Katy (erstwhile Colin) Montgomerie gave a staff pride talk at Edinburgh University yesterday.

Yeah congrats. There’s nothing like inviting a man to talk about how horrible feminists are for making students feel empowered…unless they’re female students of course.

They don’t teach flat earth or creationism in school but they do teach that men who say they are women are women.

We know the answer to that, he’ll go as far as he possibly can. Always.

What I wonder is why staff at Edinburgh would want to hear a talk by Katy (erstwhile Colin) Montgomerie.

By the way, this just in about that awful terf JK Rowling:

JK Rowling magicked up hundreds of thousands of pounds to save more than a hundred female lawyers and their families facing murder in Afghanistan.

The Harry Potter author made her huge donation when Britain and America pulled out of Kabul at speed, leaving hundreds of women judges, prosecutors and defence counsel under threat from the Taliban.

Along with a million dollars from businessman and philanthropist Lord Michael Hintze, plus large sums from other prominent figures and smaller donations from the public, it meant a total of 508 Afghans could be flown to safety.

In a life-or-death cloak and dagger operation the female lawyers and their families had to hide in basements before they were smuggled to airports and flown to freedom.

The generosity of Miss Rowling, author of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban among other titles, in the 2021 rescue only emerged on Thursday in a House of Lords debate.

Lord David Alton told the chamber how the writer and Lord Hintze ‘in a Schindler’s list moment’ came forward to help when veteran human rights lawyer Baroness Helena Kennedy needed money to rescue female lawyers – mainly judges – and their families.

Lord Alton said that, thanks to ‘spontaneous, generous and very substantial’ private funding; ‘Some 500 people were evacuated – 103 were women lawyers, all of whom, with their children and husbands, were on Taliban kill lists.

But please, Tom Coates and Ryan John Butcher, do go on telling us what a horrible right-wing terf Rowling is.

More progressive men step up to defend the rapist from the meany women who won’t call him Sister.

Oh really? And how does he know that? How can he know that?

There is no such “community.” It’s forced teaming.

Well, that’s quite something.

Ooooh yes, that’s the important thing here – not the rapist who pretends to be a woman, not the rapist who pretends to be a woman by wearing slasher fingernails and platinum hair where his face is supposed to be, not the rapist who pretends to be a woman and wants to be in a women’s prison so that he can terrorize and prey on them – no no no no no, the important thing here is that JK Rowling mentioned his name (which has been widely reported in mainstream news outlets).

Via

Updating to add another hot take.

No it isn’t, actually. Not everyone – nowhere near everyone – agrees that “deadnaming” is a thing at all, let alone “a form of persecution” let alone “a form of persecution of a vulnerable minority” by which he means a woman doing it to a man who is a convicted rapist. So no, “deadnaming” in the sense of using the real name of a convicted rapist is very far from recognised as a form of persecution of a vulnerable minority. The rapist is not the vulnerable party here.

Those people in Rio Verde Foothills are still complaining because they decided to live in an unincorporated settlement in the desert during a drought and for some reason no one is willing to give them water,

There is only one paved road, no street lights, storm gutters or pipes in the ground. Instead residents have wells – or water tanks outside their homes, which they used to fill at a local pipe serviced by Scottsdale.

Why did they build there then? If there’s no municipal water supply, why decide “This is where we’ll build our new house”?

Laura Weaver told the Guardian her community didn’t “want a handout” from Scottsdale. They want time to figure out a plan and, to her, Scottsdale shutting the water off is unneighborly and un-American, she said.

So she does want a handout from Scottsdale.

Being neighborly is all very well, but settling in a desert with no access to water as climate change spirals out of control is idiotic. I suspect Scottsdale doesn’t think it has enough water to share with feckless neighbors.

“Think of the sacrifices some Americans have made for each other. And then these people are sitting here saying, ‘Well, you know, you should just dry up and die.’ Really? I just find it mind-blowingly unpatriotic,” she said.

Mm. It’s their fault. Scottsdale owes her their water, but she and her neighbors don’t owe Scottsdale the good sense not to build a town in a place with no water source. Make it make sense.

Incorporating could give the community more options for water supply in future but forming an official town or city brings requirements, such as paved roads, street lights, more taxation and rules. This would be expensive but also change the secluded, quaint feel of Rio Verde Foothills, where people own chickens, donkeys, horses and ride motorbikes straight out their doors to nearby Tonto national forest.

