Journalist Jean Calder dared to see a film.

The other day I attended a screening in Brighton of the critically acclaimed film Adult Human Female. It explores the challenges posed to women’s rights by sexist trans activism, including the way that gender “self-identification” can be used by abusive males to target women and children.

…

Women in this city, as elsewhere in the UK, have for several years been unable to freely discuss this issue without fear of sanction, harassment and threats. Elsewhere in the country, screenings of this film have regularly been sabotaged.

I did attend but not without hindrance because of the security measures in place. Every person who booked tickets had to be checked and the secret venue was only revealed an hour or so before the event to prevent attempts by misogynist trans activists to close it down.

There were ID checks and people gathered a good hour before the film began. The police had been alerted. The film went ahead and trans activists, who gathered elsewhere, never discovered where it was. However, there was an unacceptable cost in terms of time, expense and anxiety.

You shouldn’t have to feel like a member of the Resistance in Vichy France to see a feminist movie.

The women are not violent and have threatened nobody. Yet all too often they have been treated as aggressors by local police, who have explained their shameful failure to protect them from hate-fuelled attacks by describing their role as to “keep the sides apart”, cynically suggesting equality of violence and threatening behaviour.

…

As local women wearily point out, men who challenge “gender ideology” are rarely attacked or threatened. Women are the target.

Almost as if trans ideology is misogynist to the core.

A friend of hers received an anonymous threatening letter about the film because he works in a building.

The letter, apparently widely distributed to possible venues across the city to try to prevent the screening, alleges that the film is “transphobic” (it isn’t), names the Brighton Women’s Liberation Collective, then accuses groups showing the film of “calling for violence against the trans community” (something of which I saw no evidence).

It states that any venue showing the film will be “complicit in this violence” which, it says, is “real and widespread” against “trans women especially” (the film offers evidence to challenge this emotive and often-repeated assertion).

The letter concludes: “Should you choose to go ahead with the screening, be assured that we will make it known far and wide that your venue has knowingly helped to promote transphobic ideas and therefore been complicit in violence against the LGBT community.

“In a place like Brighton I’m sure you can imagine this will not go down well. We hope that you take this strongly into account and that no further action is required.” (my emphasis)

How do you take something “strongly” into account? It’s Trumpspeak with extra added menaces.

Earlier this month, Conservative MP Miriam Cates and Labour’s Rosie Duffield and Karin Smyth spoke out in Parliament against the Scottish Nationalist Party and Green Party’s controversial proposals to legally mandate self-identification in Scotland. This would have removed women’s right to female-only spaces, such as toilets, refuges and hospital wards.

Unlike male colleagues making similar objections, the women MPs were met by barracking and aggression, in particular from Brighton Kemptown’s enraged Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who shouted them down, jabbing his finger and actually crossing the floor to glare at and physically intimidate Miriam Cates. Both she and Rosie Duffield are survivors of abuse.

Despite general outrage and the expressed unease of Labour women, such as MP Jess Phillips, Russell-Moyle has faced no censure from Keir Starmer and explained his actions by reference to a “failure to control” his “passion”.

They always explain their actions that way.

Since then, Rosie Duffield has published an article, The Labour Party Has a Woman Problem, which has been widely praised and discussed. Regrettably, there has been no comment at all from our local politicians.

This conspiracy of silence cannot be allowed to continue. Women and girls make up half the population and, however much Brighton and Hove chooses to forget it, sex remains a protected characteristic enshrined in equalities legislation.

Oh well, it’s only women.

Sturgeon really does give the whole game away here.

Journalist: Are all trans women women?

Sturgeon: That’s not the point we’re dealing with here, trans women are women but in the present context, there is no automatic right for a trans woman –

[Journalist cuts her off, which he shouldn’t have; we needed the rest of that sentence.] There are contexts where a trans woman is not –

Sturgeon: No there is [frustrated half-laugh] circumstances where a trans woman will be held in the male prison estate.

