Zoe Williams at the Guardian tries to rebuke Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie for not having approved opinions:

Five years ago, the writer said in an interview: “When people talk about, ‘Are trans women women?’ my feeling is trans women are trans women.” She has written extensively about the fire she came under after that.

…

This is the driving logic of her fear for free speech: that she can’t say biological sex is inalienable without sparking a storm. “So somebody who looks like my brother – he says, ‘I’m a woman’, and walks into the women’s bathroom, and a woman goes, ‘You’re not supposed to be here’, and she’s transphobic?” We break briefly so I can look at a photo of her brother, who is smiling, tall, bearded and handsome. He’s actually on this trip with her; she has five siblings in all, two sisters, three brothers, all very close. I suggest that he would look different if he were living as a woman.

Oh well that’s all right then. The beard is gone and he’s wearing lipstick so it’s fine for him to barge into the women’s toilets.

“But that’s the thing,” she says. “You can look however you want now and say you’re a woman.” And, she adds, anyone who might take issue with this is “outdated” and needs “to have the young people educate [them]”. I suspect she’s taking an argument – that trans people don’t want to be policed for how they dress and what stage of transition they’re at – and reducing it to the absurd. 

No, she’s not reducing it to the absurd; it is absurd. It’s already absurd, without any help from Adichie. It’s absurd that people think they can change sex, and that men are women if they say they are. The whole ideology is completely absurd.

I suspect she’s taking an argument – that trans people don’t want to be policed for how they dress and what stage of transition they’re at – and reducing it to the absurd. So I tack another way: “Imagine your brother did want to live as a woman. You would support his endeavour with love, right? You’d probably think treating him with dignity and respect was more important than where he went to the toilet?”

“But why is that?” she asks. “Why can’t they be equal parts of the conversation?”

“Maybe because dignity is more important?”

Whose dignity??? Whose motherfucking dignity? Why is it always the “dignity” of men who claim to be women that’s under anxious protection in these conversations, while the “dignity” of women is summarily thrown out the window? Why is Zoe Williams so eager to see women forced to share toilets with men?

“Not if you consider women’s views to be valid. This is what baffles me. Are there no such things as objective truth and facts?”

I’m not having that. “You couldn’t objectively say, ‘All women are threatened by trans women.’ I’m also a woman. That doesn’t reflect my experience.”

Oh, she’s not having it. Isn’t she the feisty one. But the objective truth and facts aspect is about the objective truth and fact that men are not women. That’s it. Men are not women, therefore the two facts that men are stronger than women and that some men will assault or molest women if given the opportunity are relevant to the whole conversation about women’s right to say no to men.

“No, of course not. And it would not reflect the experience of many people. I think that’s different from saying, ‘Women’s rights are threatened by trans rights.’”

I think the opposite is true – and since I’m in the oppressed category whose rights she’s wanting to protect, I think we have to file the matter under, at best, not-yet-settled. Then we drop it since, realistically, we could fight about this all day and she has a flight to catch.

Williams thinks the opposite is true – so she thinks trans rights are threatened by women’s rights? That’s certainly an interesting take. It’s probably not what she meant, she probably meant women’s rights are not threatened by trans rights, but that’s almost as stupid and abject. All these years, and I still find people like her astounding.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on What Jesus had.

Hang on. “Evidence” based on “Renaissance and Medieval paintings of the crucifixion” is from images created centuries after the event being depicted, interpreted through the lens of gender-theoretical wishful thinking invented centuries later still. That is a helluva long chain of evidence, but then if you’re a gender studies “scholar” you can just make shit up as you go along, without the tedious burden of proof. Assertion is sufficient; it’s self ID for “evidence.”

But maybe there’s more to it than we’re giving credit for; perhaps one of these artists came into posession of a contemporaneous, eyewitness sketch made on Golgotha? We already know that depictions of The Last Supper are notoriously fraught with controversy. It should come as no surprise that The Crucifixion should engender similar conflicts. We must keep an open mind. I am open to persuasion.

We’d find the most tenuous, shallowest, most superficial similarities and connections, ultimately generating readings that directly opposed the straightforward interpretation of the text. Or turned everything into sex, because we were teenagers.

Yes, I could see how an over-Butlered man might get excited about the idea that the thrust of a spear could open a neo-vagina in the body of a brave and stunning, marginalized, spiritual being, who was born into, and trapped within, a vessel of human flesh, destined and condemned to be invalidated and mis-gendered, fated to submit to the scorn, hatred, and genital inspections of the world. It almost writes itself. Christ in the image of Trans. Now that’s centering! Too bad they didn’t stick the landing, though. For this hypothesis to be truly persuasive, along with the abdominal “wound-vaginas,” the depictions of Christ on the Cross should have featured Their Crown of Thorns sitting atop blue hair.

