Sigh.

“Trans people are amongst the most marginalized, amongst the most abused, in our communities”

No they’re not. That’s an endlessly repeated bit of doggerel but doggerel is all it is. It’s an empty platitude that pops out any time someone presses the right button (which is extremely often).

There are so many kinds of people who are far more marginalized and abused than trans people – poor people for a start; disabled people; refugees; immigrants; people fleeing violence; abused women; abused children – the list is endless. Being trans at all is a luxury. It’s simply not credible that trans people are high on the list of people who desperately need help and protection.

“…and I think we can do better than trying to paint them all as dangerous predators.”

Nobody is doing that. She’s either stupid or a liar. The issue is that nobody knows which men who identify as trans are dangerous predators, and that the mandate for inclooosion of men in women’s refuges and hospital beds and prisons has no way to screen out dangerous predators.

What about the Women’s Institute, the interviewer asks.

“Look I think there is a huge challenge around how we can make sure both women’s rights are upheld and trans people’s rights are supported”

Well step one is defining what those rights are.

“I always find it fascinating that we argue endlessly about whether trans women should have access to the Girl Guides and the WI, nobody makes the same argument about trans men and whether they should have access to, I dunno, rugby clubs or whatever”

Ffs. Of course nobody does! That’s because women are the ones who are starting from 100 paces back while men are not. She can’t be that stupid.

“and I just think that we have to have a rational discussion about this”

We are. We have been, for years.

“and recognize that there aren’t huge societal problems around trans issues”

Oh I see, we have to have a rational discussion about this in order to come to her preferred conclusion that issues about men in women’s spaces and sports and awards are not huge problems.

“this is a marginalized group of society who absolutely need support and I’m inclined to say when it comes to the WI that they should be entitled to make their own decision”

That is, that men who say they are trans (who are marginalized and need support because trans) should be entitled to make their own decision to invade the WI if they jolly well feel like it. Women just don’t matter here.

She goes on to complain about the “toxicity” of the discussion – on both sides of course – and the interviewer points out that in reality men are the ones who present a risk to women, whereupon she pretends to be wholly unaware that men have physical advantages over women which some men exploit to abuse, rape, or kill women. She then, astoundingly, repeats the “trans people are amongst the most marginalized, amongst the most abused, in our communities” mantra, word for word.

Another entry under the heading “publisher tweaks wording of pop fiction writer”:

Jeeves and Wooster books have been rewritten to remove prose by PG Wodehouse deemed “unacceptable” by publishers, the Telegraph can reveal.

…

The disclaimer printed on the opening pages of the 2023 reissue of Thank you, Jeeves states:  “Please be aware that this book was published in the 1930s and contains language, themes and characterisations which you may find outdated.

“In the present edition we have sought to edit, minimally, words that we regard as unacceptable to present-day readers.”

…

An examination of the revised Wodehouse novels reveals that racial terminology has been removed or replaced throughout.

In other words they’ve removed “nigger” and similar disparaging words.

Again, I don’t find it all that objectionable. A Berty Wooster who lived now wouldn’t use those words – he’s an amiable nitwit, not a malevolent bully. The overtones and implications of those words were different 80 or 90 years ago – they shouldn’t have been, but they were. And, again, this is pop fiction, not literature. It’s good, skillful pop fiction, but it has no ambitions to literature.

In Thank You, Jeeves, whose plot hinges on the performance of a minstrel troupe, numerous racial terms have been removed or altered, both in dialogue spoken by the characters in the book, and from first-person narration in the voice of Bertie.

I do have to wonder how well that actually works, seeing as how Bertie and his friends will sound pretty odd if they’re suddenly using 2023 vocabulary when they’re not 2023 characters.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Just such a toxic climate.

However constrained men are by the rules of gender, they’re not subordinated by them in the way women are. It’s like All Lives Matter again.

It’s understandable why transactivists are so desperate to avoid comparisons between TiMs and Rachel Dolezal:

Among other experiences, my interviewees described complaints to and by management, attempts to shut down events, no platforming, disinvitations, intimidation, smears and losing career progression opportunities, including being blocked from jobs.