There. She gave the whole thing away. That’s what all the sane people have been telling her all this time. Yes, exactly, there are circumstances where trans women can’t be in the female estate. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WOMEN. Duh. That’s what we said.

Then he asks her if there are situations in which women born women will be housed in the male estate. She doesn’t think there are circumstances [inaudible] – he says “Different for trans women.” She replies, with exasperation, “Well yes.”

Well yes. Well yes.

But when we say it it’s a crime.

But now she’s said it.

She gave it all away, just like that.

Oh my – Sturgeon admits it. At 34 seconds she says an emphatic “Well yes” – and of course rightly so, but it’s what she’s been denying and ignoring and acting as if No all this time.

Another woman loses a place* to…

*See first comment

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Calling all bullies.

To use my go-to example I see “god(s)” exactly the same way I (and practically everyone else) see the Midgard Serpent.

I don’t call myself an “amidgardserpentist”, so why should I call myself an “atheist”? If anyone honestly wants to know what I think, they’re going to have to stick around for the actual content. And if they don’t have time for that, then no real understanding is going to be conveyed by me giving them a label. This is also part of the reason* I no longer call myself a “feminist”. Julie Bindel and Laurie Penny are not different kinds of “feminists” any more than Kate Smurthwaite and Eddie Izzard are different kinds of “women”, or fruit bats and baseball bats are different kinds of “bats”. These are homonyms, not subsets of the same larger set. Saying that “feminism” is, say, “a movement that fights the oppression of women” doesn’t really tell us anything when we can’t even even agree on the meaning of “woman” or “oppression”.

A label can be a convenient description or an indication of affiliation

I think most people – including self-described “atheists” and “skeptics”** – naturally gravitate toward the latter interpretation. Taking a stand based on ideas, values, principles etc. requires a lot of tedious thinking and will not always align neatly with the views of your “friends” and “allies” (as someone once put it, where everyone is thinking the same, no one is doing much thinking at all). Going with whatever passes for the official “atheist™”, “feminist™”, “leftist™”, “progressive™” etc. position requires zero thinking and automatically puts you on the “right” side of every issue even if the “right” side today (“Four legs good, two legs better!”) is the polar opposite of what it was just yesterday (“Four legs good, two legs bad!”).

* Besides not wanting to come across as claiming to speak for women.

** As became abundantly clear during the Deep Rifts.

Pompeo has written a book.

It’s a master class in the performative anger poisoning American politics.

Mike Pompeo is a smart man — first in his class at West Point, Harvard Law Review — with a sharp tongue. In March 2016, as a four-term tea party congressman from Kansas, he warned that Donald Trump, if elected, would be “an authoritarian president who ignored our Constitution.” 

And he was absolutely right, and he was part of the authoritarian’s administration. Why is that? It has to be because he’s an immoral man doing what’s useful for him as opposed to what’s good for everyone else. A smart man and a very bad one.

Pompeo disdained America’s career diplomats. He describes them, by turns, as un-American, deceitful denizens of the “deep state,” and “overwhelmingly hard left.” Trump’s third national security adviser, John Bolton, is a scheming leaker who “should be in jail,” he writes. Barack Obama’s foreign policies, in Pompeo’s view, made him all but a terrorist fellow traveler. Heportrays Obama’s spy chiefs John Brennan and James Clapper as masters of disinformation and the chief perpetrators of the “Russia Hoax” — the crime of reporting, first to president-elect Trump and then to the American people, the intelligence community’s conclusion that the Kremlin monkey-wrenched the 2016 election for its chosen candidate.

In other words not a hoax. Like Trump, Pompeo lies that other people are lying. Double bluff type of thing.

After the killing [of Khashoggi] sparked outrage, Trump sent Pompeo to reassure the crown prince of America’s support — and to give “the middle finger to the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other bed-wetters who didn’t have a grip on reality.” As you may have guessed, Pompeo hates reporters: They are, in his words, “wolves” and “hyenas,” and their work of encouraging leaks, he says flatly, “is illicit.”