I’ve always found it quaint how some people, astronomers, theologians, or civilians, go to the trouble of coming up with an actual astronomical phenomenon upon which the Star of Bethlehem might have been based, a planetary conjunction or comet being favourites. But in order to hang the tale (which is in Matthew only) on one of these bright objects that actually do appear in the night sky, they have to throw out other aspects of the story, like how it led the magi, and then stood still over the place where Jesus was. There are no astronomical phenomena that behave in this manner. You can either have your “scientific” validation, or you can have your miracle. You can’t have both. One vitiates the other. (Never mind the magi were supposed to be “from the East”, yet they had seen the star “in the East”, which would suggest that magi from Mesopotamia, say, should have been heading towards India, rather than Palestine. It’s postmodern geography. Whatever.) This “Jesus was trans” idea sounds like more of the same, without the sort of tenuous constraints of the “astronomy” appealed to in the Star of Bethlehem story. Once you’ve cut the surly bonds of reality, you can let your ravings imagination soar freely.

Speaking of rights, and “trans rights,” and the refusal ever to define exactly what “trans rights” are – a gaggle of “trans activists” have scored another self-defeating triumph.

“Trans rights are human rights” they chant idiotically, as if anyone were trying to take human rights away from trans people. Funny how they chant it while impeding women’s rights.

Intimidation tactics much?

Trans rows are splitting the Greens, the Times says.

…the Green Party has now been accused of neglecting its core aims after becoming so embroiled in arguments about gender that three prominent members are suing over the issue.

The trio allege they were disciplined, abused and even assaulted over their views on trans rights. 

Wait. That’s not the right way to frame it. That makes it sound as if dissenters want to remove actual rights from trans people. We don’t. The point is that there are endless wild claims about putative trans rights that aren’t rights at all, for anyone. I don’t have any right to force people to agree that I’m a tree or a tank or a jar of marmalade. Trans people should have all the rights the rest of us do.

The former deputy leader Shahrar Ali, the former Green Party Women co-chairwoman Emma Bateman and the former executive committee member Dawn Furness are taking legal action against the party, alleging that their views led to smears and suspensions.

Ali, Bateman and Furness have begun separate legal claims amid allegations that the party typically associated with peaceful protest and social justice has become a “deeply hostile environment” for anybody who “dares to question” the rights of transgender people. The Green Party’s official stance is that “trans women are women” and “trans men are men”.

Again, those are two different things. A definition is not the same thing as a right. We disagree with the Green Party’s official stance that trans women are women, but that’s a factual disagreement, not a disagreement over rights. It’s only if you decide that there’s a “right” to force people to agree with absurd new counterfactual definitions that the dispute becomes about rights. Let’s not assume that, ok?

While lauded as a policy of acceptance, it has been questioned by others who claim that “as a party of science” on the climate change issue, it lacks credibility if it “can’t define between a man and a woman”.

More muddle. Acceptance is one thing, definition is another. It’s “distinguish between,” not “define between.” The meaning I suppose is that insisting that men can be women equals acceptance of trans women, but it’s important to do all the steps. The discourse on this subject is chaotic enough already without making it worse.

Last week Alison Teal, 56, who had been selected to stand as a Green Party MP at the next election, was suspended by party headquarters after she posted on social media calling for a “discussion” and linking supporting trans women to the “loss of women’s rights”.

…

Teal said she was “shocked” by her no-fault suspension, which she feels is “becoming a distraction”. She said: “For the Green Party, with the climate and biodiversity crisis, it doesn’t make sense for us to be stuck on the identity politics issue.”

But narcissism doesn’t care about your stinkin’ climate crisis: this is about authentic selves.

Ali, 53, the Green Party’s deputy leader between 2014 and 2016, based in London, was sacked as spokesman on policing and domestic issues in February after questioning its stance on trans rights.

Rights? I doubt that. I think he questions its stance on definitions, demands, punishments. If the writer (Glen Keogh) could manage to say “definitions of rights” or the like, I wouldn’t object, but just referring to “trans rights” and saying critics oppose them is highly misleading.

Bateman, who joined the Greens in 2009, says she was “aggressively shut down” when she tried to question the party’s stance on trans rights. She has been suspended twice.