Fine then, keep your secluded quaint feel, but find your own damn water.

Entitlement is a dangerous drug.

It goes back to a booboo with the counting.

Twenty years ago, scientists overestimated the amount of water in the Colorado River, having measured based on an abnormally rainy season, said Sinjin Eberle, intermountain west communications director for American Rivers, a non-profit campaigning to protect and restore US waterways.

Oops.

The river has 20% less water than it did in 2000, Eberle said. More than 40 million people in seven states served by the Colorado River basin – Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California, New Mexico and Arizona – depend on the mighty but dwindling watercourse that flows through the Grand Canyon.

Now, as rain is scarcer and the region’s population has increased, there will be more water shortages, even as sprawling developments insist on golf courses, grassy parks and fountains.

Even in Rio Verde Foothills new home construction carries on apace, while the water is not there to support expansion.

Never mind, just blame it all on Scottsdale.

Sometimes a “blanket” rule is what’s necessary.

The case of Isla Bryson, the transgender double rapist who was initially sent to a female prison, must not result in a blanket ban on trans women serving their sentences in women’s facilities, the campaign group Scottish Trans has said.

Nonsense. Trans women are men, and as such should not be in women’s facilities. The end.

“It is right that this should be decided on an individualised risk assessment basis,” Valentine said.

“For example, a trans woman transitioned for 20 years, who is in prison for a non-violent offence like financial fraud, might pose no risk to other women in custody, but be at significant risk herself if accommodated on the male estate.”

I don’t care. Don’t make his problem women’s problem. Figure out some other way to solve the problem. Women don’t exist to be a safe haven for men.

Where’s the respect for her identity?

A 29-year-old woman has been arrested in New Jersey for allegedly posing as a high school student.

How do they know she was posing as rather than identifying as?

The woman, identified by police as Hyejeong Shin, has been charged with using a fake identification document to enrol in New Brunswick High School.

Ms Shin attended the school for four days before staff found out her age.

But age is just numbers on a piece of paper. If her soul is 17, who is the school to deny it?

The issue came to light at a local education board meeting on Tuesday, where New Brunswick Public School District Superintendent Aubrey Johnson told attendees that Ms Shin was caught at the school.

“Last week, by filing some false documents, an adult female posing as a student was able to be enrolled in our high school,” Mr Johnson said.

But what if she’s a teenager in her mind? How can they dismiss her reality like that? Trans teenagers are teenagers!

Baffling.

As so often, one doesn’t know where to begin.

Yes, Bryson is a rapist, and as such (as well as for other reasons) he is not a she and his actions are his actions, not her actions. He’s a man. It’s his actions that are deplorable and repugnant – and that are a part of the long and global history of male oppression of and violence against women. Even if you think it’s “respectful” or progressive to refer to men who identify as trans “she” (which I don’t), you surely ought to differentiate between men who rape women and call themselves women, and men who don’t do that. It’s an insult to women to call a rapist “she.”

Trans women may be subjected to high levels of violence, rape, harassment and abuse, but so are women, and the women Bryson raped are women, so what is the point of whining about trans women and rape when the issue is a man who raped women? Why is this “but violence and rape” used as a shield for the man who committed violence and rape instead of for women? Why are we supposed to gasp in shock horror that Bryson [claims to be] part of a group subject to violence and rape when 1. so are women and 2. he subjected women to violence and rape? It’s grotesque. Man claims to be woman, rapes women, woman barrister tells us to be nice to the rapist man because he is subject to violence and rape. What is wrong with her?

Nobody is “using” Bryson to “bash a vulnerable and marginalised group” – we’re saying Bryson exploited his claimed “identity” to commit violence against members of the vulnerable and marginalised group called women.

It doesn’t matter that he’s not “representative of trans women.” That’s completely beside the point. He’s a rapist. Trans women are a different subject.

Proudman works with the Good Law Project. Maybe it’s a drug?

Updating to add:

Great. An MSP, a woman, sides with a rapist and throws his victims on the dungheap.