Others spoke about being physically removed from events, alongside receiving torrents of abuse online that even included incitements to murder. One criminology scholar said her experience was “a continuum of hell”, while a law scholar claimed “the impact has been huge [and] is going to last a long time”. Aware of these potential consequences, and citing feelings of fear, isolation and despair, others had decided to “hide in the shadows”.

because Dolezal is a fucking angel compared to these goons. However misguided and appropriative her actions were, she didn’t terrorize members of the demographic she was trying to insinuate herself into. I don’t think she burned crosses on the lawns of Black people, or hanged them in effigy. She was an idividual “racial tourist,” not a brutal army of occupation, with massive support coming from government, academia, and industry.

“These gender-critical feminists – they are intellectualising [sex and gender], and I think it’s harmful,” she added.

And Judith Butler didn’t intellectualize sex and gender in a way that was harmful? You can draw a much shorter, straighter line between Butler’s work and trans activist violence against women, than you ever could between the writing of feminists and male violence against TiMs.

This remarkable coupling of condemnation and ignorance regarding gender-critical feminism was fairly common among genderist academics. Many readily admitted that they limit their academic engagements, including their reading, to their “echo chambers and bubbles” where, as one journal editor noted, “we all share basically the same perspectives”.

“And we’re all pretty stupid.”

And genderists seek to extend this bubble of ignorance and stupidity to the rest of society. Through their media enablers, they’re trying to put blinders on everyone, preventing us from seeing what we’re not supposed to, because we’re not qualified:

A number of genderist academics recognised that “more nuanced, more honest, self-aware conversations [should] take place” – although strictly among genderists only and in private spaces, since, in public, “you’ve got to be for your team and toe the party line”, one education scholar explained.

It’s an attempt to impose a Trans version of the Official Secrets Act:

Official Secrets Act, the most important statute relating to national security, is designed to prohibit and control access to and the disclosure of sensitive government information; offences cover espionage and leakage of government information.

The illness just got worse.

Ditto. Animal Farm was supposed to be a satire: Nineteen Eighty Four was supposed to be a warning. Genderists are using them as fucking blueprints.

Laura Favaro’s article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed last September:

“There’s just such a toxic climate around this subject,” I was repeatedly told. A mid-career sociologist added: “There is conflict, and bullying, but no debate happening.”

But the topic seemed too important to ignore. In recent times, it has moved from Twitter (where it now trends almost daily) to the centre-stage of politics; would Liz Truss have been elected as the new Conservative Party leader by Tory MPs and party members without her consistent opposition to gender self-identification? Nowhere is the debate more febrile, however, than academia. It has ended friendships, research collaborations and even academic careers.

One recent case in point is the accusation that University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady presided over a “gender ID witch-hunt”. The Times obtained minutes of a meeting she attended that sought to gather information about alleged “transphobes and prominent gender-critical activists” working in university diversity departments.

Jo Grady apparently believe the “trans people are the most vulnerable” mantra.

Favaro goes on:

It was clear that the “gender-critical” feminist academics I interviewed had faced negative repercussions for years for expressing their view (now protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010…) Among other experiences, my interviewees described complaints to and by management, attempts to shut down events, no platforming, disinvitations, intimidation, smears and losing career progression opportunities, including being blocked from jobs.

Others spoke about being physically removed from events, alongside receiving torrents of abuse online that even included incitements to murder. One criminology scholar said her experience was “a continuum of hell”, while a law scholar claimed “the impact has been huge [and] is going to last a long time”. Aware of these potential consequences, and citing feelings of fear, isolation and despair, others had decided to “hide in the shadows”.

Those in the earlier stages of their careers said that “it would just be too terrifying” to make their views public due to the threat of being “ostracised…because so much within academia depends on personal connections”, while more experienced colleagues alluded to “self-preservation”. Feared by all was the “horrible backlash” online; one sociologist worried about death and rape threats seen elsewhere stated: “I have children – I’m frightened.”

