How the New Zealand Herald reported it:

More than 2000 counter-protesters – including one armed with a bottle of tomato soup – have seen British anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull aborting her central Auckland rally.

How it should have reported it:

More than 2000 counter-protesters made so much noise and were so violent that women’s rights activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull was forced to cancel her central Auckland rally.

It does a little better in para 3:

In ugly scenes Keen-Minshull – who was in the country as part of her Let Women Speak tour aimed to support women’s rights – was drowned out by protesters galvanised by the LGBTQIA+ community.

As she was standing on the rotunda stage at Albert Park preparing to speak, one counter-protester rushed towards her and poured a bottle of soup over her head.

The protester then sprayed more on one of Keen-Minshull’s security guards.

Skirmishes broke out with pushing and shoving between the counter-protest group and Keen-Minshull’s much smaller entourage.

A barrier erected to try and keep the two factions apart was pushed down.

The soup-hurling protester was removed by security but Keen-Minshull’s attempts to speak were drowned out by drums, chants of “go home” and, at one point, a Whitney Houston song playing over the loudspeakers.

So in short they will never let women speak, unless we say what they tell us to say. If we try to say what we want to say they will rough us up.

Keen-Minshull arrived at Auckland Airport last night after a last-ditch court case to block her entry to NZ failed. When asked if she felt safe, Keen-Minshull said she felt New Zealand was “insane”.

She said she expected trans rights activists to be at her event and claimed “men [trans women] would come out. They’ve already threatened to be aggressive.”

Even when they’re assaulting her, the Herald has to correct her “men” to “trans women.” Funnily enough, their correction is not persuasive.

Keen-Minshull’s controversial tour has seen her face criticism from politicians and other social commentators for her assertion people cannot change their sex.

Ok Herald, what about it? Can people change their sex? We all realize they can get breasts or penises cut off, but can they change their sex?

She argues she is campaigning for women’s rights – but opponents say her transphobic rhetoric is a threat to trans people’s rights and safety.

I notice you always give “opponents” the last word. Why is that, Herald? Do you really think women saying men are not women are both wrong and evil?

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) announced earlier this week, after a review of whether Keen-Minshull should be allowed in, that she did not meet the high threshold to be considered an excluded person under Section 16 of the Immigration Act 2009.

The INZ assessment took into account the events in Melbourne, where her speaking event drew a crowd, including people who were seen giving Nazi salutes and shouting slurs, Minister for Immigration Michael Wood said earlier this week.

“Like many New Zealanders I would prefer it if Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull never set foot in New Zealand. I find many of her views repugnant, and am concerned by the way in which she courts some of the most vile people and groups around, including white supremacists,” Wood has said.

Yes it’s so repugnant to say that men are not women.

I don’t know. Right now I feel like identifying as a tiger and growling.

Well. It seems that in Auckland, there was such a huge loud screaming mob that KJK wasn’t able to say anything, and was at one point afraid she and the people around her were going to be crushed to death.

Originally a comment by Sastra on On the cusp of instantiating the gender cult (by Der Durchwanderer).

It’s interesting that a “right to personal honor” is explicitly spelled out here, because I’ve been reading arguments that the Honor Culture of the past shares this concern with the emerging Culture of Victimhood. When a focus on public reputation is combined with a sensitivity to slights and a conviction that these must be avenged, the Enlightenment’s belief that humans have inherent dignity and a reasonable person ignores insults as beneath them loses ground. We return to the past — though with one significant difference.

In Honor Cultures, it was up to the person insulted to take revenge, usually through violence. The Culture of Dignity ignored attacks on personal honor and sought redress for actual wrongs through the law. Victimhood Cultures combine an easily-wounded sense of honor with appeals to the law, state, and third parties to make their reputation whole. It’s a dangerous new combination.

Originally a comment by Der Durchwanderer on People who menstruate.

(Are we quite sure “menstruate” shouldn’t be “peoplestruate”? Have we researched it?)

You jest, but I recently saw a campaign poster for the city state of Bremen with the Social Democrats campaigning “für Bremen und Brewomen”. I’m sure it won’t be long before the party is reeducated to add more nonsense to the slogan. Perhaps in the next election they’ll be “für Bremenschen”, which would at least be a fully German pun (unless of course they fear being seen as right-wing extremists for using German wordplay in Germany).