Sigh. Not trans rights; putative trans rights.

“Gender ideology is wrecking the party,” Bateman said. “The reason I have taken this legal action is we are losing all credibility. We are the party of science, where our base policies are on climate change. If we can’t answer ‘what is a woman?’ we lose all credibility.”

See? She didn’t say “If we can’t take away trans rights”; she said “If we can’t answer ‘what is a woman?’” That’s a different thing.

Last year Sian Berry, a vocal supporter of trans rights, quit as leader, citing conflict over the transgender debate. She said she could “no longer make the claim that the party speaks unequivocally, with one voice, on this issue.”

Sigh.

Maybe it’s the Green Party statement that got the reporter off on the wrong track.

A spokesman for the Green Party said: “We do not comment on individual disciplinary cases.

“The Green Party is clear that trans rights are human rights.”

But what are trans rights? Of course the GP doesn’t say, just as Finn Mackay didn’t say.

So would I.

On the one hand, anyone with a cervix. On the other hand, anyone with a prostate men aged 50 and older.

On the one hand, anyone with a cervix. On the other hand, real people who matter.

Trendy god-botherer says Jesus was maybe trans.

Jesus could have been transgender, according to a University of Cambridge dean.

Dr Michael Banner, the dean of Trinity College, said such a view was “legitimate” after a row over a sermon by a Cambridge research student that claimed Christ had a “trans body”, The Telegraph can disclose.

The “truly shocking” address at last Sunday’s evensong at Trinity College chapel, saw Joshua Heath, a junior research fellow, display Renaissance and Medieval paintings of the crucifixion that depicted a side wound that the guest preacher likened to a vagina.

Time out. I have to spend a few minutes laughing here.

Right. Some medieval and Renaissance paintings of the crucifixion show a stab wound because there’s a bit in John where a soldier poked him with a spear. Now what is a stab wound from a spear going to look like? It’s going to be a slit, right? Not a big gaping hole and not a little hole like a bullet wound, but more of a slit. Heeeeeeey insight: “slit” is slang for vagina. Boom, there’s your vadge in Jesus’s side. Is that profound or what?

Heath, whose PhD was supervised by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, also told worshippers that in the Prayer Book of Bonne of Luxembourg, from the 14th century, this side wound was isolated and “takes on a decidedly vaginal appearance”.

Maybe because the artist was having a laugh.

Heath also drew on non-erotic depictions of Christ’s penis in historical art, which “urge a welcoming rather than hostile response towards the raised voices of trans people”.

Naaaaaaaaaaah. I’ve had enough of those raised voices to last several lifetimes.

“In Christ’s simultaneously masculine and feminine body in these works, if the body of Christ as these works suggest the body of all bodies, then his body is also the trans body,” the sermon concluded.

That’s just silly. Where’s the makeup? Where are the crippling shoes, the Prada briefcases, the botoxed lips?

There was a complaint letter.

Dr Banner’s response to the complaint, seen by The Telegraph, defended how the sermon “suggested that we might think about these images of Christ’s male/female body as providing us with ways of thinking about issues around transgender questions today”.

Well, one, what if we don’t fucking want to think about “issues around transgender questions today”? What if we’ve heard way way way more than enough about those “issues” and think we should talk about real issues instead? What if we think there are vastly more important issues, like the death of the planet, wars on women in Iran and Afghanistan and the list is endless, the grotesque gap between the poor and the rich in the US, wars, racism, famines, pandemics? What if we think boring little drones whining about their idenninies just don’t matter that much in comparison?

Finn Mackay continues not to answer the many people who have asked “What rights are you talking about when you say ‘What do we want: trans rights, when do we want them: NOW.'”

It’s odd. It seems like a perfectly good opportunity to say what trans rights, so as to further public understanding of the trans cause.

Maybe Mackay understands that the purported rights aren’t actually rights? That no one has a “right” to force people to agree that people are a thing they visibly obviously unmistakably are not? That men don’t have a “right” to take over women’s sports? That men who say they are trans don’t matter more than women? Maybe Mackay realizes the shouting and threatening and bullying are not working as well as they once did? That more and more people are realizing how absurd at best and destructive at worst the demands are?

Or maybe Mackay is just lazy, I don’t know.

More on the friendly Florida teet-deleter:

Ah yes, that’s so funny, that face expressing confusion/disgust at the very idea that it’s not ethical to market mutilations, let alone performing them. Yes, doc, there are ethical reasons for not rushing to slice off teenagers’ breasts or penises on demand.