Says the guy who worked for Trump. Nearly everything Trump does is illicit.

The NY Times has an opinion piece on demographics and shrinking populations.

China, the most populous country on the planet for centuries, this month reported its first population decline in six decades, a trend that is almost certainly irreversible. By the end of the century China may have only around half of the 1.41 billion people it has now, according to U.N. projections, and may already have been overtaken by India.

The news has been met with gloom and doom, often framed as the start of China’s inexorable decline and, more broadly, the harbinger of a demographic and economic “time bomb” that will strain the world’s capacity to support aging populations.

There is no doubt that a shrinking global population — a trend expected to set in by the end of this century — poses unprecedented challenges for humanity. China is only the latest and largest major country to join a club that already includes Japan, South Korea, Russia, Italy and others.

And so on. The weird thing is that the sociologist who wrote it, Wang Feng, never mentions the climate issue. How can it make sense to talk about population decline or growth without mentioning what’s happening to the planet this “shrinking global population” lives on? It’s like being on a train approaching a collapsed bridge and talking about service in the dining car.

But the alarmist warnings are often simplistic and premature. The glass is at least half full. Shrinking populations are usually part of a natural, inevitable process, and rather than focus excessively on concerns like labor shortages and pension support, we need to look at the brighter spots for our world.

But the trouble is, labor shortages and pension support are going to look like luxury issues as the climate spirals out of control.

Compared to a half-century ago, people in many countries are richer, healthier and better educated and women are more empowered. China’s population, for example, is shrinking and aging, but its people are more educated and have a longer life expectancy than at any time in the country’s history. 

Yes but. There’s that bridge up ahead.

Men brag in public of taking a baby away from her mother as if she were a jacket or an umbrella.

Men using women to gestate babies for them has nothing whatever to do with either democracy or equality.

MPs are afraid to talk about it at all.

In the privacy of a committee room on the parliamentary estate, Labour MPs gather for “top-secret” meetings to discuss the erosion of sex-based rights — and their numbers are growing.

They are part of a cross-party group of “gender-critical” MPs and peers often too frightened to express their views on trans matters publicly for fear of a backlash.

So that’s healthy. Trans ideology is making life steadily worse for women, and the people in charge are afraid even to talk about it.

One MP who attends regularly said the meetings “have to be top-secret or no one would come”. They added: “It’s a way of bringing women and men across the House together to meet secretly to talk about these issues, because they can’t speak out publicly.”

…

[Rosie Duffield] was also briefed against by Matthew Doyle, director of communications for Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, who described the situation with Duffield as “irritating” but insisted it does not do the party “any actual damage”.

In an audio clip released by Guido Fawkes, the right-wing political gossip blog, Doyle, who previously worked for Sir Tony Blair, accused her of doing “incredibly disingenuous things”, adding: “There are people in Canterbury who say it would be nice [for her] to spend a bit more time actually in Canterbury rather than hanging out with JK Rowling.”

Bros before hos, yet again.

So charged is the debate that not one of the dozen Labour MPs I have spoken to this week would go on the record to express their concerns about the party’s equivocal position on the trans and gender issue — not even Harriet Harman, the architect of the Equality Act, which outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation.

All said the issue was “toxic” and that wading into the debate always opened up a “world of pain.” They are also concerned about exposing divisions within Labour amid fears it could hurt the party at the next election. One moderate Labour MP told me that whenever she talked about the need for safe spaces for women, she got online abuse and was told she was an extremist.

Does this sound like a normal healthy situation? Is it a coincidence that the people being harmed by it are women?

Baroness Hayter said it was easier for Labour peers to speak out because they do not have a constituency party to answer to. She said Labour MPs were often worried about the abuse they and, particularly, their staff, would be subjected to.