In the meantime, you can rest assured that in Germany, we’re allowed to use the word “woman” — indeed we may soon be required to, as long as the “woman” in question is a biological male who feels he really is a woman on the inside and asserts his hurt feelings in a court of law. A court in Frankfurt recently decided to forbid the host of a blog from allowing a specific trans women to be called a man with no qualifications in the articles he publishes. The linked story is in German and I cannot find any English sources who’ve covered it yet, but I will provide a summary:

Writer Judith Sevinc Basad published a piece discussing the trans journalist Janka Kluge in which the former referred to the latter first as a “trans woman”, then a “biological man”, and lastly without qualification as a man. Kluge took the blog’s parent company, Rome Media GmbH, to court in order to force that parent company to remove the offensive “misgendering” — and though the linked article does not specify potential remedial actions, I have seen rumours that a refusal to comply could come with a punishment of 250 thousand Euros and/or six months imprisonment for the owner of the company. The case is not over, thankfully, and Rome Media are appealing the decision…but if they lose, this could well be the beginning of a lot of nonsense in this country.

The plaintiff’s lawyer is hopeful. He (I am assuming, based on his name and the picture at the bottom of his own summary of his victory) says that “…though the state court made a decision in this specific case, the decision will nevertheless have a signalling effect.”

The linked article has some other typical German-isms worth mentioning, such as hiding the fact that the actual author of the piece is a liberal feminist with a Turkish background while taking pains to point out that the head of Rome Media was the former chief editor of the widely-publicized Bild magazine and also by the way did you know he has a YouTube channel entirely unrelated to this at all but it has been deemed “right-populist”. (Though to be fair, Basad’s ethnic background is eminently inferrable from her name…on the other hand, the whole issue is about a certain totalitarian refusal to make eminent inferences in the first place.)

Germany has always had a different relationship to freedom of speech (and to freedom in general) than the English-speaking world. The inequality doesn’t always go in one direction, either — for example, German trespass law is much more lenient than American or Canadian law, with hikers being able to walk through unfenced fields and orchards and woodlands without having to give a thought to whether the land is public or private, as long as they don’t have to manipulate a barrier and as long as they don’t damage anything. (If a hiker does damage something, like a row of crops, he’ll be expected to reimburse the farmer but won’t face criminal penalties unless he refuses.)

But Germany doesn’t have “free speech” as Americans know it. We have “freedom of thought”, and this freedom (as with most freedoms guaranteed with the Basic Law) has escape-hatch provisions that tend to render it less and less effective over time. To be specific, Article 5 of the German Basic Law guarantees that:

“Everyone has the right to freely express and to distribute his opinions in word, in writing, and in images; and to educate himself from generally accessible sources without hindrance. The freedom of the press and the freedom to report through the airwaves and via film are guaranteed. Censorship will not occur.”

That sounds great! In theory it is even more comprehensive than the First Amendment (noting that Article 4 of the Basic Law also covers religious freedom). But, as with most articles, there is a catch. This catch reads “These rights find their limits in the regulations of the general laws, in the legal provisions for the protection of children, and in the right of personal honour.” That means that any law limiting the above-enumerated freedoms can be justified by just about anything as long as the law is generally applicable, or as long as it can be said to protect children or the “right to personal honour”. (There is a further exception to this exception, wherein art and science and research and teaching are affirmed to be “free”, but in the same clause there is a double-bluff exception that “the freedom of teaching does not absolve [one] from adhering to the constitution”.)

The plaintiff’s lawyer says “Nobody should have to accept being assigned to the wrong gender”, and further that “misgendering is a grievous encroachment into general personal rights, and can have legal consequences”. During the proceedings, the lawyer claimed that several studies proved negative outcomes from being “misgendered”. And while the linked article does not mention what “legal consequences” Rome Media will face should it lose its appeal and refuse to abide by the censorship the Frankfurt court has laid down (despite the German Basic Law promising no censorship will take place), the company could face hundreds of thousands of Euros in fines and its owner may face an actual prison term.