It was probably humans who killed off the megafauna.

For a long time, these extinctions were thought to be linked to natural changes in the environment – until 1966, when palaeontologist Paul S Martin put forward his controversial “overkill hypothesis” that humans were responsible for the extinctions of megafauna, destroying the romantic vision of early humans living in harmony with nature.

Well, it was harmony from the early humans’ point of view.

Prof Mark Maslin, from University College London (UCL), suggests that the unsustainable hunting of megafauna may have been one of the driving forces that led humans to domesticate plants and animals. People started farming in at least 14 different places, independently of each other, from about 10,500 years ago. “Weirdly enough, I think the first biodiversity crisis was at the end of the last ice age, when early humans had slaughtered the megafauna and therefore they’d sort of run out of food, and that precipitated, in many places, a switch to agriculture,” he says.

Although the debate is far from settled, it appears ancient humans took thousands of years to wipe out species in a way modern humans would do in decades. Fast forward to today and we are not just killing megafauna but destroying whole landscapes, often in just a few years. Farming is the primary driver of destruction and, of all mammals on Earth, 96% are either livestock or humans. The UN estimates as many as one million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction.

And that’s on top of what we’ve already driven to extinction.

The word seems to have gotten out at last that when trans people demand trans rights we need to get them to specify what rights. I said as much to Dr Finn Mackay and then saw that so had many other people.

What rights? What rights does Mackay mean? What rights do trans people not have?

I counted 12 more replies saying the same thing and then stopped counting.

Of course Mackay hasn’t answered.

London Fire Brigade institutionally misogynist and racist:

London Fire Brigade is “institutionally misogynist and racist”, according to a damning review into its culture.

A black firefighter had a noose put by his locker, while a female one received video of a colleague exposing himself.

Hey you know what other London institution is misogynist (and we might as well assume racist too) according to report? The police. So, that’s great.

The independent review was established by the London Fire Commissioner after a trainee firefighter took his own life in August 2020.

…

The review, conducted by the former Chief Crown Prosecutor for north-west England, Nazir Afzal, concludes that unless the “toxic culture” is tackled then other firefighters will take their own lives.

At some fire stations men huddle around a screen to watch porn.

Talking to the BBC, Mr Afzal said the report made for “grim reading”.

“We’ve heard example after example about women who were harassed or sexually assaulted – constant sexual taunting to the point that I am now saying that the London Fire Brigade is institutionally misogynist,” Mr Afzal said.

They’ve invaded the boys’ club.

“Women told us they were told [by male firefighters]: ‘We want to get you out of here, we don’t want you to be a fire officer.’ It goes back to the whole fireman concept.

“I sat with a very senior female officer who said to me, through tears, that whenever she goes through a dangerous incident, she’s always thinking: ‘Will the men have my back? Will the men around me protect me given how they have treated me back at the station?

“If they feel they can’t trust the men around them because of their behaviour or misbehaviour and worse, then they aren’t safe and neither are we.”

The report also found that while there was often “considerable sensitivity” in the brigade around issues of race, there appeared to be “a worrying blind spot” concerning misogyny and sexism.

That “worrying blind spot” is everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. People rant and rave about “transphobia” and racism while never breathing a word about misogyny. Women just don’t count somehow. Is it because there are so many of us? We’re roughly half the population so how bad can it be? Is that it? Or we’re roughly half the population so that’s just way too much work so let’s focus on literal minorities, like, biting off no more than we can chew type of thing?

One firefighter told the review that she advised her female friends not to let male firefighters in the house to give safety advice because “they go through women’s drawers looking for underwear and sex toys”.

Great. Keep that in mind, should your toaster go up in flames.

So now the LibDems have a new definition of transphobia and the loonies are Leaving the Party.

A number of LGBT+ Liberal Democrats are quitting the party after a formal definition of transphobia was leaked online. A statement, later formally released during Trans Awareness Week, said it was revised due to “greater clarity to the interpretation of the law in this area.”

That is, two lawyers told them their definition is illiberal crap.

Available on the Liberal Democrats website, the new definition rejects “prejudice and discrimination based upon race, ethnicity, caste, heritage, class, religion or belief, age, disability, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation.” However, the new statement added that “Holding and expressing gender critical views, whether in internal debates or publicly, is protected by law”, upsetting many LGBT+ Lib Dems, according to PinkNews.

It’s not illegal to think men are not women, and people who call themselves liberal are upset by this. You couldn’t make it up.