Daniel Sanderson, Scottish correspondent at The Telegraph, and Simon Johnson, political editor at same, report:

When Isla Bryson was found guilty of two counts of rape, the warrant issued by the High Court in Glasgow recommended that the defendant be sent to HMP Barlinnie, a notorious male-only jail.

Instead, Bryson – who until 2020 was known as Adam Graham – was taken to an isolation unit at HMP Cornton Vale, the country’s only women’s jail, sparking a backlash that has engulfed Nicola Sturgeon.

Let’s review. What’s his crime? Rape. Rape of women. Where should he be locked up? Away from women. Where was he locked up? In a women’s prison. If he’d been convicted of torturing children would Scotland have put him on work-release as a janitor in a primary school?

Sturgeon meanwhile insists it was nothing to do with her.

Jack McConnell, a former Labour first minister, said on Thursday night: “Let us be absolutely clear. There are no circumstances where this rapist would have been sent to Cornton Vale without ministers knowing.”

Scotland’s prisons have quietly been a testbed for radical gender policies for years, following lobbying from the same trans rights activists who pushed Ms Sturgeon to introduce a controversial gender self-identification system, it has emerged.

“Radical” here meaning “hostile to women’s rights.” It doesn’t mean left-wing or progressive or humanitarian, it means ruthlessly brutally misogynist.

The SPS overhauled its policies in 2014 to state that a prisoner’s accommodation “should reflect the gender in which the person in custody is currently living”.

Imagine being the SPS and writing that sentence and not noticing the glaringly obvious problem.

Or, rather, pretending not to notice it. It’s not really possible that they literally didn’t notice it, because they knew why prisons were sex-segregated in the first place. It’s too basic for them to have failed to notice it.

The shift was heavily influenced by the Scottish Trans Alliance, a vocal cheerleader of the SNP self-identification law and an offshoot of the Equality Network charity that is almost entirely reliant on Ms Sturgeon’s Government for funding. 

They’ve had £100,000 of government money to smash up women’s rights this way.

James Morton, then the director of the trans group, admitted in an essay for Trans Britain, a 2018 book, that the group had deliberately targeted prisons as a means of persuading other public bodies to follow its agenda.

“We strategised that by working intensively with the Scottish Prison Service to support them to include trans women as women on a self-declaration basis within very challenging circumstances, we would be able to ensure that all other public services should be able to do likewise,” he wrote.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh that’s nice. That’s lovely. What does he mean by “very challenging circumstances”? He means the obvious and horrific danger to women in prison. He wanted to leverage the danger to women to create more danger for women elsewhere. What a wonderful humane liberating movement this is.

At Holyrood last month, the First Minister ordered her MSPs to vote against proposals that would have blocked convicted sex offenders, or those facing rape charges, from taking advantage of the self-identification system. 

Pause to savor that. Nicola Sturgeon ordered her MSPs to put women in danger.

At a women’s event in November, she was heckled by a protester who told her women had been “actually raped by males who have self-ID’d as women”. 

She responded by saying it was “men who commit violence against women”, adding: “Most men who commit violence against women don’t feel the need to change gender to do that. Those who do, my argument is that we should focus on them because they are men abusing a system to attack women. What we shouldn’t do is further stigmatise a group of women who are already too stigmatised.”

But they’re not women. They’re not “a group of women.” That’s the whole point. They’re men who call themselves women. They’re absolutely not a group of women who are more “stigmatised” than actual women are. They’re a group of men who want to steal everything women have and be free to rape and assault women whenever they’re in the mood.

Oh lord, what’s that I was just saying about how childish it all is? Jo Bartosch on Furries vs Feminists:

Why are men who identify as cartoon animals planning to protest against a women’s rights rally?

Because they’re pathetic risible losers.

Next month, followers of what is known as the ‘furry fandom’ will descend on Glasgow for the ‘ScotiaCon’ convention, Scotland’s leading get-together for furries. Furries are people who identify with and often dress as anthropomorphised cartoon animals.

Is it kink or just infantile?

The word is now out that some attendees are planning to take a break from the main convention to do what maladjusted young men have done for millennia: get angry and shout at outspoken women.

The final day of the Glasgow furry conference coincides with an event organised by Kellie-Jay Keen’s Standing for Women (SfW) group. SfW is planning to demonstrate against Nicola Sturgeon’s recently stalled gender-recognition reforms, which would ride roughshod over women’s rights, and furious furverts have planned a counter-demo.