This is all happening before Germany passes its upcoming self-ID law, which the government may or may not actually be competent enough to do; that law would, if passed with the provisions its supporters insist upon, explicitly add “misgendering” to the catalogue of civil offenses for which individual citizens can be fined. It would also allow children as young as fourteen years old to change their registered sex once per year and to pursue publicly-funded “gender medicine” without the approval, or even the knowledge, of their parents.

In short, Germany is on the cusp of instantiating the gender cult as an official state religion, with compulsory adherence and legal penalties for heresy and blasphemy. My leftist friends in Berlin assure me this country is far too conservative for such a thing to come to pass, and it is true that the average German has no idea this is even happening, but the elites have very nearly made it a fait accompli. I am very curious what will happen next.

Trump is inciting violence again.

The Post comments:

The posting after midnight on Truth Social, Trump’s social media platform, was his latest — and most explicit — allusion to violence that could follow an indictment stemming from an investigation led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), whom Trump called a “degenerate psychopath.”

Trump wrote: “What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?”

The stupidity of the writing always makes my teeth hurt. All those clumsy interjections in the endless run-on sentence, and “when it is known by all” instead of “when everyone knows,” and the random capitalization of Words, and the person v person, and the exclamation point in the middle of the run-on sentence – ow ow ow my teeth.

In a post on Thursday, Trump criticized those who have called for his supporters to remain peaceful.

Attaboy. Let’s have more violence!

The author of the article, Jo Faragher, is careful to avoid saying “women,” but the people she he they quotes not so much.

Broadcaster Channel 4 has launched a period policy with the support of its gender equality employee network, 4Womxn.

The company said the policy would help employees who experience difficulties with their periods, particularly those who experience health conditions such as endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and may be struggling to manage their symptoms at work.

As part of the policy, employees will be able to access flexible working arrangements, a working environment assessment, free period products in the office, and a microwaveable wheat bag to ease painful symptoms. It will also offer a quiet room where employees can take time out, and free hormone and fertility tests through women’s health company Hertility.

Oops a slip-up in that last sentence. They was doing so well with “employees” and “those who” but then at the very end they said “women’s health company.” Ouch.

Channel 4 is working with period-proof underwear brand WUKA, and will offer employees the chance to trial its products as a more sustainable alternative to tampons or pads.

The company cited research suggesting that 89% of people who menstruate have experienced stress or anxiety at work due to their period.

Back on track! Well done! (Are we quite sure “menstruate” shouldn’t be “peoplestruate”? Have we researched it?)

But the chief exec isn’t playing.

Channel 4 chief executive Alex Mahon said: “Most women will have 12 periods a year for 40 years. That is a huge amount of time, yet we don’t talk about women’s health much or what impact it might have on equity.

Women? What are “women”? We don’t know this word.

The launch of the new policy saw employees attend a panel discussion on people’s experience of periods, hosted by the company’s Equity and Inclusion team.

That’s better. Highly insulting, just as it should be.

Trump having a normal one.

All this angst and hand-wringing and mollification over something that should never have been an issue in the first place.

World Athletics has voted to ban transgender women from elite female competitions if they have undergone male puberty, in a decision the governing body said had been taken to “protect the future of the female category”.

Speaking after the ruling, which comes into effect on 31 March, the World Athletics president, Seb Coe, accepted that the decision would be contentious but said his sport had been guided by the “overarching principle” of fairness, as well as the science around physical performance and male advantage.

As it should have been all along. “Males not allowed in female competitions” – that shouldn’t be news in the first place, it should have been the case all along. It should never have been “contentious.”

“Decisions are always difficult when they involve conflicting needs and rights between different groups, but we continue to take the view that we must maintain fairness for female athletes above all other considerations,” he said. “We believe the integrity of the female category in athletics is paramount.”

And anyway it’s not a matter of “conflicting needs and rights.” Men don’t have a need and right to invaded women’s sports. The conflict is a political invention.

However Coe also stressed that he would set up a working group that would consult with transgender athletes and review any fresh research that emerged. “We’re not saying no forever,” he said.

“We’re not being fair to women forever.”

Why such intense focus on the No to men instead of the Yes to women? Why all the agonized empathy for men prevented from ruining women’s sports at the expense of women whose sport is ruined?

Sports have been increasingly wrestling with the thorny issue of transgender participation in recent years, notably when New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard qualified for the Tokyo Olympics in having transitioned in her 30s.