“I’m afraid I see this as being a bit like antisemitism when it was first called out in the party and people were saying it was all being exaggerated and overblown and with this issue it is the same thing,” she said. “They are trying to squash us and stop us from raising it. Jewish groups were told to be quiet about antisemitism and now women are being told to shut up too. But this is misogyny. This is men telling women to get back in their box.”

And telling them with venom and visible, red-faced rage and hatred. It’s a disgusting situation.

Another peer said: “The treatment of Rosie and Miriam has actually attracted a lot more people to our side of the argument because they have finally seen the bullying and misogynistic behaviour for what it is. This is women being aggressively silenced by men, so it has been very graphic. Combine that with the issues around Scotland and self-identification and you start to see the reality of the threat to sex-based rights very visually.”

You’re goddam right. Thanks Lloyd! Thanks for being such a horrible piggy person right out in the open where everyone can see.

[The Labour Women’s Declaration working group] has been dismayed to discover that it has been banned from having a stall at this weekend’s regional Labour conference in London. The decision to ban the group from having a stall at last year’s annual conference in Liverpool led to a letter of protest signed by Labour MPs and peers.

A spokeswoman for the group said: “This refusal unfortunately builds on the party’s decision not to allow us a conference stand at last year’s national conference in Liverpool. This position clearly has to change. We have productive private conversations and have given detailed briefings to many Labour politicians, including Keir Starmer and Anneliese Dodds. But banning us from Labour events like this makes the party look ridiculous.

“Keir will regain the respect of so many women if he shows leadership right now and makes good his words about our rights to be heard. This entails giving both Labour Women’s Declaration and Lesbian Labour the right, just like other campaign groups, to run stalls at conferences, and to engage in respectful conversations within the party.”

Or he can just stick with bros before hos.

Bro journalist at the Herald talks to celebrity bro-woman India Willoughby. First sentence:

INDIA Willoughby is sitting at her kitchen table in Newcastle wearing the Versace top she bought as a treat after appearing on Celebrity Big Brother.

The scene is set! This is a woman he’s talking to. Womany womany womany woman. No self-respecting man wears a “top.” That’s laydee territory. No man buys himself a “top” as a “treat” – that’s a totally effeminate girly womany female feminine womany womany thing to do. ARE WE CLEAR???

Willoughby says he gets threats.

“Somebody will get killed. That’s where the rhetoric is going. Words kill, we know that. People are using their words and platforms to make people angry. If anyone is killed it will be a trans person. If that becomes Britain’s sobering moment then that’s tragic for this country, awful.”

I wonder how he thinks he knows that if anyone is killed it will be a trans person. It’s not as if women don’t get threats too.

Willoughby says trans people feel politically isolated, apart from Scotland’s SNP/Green government. “When it comes to the bigots, the scary thing is that for trans people nobody is coming to our rescue apart from Nicola Sturgeon.”

What rescue though? What rescue does he want? What more are people supposed to do?

I’m sure being trans is fraught with difficulty, but that’s mostly because of what it is, rather than opposition to the ideology’s takeover.

“The underlying narrative,” she adds, “is that trans people are frauds, out to trick you. That idea is really dangerous. The one dilemma all trans people face is telling prospective partners that you’re trans. It’s a minefield. It can be very dangerous. So creating this mood music that we’re frauds green-lights to some that we deserve a beating.”

Or, it’s the other way around. The underlying issue is that people are mostly not particularly eager to have a “prospective partner” who is the non-chosen sex, if you see what I mean. Straight people want partners of the opposite sex, lesbians and gays want partners of the same sex. That “dilemma” isn’t put there by “terfs” or women in general or feminists in general, it’s there already. It’s not our fault that 1. men aren’t going to be fooled by Willoughby and 2. straight men aren’t going to want Willoughby for a partner. I repeat: that’s not our fault. It’s not anyone’s fault.

Maybe that’s the whole of the secret sauce here. Trans people have made their romantic/sexual/marital lives vastly more difficult by being trans, and that’s not anyone’s fault. What to do? Where to direct all that energy when there’s no perpetrator? Onto women who say no, of course. Now there’s someone to fight with!