Makes sense. Grown men who think they can be women, grown men who think they can be cartoon animals. Not good company either way.

So who are the furries? And why might they want to join in the transgender crusade against women’s rights? FurScience, a dedicated academic research body into the fandom (yes really), suggests that furries are about 20 times more likely than the broader UK population to identify as transgender. And just as with extremist trans activists, the furry fandom is an overwhelmingly young, nerdy and majority-male community. Ultimately, both identities are clearly appealing to those who prefer fantasy to reality.

Just what I’ve been saying.

And, you know, if they were content to just do that – prefer fantasy to reality, and act accordingly in their own heads and in private – I wouldn’t quarrel with them. But of course they’re not; they’re hell-bent on punishing women who think their fantasies are destructive of women’s rights.

While some claim that underneath the furry’s oversized anthropomorphised beast head is a person who just wants to innocently express themselves, others say it is a fetish. And research supports the view that there is a sexual driver. In a survey of the men at the ‘Furry Fiesta’ convention in Dallas in 2013, 96 per cent admitted that they consume furry-themed pornography.

Furry porn. There isn’t room in my skull to roll my eyes enough.

The optics of these furverts protesting against women’s rights could hardly be worse for the trans lobby. Surely, even the goggle-eyed gender loons in the SNP must have enough nous to see that adult men who get a kick from dressing up as animals are not the ideal spokespeople for their self-ID bill.

But the gender lunacy itself is just as deranged. They’re both ludicrous.

Besides, it’s not actually respect, is it. It’s humoring. It’s nervous humoring, the way you would humor a jittery angry terrorist who was holding you captive and claimed to be the reincarnation of Charlie Chaplin.

We don’t humor other people’s fantasies that way unless they’re jittery angry terrorists. That’s not a thing. It’s not something adults do. It’s certainly not considered respect – if people did do it it would be considered pity, not respect. We play along with children’s games of pretend, but that’s it – we don’t do that for anyone else. Once past childhood people are expected to keep their fantasies private.

I wonder if the weird (to me at least) development of adults taking various entertainment industry fantasies seriously, going to conventions about them and dressing up as them and talking about them, has been a bridge to this ridiculous new version of “respect.” If people in their 20s and 30s can go to Star Wars conventions maybe it then seems reasonable to pretend that people can change sex to live out their fantasies.

It seems horribly pathetic to me, the way Sheldon on Big Bang Theory is pathetic albeit funny.

Piers Morgan isn’t always wrong. (I hate it when people on the left are this wrong – it’s so cringey.)

“Respect” ffs. Suppose a rapist dresses up as a laydee in order to rape women, and says as much upon being arrested – should we “respect” his disguise? Why is there any obligation to pretend to believe other people’s fantasies? Why do we have to “respect” such things? Why do people think we have to respect such things? I know one reason is endless shouting, but if everybody stopped “respecting” the fantasies the shouting would die away pretty fast.

HER continued abuse of HER victims.

insert rage face here

All completely healthy and benign…

A substitute teacher at the King Middle School in Portland [Maine] was removed from the classroom last week and banned from teaching at the school after parents discovered the sub had shared inappropriate sexualized TikTok videos with students.

…

The teacher in question was a substitute teacher named Lydia Lamere.

The teacher has also gone by Chris Lamere, Lydia Moon, Clodagh Moon, and Clodagh Lamere, and has identified variously as non-binary, as a transgender woman, and as a transgender lesbian, according to a review of public social media.

It’s not clear which name was used to apply for the role at King Middle School, a process that would have involved passing a criminal background check.

…

Mark Davey, a Portland resident whose daughter attends King Middle School, said he learned about Lamere’s prurient posting when he saw videos of the scantily clad substitute teacher on his daughter’s phone.

…

“Her gender or sexuality has nothing to do with why I’m upset,” said Davey. “The violation here is the sexualization of children,” he said.

Here’s a funny thing. The word “groomer” appears nowhere in the article, but it does appear in the url. Someone signaling for help?

Ah yes the old “some women are so ugly they look like men unlike sexy pretty womany me” says the man who calls himself a woman.