It’s not thorny. There’s nothing thorny about it. It’s also not about “transgender participation.” It’s about men invading women’s sport.

World Athletics’ decision is likely to be opposed by LGBTQ+ groups such as Stonewall. Speaking last month they urged sports to be as inclusive as possible. “The trans population may be small, but they have every right to participate in sports and enjoy the many physical, mental and community benefits of sports,” it said.

Nobody is stopping them participating in sports.

The doctor of marketing has thought of an exciting new angle.

That’s the ticket! Women over 35 are hags and witches! What an original and perceptive new insight.

Jo Bartosch in The Critic on the mobbing of Moira Deeming:

Deeming is facing a vote to have her removed from the Liberal Party for “organising, promoting and attending” a Standing for Women (SfW) rally that was gatecrashed by far-right extremists. In a statement following the event, Deeming said neither she nor SfW had done anything wrong, and that the “event was attended by Muslims, Christians, Atheists and members of the Greens, Labor, LDP and Liberal Parties”.

SfW organise events in countries around the world with the aim of encouraging women to talk freely about the impact of transgender activism on their lives. The gatecrashers at the SfW rally in Melbourne were later identified as members of the National Socialist Network. Dressed in black, very much like their antifa opponents, the all-male group stood with a banner reading “destroy paedo freaks”.

Deeming says she, like most of the SfW supporters, “did not realise who they were until they were being escorted out by Victoria Police, when they did the despicable Nazi salute … None of those organising the event had any involvement with these men”. 

Never mind all that; the women are witches!!!

In a 15-page dodgy dossier, [Liberal leader John] Pesutto referred to SfW founder Kellie-Jay Keen as someone who is “known to be publicly associated with far-right extremist groups”. Keen responded by denouncing the Nazis as “sad, pathetic men” and slamming Pesutto for apparently basing his research defaming her on an inaccurate Wikipedia page. His words were echoed by Tasmanian Green Party Senator McKim, who upped the ante by giving a speech in which he referred to Keen “and her ilk” as “Trans Exclusionary Right wing Dropkicks”. This is an underwhelming play on the acronym “TERF”; the phrase “dropkick” is unpleasant antipodean slang for women’s genitalia.

Jeezus. I hadn’t heard of that one before.

The reason SfW organises events “in the public square” is because too often discussions about women’s rights are censored on mainstream platforms. Rather than consider the rally a wake-up call about the state of free speech online, politicians have instead sought to impose the stifling rules of social media on real life. Doubtless, if the attempt to oust Deeming isn’t successful this time, Pesutto and his cronies will find something else to spaff outrage at. Left cleaning up his mess will be the ordinary women who attended the rally — ordinary people with legitimate concerns who have now been made acceptable targets for hate.

Billy Bragg will be right in there helping.

The smug self-admiration of Billy Bragg is a sight to behold.

He says, merching hatred of women as hard as he can.

Call me crazy but I kind of think schools should try to teach things that are true as opposed to made-up wacky fantasy.

Scottish children as young as 11 are being taught in school that they are “queer” if they do not yet know their sexual orientation, it has emerged.

So….infants are queer, babies are queer, toddlers are queer. That doesn’t sound very true.

Teaching materials at Boroughmuir High School, Edinburgh’s top state school, also claim that there are three biological sexes and suggest that highly controversial concepts around sex and gender are facts.

Highly controversial, and new, and derived from fashion and nagging rather than biology.

The Boroughmuir High presentation states that “queer” is a term “many people use when they are not sure what their sexual or romantic orientation is”. Sexual attraction does not begin for many children until their teens.

It tells children they are born as “one of three things, male, female or intersex” and “this is your biological sex”. Intersex is a term used to describe people with rare genetic conditions causing differences in sex development (DSDs) but it is not a distinct biological sex.

It also urges children to refer to each other as “they” if they are “not sure what gender someone identifies as”.

It’s as if all of Scotland has taken stupid-pills. “Here, take this, it will make you stupid.”

The Independent reports:

World Athletics has banned trans women from international competition, Sebastian Coe has confirmed.

That is, World Athletics has banned men from international competition. You’d think it would go without saying. If it’s women’s, it’s not men’s.