But something was changing in 2017, Willoughby believes. She noticed attitudes to trans people hardening when she appeared on Women’s Hour. “I expected a chat about being the first trans Loose Woman but as soon as I got there it was clear that this was me in the dock. Not long afterwards, this movement of just horrible people started to coalesce.”

Just horrible people are we? While Willoughby is the nicest warmest most generous loving person you’d ever want to meet?

She believes if trans rights are eroded, then gay and lesbian rights will be next, and eventually women’s rights. America’s “extremist” Christian lobby has already eroded women’s abortion rights, she adds. Trans people are “the gateway, the same people coming for us will eventually come for gays, lesbians and women”.

No, bub, you’re already coming for women, with a lot of success.

Willoughby says the rhetoric on both sides needs to calm down before someone gets hurt. She denounced any trans campaigner carrying placards like ‘Decapitate terfs’. “They shouldn’t be there. They’re helping nobody, certainly not trans people.” Willoughby has, and does use the word ‘terf’, though, defending the use of the term as it was originally coined by ‘radical feminists’. She would refrain from using it to any woman who said she found it offensive.

The generosity of the man! He knows we do “find it offensive” but he’ll keep on calling us unless we tell him personally that we “find it offensive.”

Neal Mackay posted 23 tweets promoting this interview. Seems like a lot.

Originally a comment by Sastra on Calling all bullies.

Oftentimes, and more often than not, this antisocial, vile rhetoric and drive stems from “deeply-held’ religious convictions.

How does that work?

“Is homosexuality a sin?” This is a question about religious morality. “Are people who claim to be homosexual not really attracted or aroused by others of the same sex?” This is a fact question which never really came up. Religious people took it for granted because the truth of it was established in the common ground of human experience.

“Is being transgender a sin?” Religious. “Are people born with an inner conviction of what sex they are and is this a more reliable indicator of their actual sex than their reproductive system?” Fact question from common ground which has not been established. It doesn’t matter if the religious parrot something about “God made men and women.” They think God made the mountains and lakes. Believing there are mountains and lakes is not a Deeply Held Religious Conviction if you’re not religious.

The stubborn refusal to examine concepts and arguments in order to separate religious from secular is far, far too common among atheists and humanists. The temptation to deal with opponents using the familiar, easy tactics of arguing for atheism is apparently too strong for them.

Reduxx has the story on the man in the women’s locker room in Santee:

The trans-identified male at the center of controversy after using the women’s locker rooms at a California YMCA has a disturbing social media history, Reduxx has found.

On January 11, video clips from a Santee City Council meeting went viral on social media after a teen girl took to the podium to report her concerns about a trans-identified male who had been allowed to use the women’s facilities at the local YMCA.

Rebecca Phillips, 17, became emotional as she recounted that she had seen “a naked male in the women’s locker room” one night after finishing her workout and using the showers. Phillips said that when she later questioned YMCA staff about the presence of the male in the women’s facilities, she was told that “he was indeed allowed to shower wherever he pleased.”

Reduxx tweeted the clip a few days ago; I saw it but I don’t think I posted about it. Apologies if this is a duplicate.

The clip led to protests being organized outside of the YMCA by citizens concerned about child safeguarding and women’s rights to single-sex spaces. On January 18, Christynne Lili Wrene Wood, 66, came forward during one of the protests and stated: “I’m the scary transgender woman who that child misidentified as a man.”

Easy for him. He’s not a teenage girl with a man in his 60s leering at her in the locker room. Easy for him to sneer.

Wood won a lawsuit against a fitness center that didn’t let him use the women’s locker room a couple of years ago, with an unknown financial award. He wins either way; girls and women lose.

On Wednesday evening, residents of Santee gathered again at a city council meeting to share their views on the incident during a public comment session. Wood was allowed to speak first, and was granted three minutes of podium time — one full minute more than other speakers were allowed.

Because he’s so marginalized.