Today:

A year ago:

Emma Barnett: There’s one just to put here again to you, Anneliese, if I can, from Jill and I have to say a whole series of these messages came in at the same time. I would legislate for a clear definition of what a woman is. You’re in this position and Labour still, it seems to be the position that Labour would update the Gender Recognition Act to enable a process of self-identification. How does that fit with also trying to support the implementation of single sex exemptions? How do those two  things go together? Which I believe is Labour’s position.

Anneliese Dodds: Well, they go together because of a very proud Labour achievement ultimately, which was that Equality Act 2010. One of the last measures that we were determined to put into place as a Labour government and that Equality Act, as many people listening to this, I’m sure will be aware and they may well have used its provisions actually against discrimination. It protects on the basis of sex and it ensures that there can be change from the usual principle of, for example, the inclusion of trans people where that is proportionate means to a legitimate end. It’s spelled out very clearly within that act, and we’d uphold those provisions. So that’s how it goes together. You know, really we need to end up in a situation where we see equality across the board where we make sure that we have that future where everyone can have those  opportunities

Emma Barnett: And Labour’s definition of a woman?

Anneliese Dodds: Well, I have to say that there are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is. I mean, you look at the definition within the Equality Act, and I think it just says someone who is adult and female, I think, but then doesn’t see how you define either of those things. I mean, obviously, that’s then you’ve got the biological definition, legal definition…

Emma Barnett: With respect, I didn’t ask for that. What’s the Labour definition?

Anneliese Dodds: Oh, I think with respect, Emma, I think it does depend what the context is surely. I mean surely that is important here. You know, there are people who have decided that they have to make that transition. You know, I’ve spoken with many of them. It’s been a very difficult process for many of those people. And you know, understandably because they live as a woman, you know, they want to be defined as a woman. That’s what the gender recognition act…again a Labour…is brought into place.

It’s all context. Labour’s Equality Act protects women but who is a woman is all a matter of context. How can legislation protect women if who is a woman is up in the air?

This announcement has been the object of withering scorn from people who know what they’re talking about.

The response Cathy Devine refers to: When Ideology Trumps Science: A response to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s Review on Transwomen Athletes in the Female Category. Authors Cathy Devine, Emma Hilton, Leslie Howe, Miroslav Imbrišević, Tommy Lundberg, Jon Pike.

he recently published ‘Scientific Review’ by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport about transwomen’s participation in female sport doesn’t deserve its name; it is wholly unscientific. This publication follows a familiar pattern. The body is not important anymore when it comes to categorisation and eligibility in sport; instead, it’s all about a psychological phenomenon: gender identity. This side-lining of the body (which makes the side-lining of female athletes and the inclusion of male-born athletes possible) is now reinforced by an attack on the bio-medical sciences. Their agenda is – allegedly – the oppression of minorities. Only the socio-cultural disciplines can give us the answers we are looking for (in sport), because only they understand the coercive nature of academic disciplines and institutions which focus on material reality, rather than on social identity. The CCES Review is another attempt to replace materially based eligibility criteria in sport with ‘social identity’ as a passport to inclusion. We (a group of scientists and humanities scholars) have written an expert commentary about the CCES Review, highlighting its shortcomings in methodology, and its sometimes incoherent, sometimes misleading argumentation. We argue that the CCES strategy is a continuity with the history of the exclusion and oppression of female athletes in sexist, misogynist, patriarchal sport structures whilst, at the same time, masquerading as inclusive, anti-sexist and anti-misogynist.

A masquerade is what it is – men excluding women while pretending to be inclusive, anti-sexist and anti-misogynist. It’s not the fun kind of masquerade.

Bad analogy Peter! Really really really bad analogy!

Just because a very tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, we don’t place restrictions on the whole Muslim population. And likewise with the trans community, just because there may be a few bad apples, in fact some horrendous bad apples, we don’t therefore penalize the whole trans community, most of whom deport themselves with responsibility and respect for women.

One, it’s not penalizing anyone to have spaces for women, any more than it’s penalizing anyone to have personal spaces. I get to close my door, and I’m not penalizing anyone by not leaving it open just in case any passers-by want to come in and see what’s in the fridge.

I still can’t believe that grown-up journalism does this. The Beeb:

A trans woman who raped two women before she changed gender will not serve her sentence in a female jail, Scotland’s first minister has said.