The governing body has opted to exclude male-to-female transgender athletes and those with differences in sex development (DSD) from female competition if they have gone through male puberty.

…

Lord Coe, president of World Athletics, has confirmed the “difficult” decision to change its rules starting on 31 March.

“Difficult” only because of tons of senseless pressure. I actually remember when everyone took it for granted that things for women were for women.

“The decision that the council made is a primarily principled based decision about the over-arching need to protect the female category. This is what our sport is here to do. And I think the council has done that today. We continue to take the view that we must maintain fairness for female athletes above all other considerations.”

What other considerations would there be? People wouldn’t stand around debating whether we should let boxers fight small children; why do they stand around debating whether men should invade women’s athletics?

However, LGBTQI advocacy groups say excluding trans athletes amounts to discrimination.

Not all of them. Certainly not all L advocacy groups – why not ask them? Anyway it’s stupid. We rely on discrimination all the time. If we’re shopping for pears we discriminate between oranges and pears. If we want to read a particular book we discriminate between that book and all the other books. We make choices; we’re allowed to do that. Women get to exclude men when they need to.

Starmer is perhaps reconsidering.

Sir Keir Starmer signalled a climbdown on Labour’s transgender stance on Thursday as he said lessons have to be learned from Scotland.

…

Sir Keir had previously vowed to reform the Gender Recognition Act to allow trans people to self-identify, but appeared to back away from the pledge during a press conference in Stoke-on-Trent.

Sir Keir told reporters: “I think that if we reflect on what’s happened in Scotland, the lesson I take from that is that if you’re going to make reforms, you have to carry the public with you.”

But who says they are reforms? Changes aren’t automatically reforms. If you’re going to make “reforms” that trash women’s rights, you don’t have to “carry the public with you,” you have to stop what you’re doing and listen to women.

It’s cheating to stack the deck in your favor by assuming your proposed changes are reforms.

In a message to the LGBT website Pink News for Pride in 2021, Sir Keir said his priority was “forming the next government so we can introduce legislation and change society so that, whoever you are, you can live a happy and fulfilled life”. 

What about people who identify as Keir Starmer, or Charles Windsor, or Elon Musk, or Ivanka Trump? Should we change society so that they can live happy fulfilled lives as their assumed identities?

Very fair and impartial reporting from the Guardian:

The independent senator Lidia Thorpe was pulled to the ground after attempting to storm the stage at a rally in Canberra held by anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen, who also goes by the name of Posie Parker.

Draped in an Aboriginal flag, Thorpe struggled with police before she was stopped by them; she returned to the pro-trans rights rally to cheers.

Except that “anti-trans” isn’t the right label. The issue is the way trans ideology is shredding women’s rights. That’s too long for a label, but “anti-trans” is too inaccurate and prejudicial for a label.

Thorpe, who recently staged a protest attempting to block the Sydney Mardi Gras parade to protest Indigenous deaths in custody, said she had moved on Keen to protest homophobia and transphobia.

What homophobia? It’s not homophobic to try to defend women’s rights.

Thorpe also complained about her treatment by Australian federal police, alleging that it constituted assault. A spokesperson for Thorpe later clarified that the incident involved private security officers as well as AFP officers. The matter is being investigated by the AFP.

But she charged at KJK from behind. Should the federal police and security officers simply have let her keep going?

Outside Parliament House in Canberra on Thursday, the trans rights protesters referred to the Melbourne rally with a chant of “Posie Parker, you can’t hide, you’ve got Nazis on your side”.

In a tightly cropped video streaming on social media, Parker claimed this was an attempt to “silence” her and that she had been “aggressed upon”, as the pro-trans rally maintained a distance of 50 metres.

Except for Thorpe, who came charging up at her from behind. It looked pretty aggressive to me.

Earlier, the Liberal MP Bridget Archer told ABC Radio that organisers had “almost stopped pretending that it’s about women’s rights and they are openly saying that it is an anti-transgender protest”.

“If they want to talk about women’s safety, I don’t think that the issue of … same-sex bathrooms is where the issue of women’s safety is at,” she said. “The most unsafe place for women to be is in their own homes.

“In terms of safety, the transgender community have much higher rates of violence perpetrated against them than even women do, so I think it’s just nonsense.”