A man with a trans pride flag sticking out of his jacket pocket also took to the podium and defended Wood’s presence in the women’s locker room. Jason Frye, President of the Humanist Association of San Diego, called Phillips dehumanizing names during his address.

“We need to protect people. We do not protect creepy little voyeurs spying on people in restrooms, causing problems, but people just minding their own business,” Frye said.

“I would recommend that the city take some kind of stance to say that that type of bigotry is not acceptable here, because it is clear that that type of license leads to suicide attempts,” Frye continued. “For those people who are calling to see people’s genitalia, I want to see your browser histories, because it seems like you’re quite obsessed with this.”

…

Two days ago, Wood gave a statement to the Times of San Diego in which he denounced the 17-year-old girl who had raised complaints as a “little witch” who had spread “lies from the very beginning.”

It’s all the teenage girl’s fault.

So this revolting Jason Frye dude has a public post on Facebook from three days ago, drumming up fans for his campaign to bully a teenage girl who doesn’t want leering men in the women’s locker room where she has to change her clothes.

Hello Humanists,

Tonight is an important night. Thoughts of our community have been proliferating and we have a hunger to get out into the general community and show support for deserving people and causes.

Last week a woman, Christynne Wood, was changing after her regular aqua aerobics routine and a teenager who saw Ms. Wood in the locker room went to the desk to complain about seeing a “man.”

Notice that the man gets the honor of being called a woman while the girl is genericized as a “teenager.” Notice also of course the moronic scare-quotes on “man,” as if nobody but a lunatic would call a man a man.

Christynne Wood is trans, post operative, and was minding her own business. Angered by the understandable ambivalence of YMCA staff, the teen went to express her outrage to the Santee City Council.

Wood is a man, so he wasn’t minding his own business by taking his clothes off in the women’s locker room. The “understandable ambivalence” of the Y staff is actually a failure or refusal to protect the privacy and safety of girls and women.

This resulted in two sizable protests outside of that Y location. One of our members was there on the side of equality and inclusion. He discussed this experience at last week’s Coffee & Conversation.

By “equality and inclusion” of course this foul sexist sadist means encouraging men to take over women’s spaces and force women out of public life.

The consensus of our community that arose from C&C was that there was an inappropriate act that day–patrons of the YMCA should be protected from creepy voyeurs spying on them and trying to give them trouble.

There’s the “creepy voyeur” insult, along with the ludicrous, abusive reversal of aggressor and victim.

There has been a conspicuous and marked increase in anti-trans animus and a vast proliferation of trans-specific regulations emerging across the United States. Oftentimes, and more often than not, this antisocial, vile rhetoric and drive stems from “deeply-held’ religious convictions.

As Humanists, it is our mission to stand with people who experience invidious discrimination and persecution when such affronts to dignity and compassion come from superstition and religious dogma.

Tonight Jason Frye (myself), Brian Delafayette, and others will be heading to Santee City Hall to support Christynne as she addresses the Council (during its regular business).

We will be meeting at City Hall around 5:30

That explains why there was a lot of applause and cheering for his grinning verbal assault on the teenage girl.

A woman comments “calling an underage girl who had to deal with indecent exposure a ‘creepy voyeur’ shows how morally bankrupt you are.”

Morally bankrupt, venomous, sadistic, smirking, smug – some “humanist.”

Well, this is breathtaking. I won’t need any more coffee for hours.

He didn’t even stop with “creepy little voyeur,” he called her a bunch more names too – including “puerile” which is funny because “puer” is Latin for “boy.”

Also he has a creepy (speaking of creepy) psychotic smile on his face the whole time he’s speaking, and whenever he says “trans women” he says it “trans women” as if to batter it into our brains and limbic systems.

Oh no, a crack in the edifice?

This Moira White – the one who’s a man.

Watch the clip. Watch “Natalee” roll his eyes as the newsreader tells him the shooter’s attorneys are now saying he’s non-binary. Then watch him tell the truth about the whole ridiculous ideology.