This didn’t happen with previous rights campaigns did it? Disagreement, argument, heated discussions, yes, but this systematic bullying and ostracism and career-trashing? Was that a thing? Not that I know of. Men who got nailed for sexual harassment may have seen it that way, but I don’t know of anyone else who did. The frantic rage and repudiation of this “activism” are (as far as I know) new.

Despite its conceptual diversity, genderism coheres around the push for gender (identity) to replace sex in most – if not all – contexts. Unlike feminism, its political subject is not female people but rather all those subjected to gender oppression – a concept that is redefined to emphasise lack of choice and affirmation relating to gender identity.

And there’s part of the problem right there. However constrained men are by the rules of gender, they’re not subordinated by them in the way women are. It’s like All Lives Matter again.

One interviewee who identified as a trans woman described the current situation in academia as “a political battle over an institutional space”, clarifying that: “My political bottom line is – I don’t concede to people who are interested in the eradication of me and everyone like me in the world because I consider that a genocidal project.”

This view, together with the belief that “cis women have more power than trans people”, led genderist academics to refrain from forthrightly denouncing some transgender activists’ aggressive tactics towards feminists. These include threats and ideations of extreme violence, which, as well as being pervasive on social media, appear to be increasingly condoned at universities. For example, last year, a London School of Economics postgraduate student conference paper described a scene in which feminists critical of genderism “scream for mercy”. The paper then described the potential threat: “I hold a knife to your throat and spit my transness into your ear”, concluding: “Are you scared? I sure fucking hope so.”

When discussing this horrific anti-feminism, some interviewees, including those working on violence against women, would nonetheless still equivocate. As one sociologist put it: “My priority are the people who are being harmed by this debate, who I perceive to be trans people.” “These gender-critical feminists – they are intellectualising [sex and gender], and I think it’s harmful,” she added.

So this sociologist, who is a woman, sees men as the victims of women, as long as the men claim to be trans.

When asked to describe their arguments, however, she responded: “I don’t know if what I understand or what I think are the issues are the issues, I’ll be honest with you – I stay out of their way.” This remarkable coupling of condemnation and ignorance regarding gender-critical feminism was fairly common among genderist academics. Many readily admitted that they limit their academic engagements, including their reading, to their “echo chambers and bubbles” where, as one journal editor noted, “we all share basically the same perspectives”.

“And we’re all pretty stupid.”

A number of genderist academics recognised that “more nuanced, more honest, self-aware conversations [should] take place” – although strictly among genderists only and in private spaces, since, in public, “you’ve got to be for your team and toe the party line”, one education scholar explained.

Ahhhhh well no wonder it’s such an intelligent thoughtful well-reasoned debate.

Gatekeeping was also suggested in the responses by another 11 interviewees who held principal editorship roles at feminist, gender and sexuality studies journals. All confirmed that genderist perspectives dominate these publications, in the sense that “on the editorial board, none of us would describe ourselves as in the gender critical camp”. Editors additionally pointed to the preferred perspective of authors, readers and publishing houses. For some, it was a matter of scholarly values, with gender-critical feminism described as “wrong-headed”, “outdated” or “completely delegitimised”. Others, however, acknowledged that “the objection is a political one”.

This article is making me feel ill.

Genderist academics reported personally imposing bans from academic networks and events, along with language policing of colleagues as well as students. “If students write ‘female’ in their essay, I’ll cross it out,” a sociologist told me, because “what matters is gender [identity]”.

The illness just got worse.

Breathtaking. (You know how sometimes when you read something really appalling you find yourself not breathing as you read on? I don’t think I’m the only one.)

A university has “confiscated” the findings of an academic studying Britain’s gender wars in a row over her “dangerous” research data, The Telegraph can reveal. 

Dr Laura Favaro began the first ever taxpayer-funded study into whether social scientists at universities feel censored over their views on transgender issues in March 2020 at City, University of London.

But it has descended into chaos, with the study’s author allegedly hounded out of the university, stripped of the findings she collected and barred from publishing them amid claims of transphobia.

How can they do that???

Dr Favaro is now bringing an employment tribunal claim against City for harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment, and claims she was discriminated against for her protected philosophical belief in the reality of biological sex. 