Isla Bryson was remanded to Cornton Vale women’s prison after being convicted of carrying out the rapes when she was a man called Adam Graham.

“When she was a man” ffs. He is still a man. He always will be. It’s only men who can rape women.

Even in their own terms – the terms that say we must refer to men who say they are trans as “she” – there are very obvious reasons for thinking this guy is not actually trans in the sense of actually believing he has a magic gender. There are very obvious reasons for thinking he’s pretending to be trans, not least of which is opportunities to rape more women.

Bryson decided to transition from a man to a woman while awaiting trial.

Is that the BBC hinting that it knows perfectly well it’s a con?

But the BBC shouldn’t be hinting and it shouldn’t be lying to us about this rapey man.

Bryson is due to be sentenced next month after being convicted on Tuesday.

But where that sentence should be served has been the subject of heated debate, with concerns being raised about the safety of other women in the jail if Bryson [were] placed there.

Right, and this is why the entire mandate to pretend that men are women is such a bad dangerous harmful to women thing. (One why. Sadly, there are others.) This is why it needs to stop.

Speaking at First Minister’s Questions in the Scottish Parliament, Ms Sturgeon said she agreed with the chief executive of Rape Crisis that it was not possible to have a rapist within a women’s prison.

And what is a rapist? A man who rapes. Women can’t rape because women don’t have the body part that does the raping.

The first minister said any prisoner who posed a risk of sexual offending was segregated from other prisoners including while a risk assessment was carried out.

She said: “There is no automatic right for a trans woman convicted of a crime to serve their sentence in a female prison even if they have a gender recognition certificate.”

Why? Because they’re not in fact women. That applies to all trans women. Trying to force us all to lie about it is not going to work out.

The first minister also stressed it was careful [crucial?] that people “do not, even inadvertently, suggest that trans women pose an inherent threat to women”, adding: “Predatory men, as has always been the case, are the risk to women.”

Yes, and trans women are all men, and some of them are predatory. For that reason they pose the same kind of generalized threat to women that men do: the threat created by the fact that we can’t tell which ones are predatory so we are forced to take generalized precautions around men we don’t know. That’s why it’s not safe for us to pretend men can be women.

They’re upping the pressure on Amy Mangano of Artifacts.

Signs noting that gender is a biological construct are posted onto a downtown Athens store’s front door, causing some citizens to reach out to City Council with complaints about the signs.

Complaints…about signs that say “humans can’t change sex” and “say no to men in women’s sports.” Hey listen City Council there’s this woman who doesn’t believe humans are magic and able to change sex at will. Have you ever????

During Tuesday’s Athens City Council meeting, At-Large Council Member Micah McCarey said he received several emails and verbal complaints about Artifacts’ signs from citizens asking that the city do more to promote diversity and LGBT inclusion, particularly in uptown businesses. He received the messages both as a council member and as the director of Ohio University’s LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans) Center.

What about inclusion of women? What about diversity in the sense of women, who are different from men? Why not diversify by including more women? Real women, not men who call themselves women.

Athens’ Deputy Service-Safety Director Andrew Chiki said City Hall is aware of the matter and has been discussing it internally.

What “matter”? The matter of women who know what women are? Women who speak up for women, not men who cosplay as women?

Nearby at Casa Nueva on West State Street, the restaurant has posted a sign in its window that says “We support and stand with our trans and non-binary workers, community member and friends. Casa Nueva is proud to be an inclusive and safe space.”

Blah blah blah. Shorter: “We don’t support and stand with women.”

“My friend Kaycie Tillis and I decided to organize the protest due to the outlandish propaganda Artifacts has on their door, going as far as to label transgender women as predators since they don’t fit into what radical feminists have decided is the ‘perfect woman,’” said Rylee Lee, one of the organizers of the protest. “The point of the protest is to reaffirm that feminism is for all women, and that the Athens community does not tolerate hate in any capacity.”

Jesus. It’s tragic. A whole lost generation. Can you imagine alert committed young Black activists sneering about “what radical BLM activists have decided is the ‘perfect Black person'”? Hell no. But when it’s women – those bitches have to be punished and ostracized and mocked for saying women get to be in solidarity with women.

A useful question.

My answer was “It means do what you’re fucking told.” Many others answered the same way.

It’s cheering to see that this is so widely understood.