Originally a comment by maddog1129 on Dim bulbs.

I’m afraid you’re the one who is misled. I’ve been a part of the LGBTQA+ community for the last thirty two years since I came out in 1990. I have trans friends. This entire thing is just like it was then for gay people – demonization, misrepresentation, lies and hatred.

But it’s not “just like it was for gay people.” The things that gay people wanted didn’t affect anyone else. The accusations that gay men “recruited” young men to be gay were false. The LG purposely and scrupulously separated themselves from the pedophilia activists like NAMBLA. The “demonization, misrepresentation, lies, and hatred” against gay men and lesbians were false accusations and irrational fears.

Here, we’re talking about a trans person who is a rapist. Rapists are rightly “demonized,” because they are vile predators who hurt other people. Calling this trans person — and a whole host of others — rapists, predators, criminals is not a “misrepresentation.” It’s not a lie. Rapists are deservedly hated. Here, the accusations are true. That’s what this guy is defending. He’s lying when he says it’s “just like” the unjust animus against gay people. Here, the demonization is a correct representation, is not a lie, and is properly condemned, if not exactly “hated.” He doesn’t know what “just like” means.

And there’s the broader point that what LGB activists sought did not affect anyone else. The T project is entirely different. They demand, not equal rights, but special privileges and dispensations that are not rights at all. Their demands directly affect the rights of others, primarily the rights of women and girls. Men and boys who violate the boundaries of women and girls, and who demand to do so as a matter of right, raise huge red flags for the safety of women and girls. A significant predictor of which men are the most dangerous to women is the violation of women’s boundaries. The T movement is hellbent on the wholesale destruction of women’s boundaries. Women are 100% justified in fear and wariness toward such men. It’s not “demonization” to point out that men who call themselves women present a heightened risk to women, and that their demands destroy women’s rights. It’s not a “misrepresentation” to point out the conflict between T demands and women’s rights. As for “lies,” the entire T edifice is built on a colossal lie, that human beings can change sex just by wishing. The “lies” are entirely on the T side of the argument. The lies are so stupid that it’s astonishing that they ever gained any traction at all, but here we are.

This Tom Coates person doesn’t know how reason and logic and words work. He’s still purposely defending a rapist and changing the subject away from the rapist. Almost like a dear Muslima. You can’t talk about the issue directly in front of you, because of this other issue over there. That kind of dishonesty makes me distrust everything about the T movement and its advocates.

All this time I didn’t realize that Tucker Carlson has been ranting about the loss of sex appeal in M&Ms. I had no idea.

“America, let’s talk,” M&M’s began on social media on Monday. Later, “We have decided to take an indefinite pause from the spokescandies.”

What happened? And what is a spokescandy?

The former is easy to answer: Tucker Carlson. The Fox News host embarked on a crusade against the M&M’s the moment the treatmakers disgusted him last year by removing the green M&M’s much beloved go-go boots in favor of sensible sneakers: “M&M’s will not be satisfied until every last cartoon character is deeply unappealing and totally androgynous,” he groused. “Until the moment you wouldn’t want to have a drink with any one of them.”

So Tucker Carlson does want to have a drink with an M&M? Or did before they underwent a wardrobe change?

I can see it now – the dim lighting, the groups of friends, the couples, the cigarette smoke, the bowls of peanuts, and Tucker Carlson at a table in the corner with…an M&M.

This vigorous rebuttal to the wokefication of sweets didn’t end there — [when] in a 2015 promotional image she was depicted with her hand on the brown M&M’s knee, Carlson worried that she “is now a lesbian, maybe?” And he decried the introduction of Purple, whom he described as “plus-sized” and “obese.” (She’s just a peanut M&M.)

So I guess he won’t be taking her to Bemelmans.

Oh give it a rest ffs.

Women can help men commit rape, sure. Women can’t literally rape. The fact that one court decided to call helping men rape “rape” doesn’t change that fact. Women can also in theory shove objects up women, but that too is not rape, even if some court says it is.