The Telegraph says she was invited to move from Spain to City’s Department of Sociology but it doesn’t say who invited her – whether it was City or some other institution or what. The study got £18,000 from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and £10,000 from the British Academy. The Telegraph says Favaro has done a summary report but it hasn’t been published yet; the Telegraph doesn’t say why or at whose behest.

Her study involved 50 individual interviews with academics in gender studies who identified as feminists, a representative survey of social scientists with 650 responses and hundreds of documents and tweets.

Scholars told her that they had threats of violence in the gender debate, hostility from colleagues, and others said they felt their careers “can’t survive that sort of backlash”, and that they have to have “secret conversations” to avoid reprisal and because “we are all so afraid”.

Her final work has not been published, as it was derailed by complaints about an article for Times Higher Education in which she warned that “a culture of discrimination, silencing and fear has taken hold”.

Again, skimping on the information here. Derailed by whom? What’s the point of telling us she was invited but not who invited her, and her work was derailed but not who derailed it?

Following this, she says, her line managers told her that the study had “become an institutionally sensitive issue” and that “City considers my data to be dangerous” and is “frightened of making it public”. 

A research participant who “did not like the findings” and academics sympathetic to trans issues were among those who complained. One, Dr Sahra Taylor, a City lecturer, claimed it was an “attack piece on trans people [and] our existences” that has “clearly caused harm to many interviewed”. 

We’ve seen claims of that kind a billion times by now. We don’t find them credible.

City found following an investigation that there was “no evidence” that the research breached any ethics criteria.

But City allegedly locked the email account Dr Favaro used to communicate with survey respondents, and demanded that she hand over all of her interview and survey data and delete any copies of it, before making her redundant on March 31, despite her claiming she has a permanent contract.

How can they do any of that? It sounds completely grotesque.

Hahahaha I got a spam comment in Latin. I’ve been trying to check them before deleting lately, because one or two genuine comments (from non-first-time commenters) got put in spam a week or so ago. Latin is a novelty.

First para:

Qui nam amet placeat ab reprehenderit. Consequatur rerum non natus numquam qui ipsum qui quod. Temporibus inventore dolore et eveniet consequatur impedit a. Dolores facilis autem id occaecati.

Google translate:

For he who will be pleased by the rebuke. The consequence of things is never born who himself who what. In times of discovery of pain and consequences, it prevents a. But it was easy to be blinded by sorrows.

I love “who himself who what,” also “it prevents a.” That’s pretty much how my unseen translations looked back in the day.

What not to do.

Twelve people have died from heatstroke while many others have been admitted to hospital after attending an awards ceremony in India’s Maharashtra state.

The government-sponsored event took place in an open ground under a blazing sun and lasted for several hours.

In one of India’s hottest months.

Just don’t do that. It’s not difficult. Heat kills. Don’t put on events in the open when it’s hot.

Thousands of people attended Sunday’s event, which was held to felicitate a prominent social activist.

Many people complained of dehydration and other heat-related ailments after attending the function.

Navi Mumbai – a city close to financial hub Mumbai – where the event was held, recorded a maximum temperature of 38C (100F) on Sunday. Health experts have advised people to stay out of the sun during the peak heat hours of 11am to 4pm, especially during April, which is considered to be one of the hottest months in India.

…

Opposition leaders have accused the government of jeopardising people’s lives. Former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray said the event had “not been planned properly” and called for an investigation.

Congress spokesperson Atul Londhe Patil accused the state government of negligence and said people had died because the event was held in April.

India recorded its hottest February since 1901 this year, and the country’s weather department has also forecasted an “enhanced probability” of heatwaves between March and May.

Don’t throw open-air events during the hottest months. Wake up and smell the climate change

Whittle actually said welcome!!! And meant it totally sincerely and not at all sarcastically teasingly figuratively please beat them uply!!!

Originally a comment by latsot on Refusing to serve.