No they don’t. It’s not even close.

It’s all about the reckless.

As Fox News continued to broadcast lies about Dominion voting systems and the 2020 election, Tucker Carlson, one of its star hosts, used one word over and over to describe what the network was doing – “reckless”.

Those messages were the first pieces of evidence Justin Nelson, a lawyer representing Dominion, displayed on Tuesday as he began his argument for why a judge should rule the network defamed his client. “Reckless was a meaningful word” – in order to win the case, Nelson has to prove that Fox acted with “actual malice” – that its hosts, producers, and executives knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard to the truth.

Interesting. “Reckless disregard” is a legal term of art, so it’s interesting that Tucker Carlson called Fox reckless.

“Unlike every other single defamation case, we have in their own words the fact that they knew it was false,” Nelson said.

And even that they knew they knew.

It was an example that illustrated how the core of Dominion’s $1.6bn case against Fox are the words that came from the mouths of Fox’s employees. Regardless of what happens in the case going forward, Dominion may have already won: the messages offer a significant historical record of how top officials at one of America’s most powerful media organizations aired information they knew was false when American democracy was under attack.

It’s not even one of America’s most powerful media organizations, it’s the most powerful. Horrible but true.

What the Senator said about her intentions in storming up to KJK from behind and yelling “You don’t belong here!”:

“We do not tolerate this kind of filth being on Ngunnawal and Ngambri country. This Nazi support that these people have – they are racist, they are homophobic, they are destroying people’s lives. This country should be ashamed that they even let people like this in this country. Now I went to tell her, or that thing – that they are not welcome here. I got pulverized by the police for simply telling that person that they are not allowed to be here. So I’ve been assaulted by the police today as a sovereign [recites her Indigenous identities] woman, and the police need to answer for the assault, but also this government needs to answer why these people are allowed into this country.”

So first she says emphatically that “these people” are not allowed to be here, then she says the government needs to say why they are allowed to be here.

More centrally, she says she went to “tell this person that they are not allowed to be here.” But she is allowed to be there, which is why she is in fact there. More conspicuously, she didn’t just go tell KJK that at a convenient moment, she went up to her while she was addressing the Let Women Speak crowd, and interrupted her speech, i.e. tried to stop the woman speaking. She crashed KJK’s speech, then complained that security and the police forcibly stopped her.

And she didn’t get pulverized, either. She did end up on the ground, but that’s not so much because the police pushed her but because she was wearing stupid shoes. The police and security did forcibly stop her and move her away, yes, but I don’t think she would have tipped over if she hadn’t been wearing stupid catch me-fuck me shoes.

Also she didn’t offer any evidence that “these people are racist, they are homophobic.” I don’t think there is any such evidence.

Mr Menno is paying attention.

If you’re going to go wrestling the police it seems kind of stupid to wear a short tight skirt and high-heeled shoes with no backs. Jeans and trainers next time.

Welcome to the urinals, women.

The Lyric Hammersmith offers “all gender” toilets.

The Lyric Hammersmith has been criticised for leaving female theatregoers “uncomfortable” with their gender-inclusive lavatories which feature five urinals and one cubicle.

What’s “gender-inclusive” about having five urinals and one cubicle? Even leaving out, for the sake of argument, the fact that women don’t want to be in a room with a line of men pissing into urinals, why does Lyric Hammersmith think five men attend its plays to every one woman? Why five for men and one for women? How is that “gender-inclusive”?

The London theatre claims that it provides a range of facilities “to meet the needs of all the individuals who use our building”.

Why five for men and one for women?

A spokeswoman for the theatre said: “The Lyric Hammersmith Theatre is inclusive and welcoming to all. We provide a range of lavatory facilities to meet the needs of all the individuals who use our building.

How exactly is a room with five urinals and one cubicle “inclusive and welcoming to all”?

“These include gender specific, all gender, private accessible and changing places facilities. Our all-gender toilets were introduced in 2018 as part of our strategy for inclusivity and equality.”

How does five for men and one for women do that?

It was a beautiful spring day so I went to the far side of town to walk on a different beach from the one a 20 minute walk from me. On the last bus back, a few blocks from home, a teenage boy got on wearing this:

Updating to add:

It’s “funny.” It’s a “funny” T shirt.