance with the human rights standards of legality, necessity, proportionality and to serve a legitimate aim. Those disagreeing with the views of women and girls expressing concerns related to gender identity and sex also have a right to express their opinion. However, in doing so they must not threaten the safety and integrity of those they are protesting against and disagreeing with.Sweeping restrictions on the ability of women and men to raise concerns regarding the scope of rights based on gender identity and sex are in violation of the fundamentals of freedom of thought and freedom of belief and expression and amounts to unjustified or blanket censorship.
Of particular concern are the various forms of reprisals against women, including censorship, legal harassment, employment loss, loss of income, removal from social media platforms, speaking engagements, and the refusal to publish research conclusions and articles. In some cases, women politicians are sanctioned by their political parties, including through the threat of dismissal or actual dismissal.”
Ok but what does she know?
Reem Alsalem is the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences
Oh.