I was outside the pub in the beer garden (damn pub had a step to get in) so I didn’t see any of this. But the Scottish and Irish witches outside with me didn’t take it lying down. There was a lot of protest singing, mostly about penises, led by actual Julia Long, which I have to say I didn’t expect. There’s video circulating, I’ll post it when I’ve had chance to find it.

The attack on Tony was shocking. He’s a lovely and gentle man who attends loads of women’s events, all over the place, supporting quietly in the background and helping out. I hope the police acted quickly in getting hold of the CCTV from the pub.

It was an incredible couple of days in Belfast. I was mooching around at the back during the actual event, talking to the other naughty kids, and I didn’t hear a single word. I’m watching the video now.

I’m especially looking forward to Brandubh’s talk (the 14 year old who read out her poem). I was talking to Brandubh and he mother throughout the day and her story is a horrifying and important one. I’m going to put her in touch with Glinner to see if he wants to write about it on his substack (I’m quite sure he will).

This is Bran’s talk:

Judy Blume clarified or explained or reworded or something yesterday.

It doesn’t really clarify though. More like that other thing. What does “support the trans community” mean? What does “stand with the trans community” mean? Why does she feel nervously compelled to say she does both in one short statement? Why does she mention a “trans community” at all? Why does she say “the trans community” instead of “trans people”? Was she told to word it that way?

As for “LGBTQIA+ people” (I guess it’s ok to call them people but not trans the community?) – what does the Q mean? Why is the A there? Was she handed a script and told to tweet it or else?

I don’t know. At any rate it’s clearly a very public backstab of JK Rowling.

H/t Rev David Brindley

Originally a comment by Rob on Give a New Zealand welcome.

First, not a ******* NZ welcome, the trans lobby can own that one all to themselves.

Second, advocating violence.

Third, The haka is not about intimidation, it is about honour and honouring.*

Fourth, to use the haka in the way he advocates would do both sides great dishonour and back in the day would be grounds for war.

Fifth, is a white English bloke really suggesting that white Irish and English (presumably) people appropriate the culture of brown Maori from the other side of the planet for their own nefarious purposes? Because if he is (he is), there are a lot of people who’d like to have a word with him about that.

No matter how he tries to spin that, he’s just disgustingly wrong from one end to the other.

* Haka and how they are used is a lot more complex than I can cover here, plus I’m not expert in the nuances and it’s not my culture to be definitive about. In modern use the most common haka we see are a challenge to an honoured foe, or a welcome (combined with a challenge) to an honoured guest. Traditionally one type of haka was used to prepare warriors psychologically and physically for battle. Haka are the cultural property of the particular family/grouping/tribe that used or developed that haka. The best known of them all is undoubtedly Ka Mate. The use of this Haka by the All Blacks rugby team resulted in most New Zealanders being able to have a crack at performing it (often badly) and many non-NZers and even companies using it. As a result the Iwi (tribe), Ngati Toa, that the composer came from took a legal challenge to demonstrate ownership.

Trans man Stephen Whittle, who advertises himself as “Prof” and OBE, PhD on Twitter, urged people to use violence against Kellie-Jay Keene in Belfast.

This movement sure does bring out the best in people.

Gee, they finally noticed.

‘Dangerous’ inmate Barbie Kardashian to move prisons amid fear she could follow through on threats.

Prison bosses are struggling to find a suitable segregation unit for dangerous transgender inmate Barbie Kardashian.

The 21-year-old was last month jailed for four-and-a-half years for threatening to rape, torture and murder her mother.

It is understood Kardashian will be moved from Limerick Prison in coming weeks because staff do not feel safe with her being housed there.

…

A source said Kardashian, who was born Gabrielle Alejandro Gentile and changed her name by deed poll, is deemed too dangerous to mix and poses a serious threat to inmates and staff.

The source told the Irish Sunday Mirror: “Meetings are set to take place this month to discuss a better location for Kardashian.

“She is deemed very dangerous and requires a number of prison staff to open her cell and accompany her anywhere she goes.”

Like Hannibal Lecter.

In 2020, Ms Kardashian was granted a gender recognition certificate by the Department of Social Protection, in recognition of her identifying as female.

Which couldn’t possibly be just more aggression, right?