Charlotte Proudman seems unusually horrible.

Frying pans and fires.

Nicola Sturgeon faces another trans storm after a decision was made to house one of Scotland’s most violent prisoners in a women’s jail. The Record can reveal that volatile Tiffany Scott – who stalked a 13-year-old girl while known as Andrew Burns – has been rubber-stamped for transfer to a jail that aligns with her chosen gender.

Scott, 31, has been repeatedly refused the switch over several years but senior management relented in recent weeks. It is understood that the transfer is still planned – despite the First Minister instructing a U-turn on a decision to house double rapist Isla Bryson at all-women jail Cornton Vale, Stirling, on Thursday.javascript:void(0)

Last night the Scottish Government faced calls to make another embarrassing U-turn on Scott. A source said: “Of all the female trans prisoners in the estate, Scott has been considered the most dangerous.”

Interesting choice then. “Let’s start with the most dangerous man who calls himself a woman. Once he I mean she is in, the rest will be a doddle.”

The source continued:

“This highly disturbed prisoner has attacked female staff during time in prison, has admitted stalking a young girl and has been one of the most menacing people inside Scottish jails. It’s madness to send her to a women’s jail – there needs to be a better solution than this.”

…

Scott, 32, from Kinglassie, Fife, is being held in segregation at LowMoss Prison, near Glasgow.

She has assaulted inmates, security officers and female nurses in various jails. She self-harmed and opened veins with her teeth before squirting blood at prison officers.

In 2010, Scott, while still Burns, attacked a nurse while escaping from a Cheshire hospital while under detention, throwing roof tiles at police during a siege on the hospital roof. In 2013, Scott, while still Burns, was sentenced to 14 months for stalking a 13-year-old girl from a cell at Polmont Prison, near Falkirk, by sending letters.

He sounds very Hannibal Lecter, doesn’t he.

Speaking of Katie [Colin] Montgomerie, James Esses provides a new piece of information about him.

A few months ago Esses received an email from a father concerned about his daughter’s belief that she was trans and needed hormones and surgery. They talked about therapy.

I explained to ‘Alfred’ that if his daughter was not open to speaking to someone, that “it could end up being counter-productive”. It is common therapeutic knowledge that someone who feels as if they are forced to go to therapy is not going to be receptive to the experience and is, therefore, less likely to benefit from it.

‘Alfred’ came back and said to me that his daughter had made an “agreement” with him that she would go to therapy.

And so I provided ‘Alfred’ with the names of a handful of therapists that I know, who support ethical, explorative therapy for children with gender dysphoria.

There it ended, until –

Yesterday, I was contacted by a parent, who, for the purposes of this article, I will call David. David told me that he had a son who said he was ‘trans’ and had been self-medicating from GenderGP over a period of time. His son’s school were aware of this but never informed the family. This was an extremely shocking story to hear, although it is not the first time I have heard such a thing.

Then he told me about ‘Alfred’.  

‘Alfred’ was not real. All along, it was David’s son posing as someone else’s father. David discovered this when he logged on to his son’s Twitter account, concerned by who he might be engaging with online.

Guess who it turned out to be that David was engaging with? Katie [Colin] Montgomerie. There are screenshots of conversations between David’s kid and Montgomerie.

In the conversation with Katy, David’s son writes:

“Hey, I recently made a burner email and went back and forth with James Esses in the hopes that he’d give me a list of his “colleagues” (people he would want doing therapy on tarns (sic) kids) and I got a pretty scary list back; if you’re interested please let me know.”

Here is a child, clearly in a vulnerable position (more on this below), stating to an adult that he has engaged in deception and lies, in order to try and gain information.

Katy does not respond by questioning the lies and deception. Nor does Katy ask him about his mental wellbeing and why he feels the need to take such drastic steps.

Katy simply states: “Yes definitely”. He promptly provides Katy with the list of explorative therapists that I had previously provided him with.

Read the rest.