The court heard Ms Kardashian is currently on a waiting list to be assessed for “appropriate medical treatment” in relation to her gender.

What would appropriate medical treatment in relation to her gender be? Medical treatment for the gender you aren’t isn’t “appropriate” so what can that claim mean? I can’t parse it.

We need to set up a campaign group of women, says Ellie Mae O’Hagan, Head of External Engagement at The Good Law Project. Huh. We women agree, which is why several such groups exist. Standing For Women is one.

https://twitter.com/elliemaeohagan/status/1647585735883517952

Oh, women who support “trans rights,” by which the Good Law Project means “do everything men who identify as trans tell us to do.” No thanks – no anti-feminist women’s groups for me.

Oh no, we’re emboldened and vocal. How horrifying.

Honestly what a fool to set herself up for derision that way, complaining about women being emboldened of all things. We’re supposed to be timid and shy and in hiding? She sounds like men complaining about the Pankhursts. We’re supposed to be afraid and we’re supposed to be silent. What an enticing political stance!

Snerk. Yep, that is right.

Remind us why they deserve all this?

Queen Elizabeth II may have been styled the “people’s monarch”, but for much of her reign, and especially its last 40 years, the amassing of vast wealth was simply de rigueur for the UK’s financial and landed elites.

As the Guardian investigation into the cost of the royal family reveals, the late queen was at the forefront of her class’s pursuit of wealth extraction. Using royal privilege, the crown secretively exempted itself from public scrutiny and taxation. Royal fortunes soared. And this was the rule, not the exception.

She wasn’t “styled ‘the people’s monarch'” by me thank you very much.

The consequent optics for the incoming head of state are [bad]. His family’s vast accumulation of wealth is all the more glaring when juxtaposed with soaring levels of poverty and hardship among his subjects, including as many as 3 million children. But the one is part of the cause of the other. While the king may not have uttered “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”, the parallel with the “great princess” who apparently did is not fanciful. Monarchy helps make vast disparities of wealth seem normal and natural, an enchanting part of our jolly heritage to be questioned only by mean-spirited and unpatriotic scoundrels.

Plus also their vast wealth is itself one of those vast disparities, to put it mildly.

This is where an incoming Labour government might make a stand. It could embrace rather than resist the change symbolised by the crowning of a new king. And it could do so in ways that in turn symbolise a new conception of public life: built on transparency, not the hiding of wealth in tax havens; on integrity, instead of the easy acceptance of gifts and payoffs; and on economic justice, rather than the hoarding of wealth by a few.

You’d have to start over with a completely different crew though.

The police are on the scene.

I’m wondering what the temperature is in Belfast. Two people in short sleeves, one person in a puffa jacket. Is it cold or hot?!

But more seriously I’m wondering if the cop will arrest the victim.

More from the annals of violence against people who reject gender ideology.

There’s also this but the audio is useless so I can’t actually tell what he said.

That “refusing to serve” thing…what does that remind me of…hmmmm…………….

Judy steps up next to Joanne and Hadley Freeman tells us about it. Power trio!

You can try to explain Judy Blume in numbers: her books for children have sold 90 million copies worldwide, most famously Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. Over a 54- year career she has won more than 90 literary awards and been translated into 32 languages.

But this doesn’t explain her impact on generations of children, particularly girls. Blume, more than any other author before or since, taught kids about masturbation (in Deenie), menstruation (. . . It’s Me, Margaret) and sex (Forever). She reassured them that hating your younger sibling sometimes is normal (Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing) and that terrible things can happen to good kids and they’ll survive (Tiger Eyes). Most of all she taught them that it’s fine to be exactly what they are: ordinary kids.

There’s a new movie adaptation of It’s Me, Margaret.

I tell Blume how strangely thrilling it is to see a movie about children where none of them are in possession of magical powers. “Yes, children are so used to superheroes now, aren’t they?” she says. Even in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books the kids are magic, and I love those, I say.

“And I love her,” Blume immediately interjects. “I am behind her 100 per cent as I watch from afar.” Blume is referring to the abuse Rowling has received for speaking up in defence of women’s sex-based rights, and given that Blume has faced repeated attacks since the 1980s, for her books’ descriptions of adolescent sexuality and puberty, she knows what it’s like to be pilloried as an author.

Why was she pilloried?

[The movie] also keeps in all the details — adolescent lust, the chat about menstruation, Margaret’s anxieties about religion — that have caused the book to be attacked multiple times by right-wing religious groups, alongside other Blume books for similar reasons. Blume has long been a courageously punchy critic of these groups, and just the day before she and I talk it was reported that Florida politicians are considering a ban on any discussion of menstruation in schools’ sex education before the 6th grade, when children are 12.

Well you can see their point. If you teach kids about menstruation when they’re 10 they might just start doing it right then and there.

“It’s so bad. If it was bad in the 1980s, this is triple quadruple that, because this time it’s coming from the government, who are making laws. They say they want to protect kids, but it’s more like they want them to not think or ask questions,” she says.

It’s strange how the attacks on you have come from the right, whereas the ones on Rowling have come from the left, I say.

But a strange, twisted, upside-down version of the left, that believes in magic and detests women.

The only way to defend “the right to bear arms” is to make sure everyone has more and more and more guns. Literally everyone: toddlers included.

South Dakota’s governor told an audience of people that her two-year-old grandchild has several guns.

While speaking on Friday at a National Rifle Association (NRA) lobbying leadership forum in Indiana, the Republican governor Kristi Noem told audience members her toddler grandchild has multiple guns, reported Mediaite.

The toddler granchild is not yet two, and she has a rifle and a shotgun. (It’s not clear what “having” means. I don’t suppose they’re in her toy box. It could just mean that they’re officially her guns, but she can’t just grab one and start shooting. Then again these are lunatics, so maybe she is literally packing heat.)

Noem also signed an executive order during her remarks that seeks to “further protect the second amendment rights of South Dakotans”, and was joined on stage by the NRA’s CEO, Wayne LaPierre.

“South Dakota is setting the standard for the most second amendment friendly state in the nation,” said Noem when discussing the executive order.

By which she means gun-friendly. The way you demonstrate your extreme cuddly friendliness toward the second amendment is to have more guns than anyone else, which requires buying new guns every few days in order to keep up.

Like this kind of thing for instance. Why aren’t the BBC and Labour and the Independent constantly lamenting the fact that abused women can’t escape their abuse because they have nowhere to go? Why isn’t that as tragic and desperate as the plight of men who enjoy pretending to be women?

More than 10,000 women escaping domestic abuse across England were refused safe housing last year, amid warnings that many could be left homeless or driven back to dangerous partners as a result of a “woeful” lack of safe accommodation.

Official figures seen by the Observer found that almost 8,000 households referred to a safe accommodation service did not receive support because there was no capacity. A further 3,000 were denied places because the shelter “could not meet the needs of the household”, with figures suggesting this was often due to mental health issues, drug and alcohol use or disability.

Why do we hear so much about the tragic plight of men who claim to be women and so little about actual women trapped in violence and/or homelessness?

“Anyone who’s facing domestic abuse and who is not assisted to enter safe accommodation is at such huge risk. The consequences are that they’re exploited and abused on the streets, or they are driven back in an abusive relationship,” said Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy, campaigns and research at the women’s rights group Southall Black Sisters. “If they’re not provided with proper housing and support for themselves and their children, then what choices have they got left? A lot of them are very low income or no income.”

But we don’t hear much about this, because so much oxygen is used up on bemoaning the anguish of men who say they are women.

Even this article manages to steer the conversation back to those men.

Leni Morris, chief executive of the LGBT+ anti-abuse charity Galop, said: “We see LGBT+ victims of abuse having to choose between staying in dangerous abusive situations or risking street homelessness. We often spend days trying to find accommodation for people we work with – sometimes for that person to arrive at that refuge space and face homophobia or transphobia from other residents and have to flee again.”

What kind of “transphobia”? Does she mean Galop sends a man who claims to be a woman to a women’s shelter and the women are terrified? That kind of “transphobia”?