From Sex Matters November 14:

The Liberal Democrats have revised their definition of transphobia in the light of recent legal cases. 

The previous policy which drew on the work of “organisations such as Stonewall and TransActual UK”.

The definition is dated September 2020 and written by Candy Piercy, Sheila Ritchie and Alice Thomas.

The Lib Dems have always believed trans right are human rights. Over the last year it has become clear that the Party needed to explain what that means in practice. 

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. “The Lib Dems have always believed this thing and we don’t know what it means.” If you don’t know what it means what the fuck is it you believe???

It’s enraging and contemptible and laughable, but it’s also absolutely typical. It’s all rote repetition, to avoid being hauled up before the hanging judge, and nobody even bothers about what it means. Just say the words!!! Trans rights are human rights!!! Do not ask what we mean by “trans rights”!!!!

It has taken us some months and many different drafts to produce a definition that we believe will give members an effective way of answering the question ‘What do the Lib Dems believe is transphobic behaviour?’

Why? Why wasn’t it crystal clear? Why wasn’t it tragically easy to say what transphobic behavior is?

We hope this definition will help guide members who want to support the trans community and call out transphobic behaviour.

After all this time and effort we hope our definition enables bullies.

“‘Transphobia’ is the fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans. Transphobia, whether through words or action, may be targeted at people who are, or who are perceived to be, trans or trans allies.

So it’s an emotion. They wanted to ban an emotion.

Transphobic behaviour may include (i) attempting directly or through advocacy to remove trans people’s rights, (ii) misrepresenting trans people, (iii) abuse of trans people, and (iv) systematically excluding trans people from discussions about issues that directly affect them.”

But what are trans people’s rights? Do they conflict with, say, women’s rights, or lesbian and gay rights? If so what do we do about that? Is the definition of transphobia accompanied by definitions of misogyny and homophobia?

(They spent months on this???)

It’s a shockingly brainless mess.

Liberal Voice for Women tells us:

Doubts about the legality of the Liberal Democrats’ “Definition of Transphobia” (published in September 2020, but never approved by Conference) have finally been put to rest by the publication of a second set of legal advice by a KC.

Earlier this year, the Lib Dems commissioned Guy Vassal Adams KC to provide a legal opinion on the lawfulness of the Definition of Transphobia. When that opinion remained unavailable to the membership, a second opinion from Karon Monaghan KC was sought by a member of the Federal Board and published by us here.

Now the first opinion, that was unavailable, has been made available.

While Karon Monaghan was dismissed by party trans activists who accused her (wrongly) of being biased in favour of the gender critical position, the two opinions are not in conflict. In fact the opposite is true. Vassal Adams writes: I have been asked to identify any point of disagreement or significant differences that may be relevant to the Party’s decisions on these issues. For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with Ms Monaghan’s analysis and I cannot discern any significant difference between her advice and my own.

The conclusion of both sets of advice is that the original Definition of Transphobia is inconsistent with the right to hold gender-critical views under the Equality Act and Human Rights Act. If the Party were to take disciplinary action based on these examples it would be engaging in unlawful discrimination against persons with gender-critical views.

…

It is a feature of this debate that trans rights proponents will readily label as transphobic any speech which causes them offence. Gender critical views such as ‘trans women aren’t women’ are offensive to trans people, but freedom of expression includes the right to express views that other people find offensive.

Especially, one would hope, when the view “offensive to trans people” is the utterly humdrum and basic factual statement that trans women [aka men] are not women. It’s like finding it “offensive” to say “rain is wet” or “horses and dogs are quadrupeds.”

A Mermaid no more.

The chief executive of Mermaids, Susie Green, has left the transgender children’s charity after six years in her post, the organisation announced on Friday.

…

In recent months, the charity has found itself under intense public scrutiny, partly as a result of Mermaids’ own decision to launch an appeal against the Charity Commission’s awarding of charitable status to LGB Alliance, which has been critical of “gender ideology’’. It is understood to be the first time one charity has attempted to strip legal status from another.

Separately, in recent weeks, Mermaids also has been the focus of a number of newspaper articles that have called into question its safeguarding policies, prompting the Charity Commission to open a “regulatory compliance case”. This is not a formal investigation, and it is not a finding of wrongdoing.

It’s not all that separately. Its dodgy safeguarding policies are closely connected to its equally dodgy ideology, no scare quotes required.

The file opened by the Charity Commission came after the Telegraph published a story in September alleging that Mermaids offered to send breast binders to children against their parents’ wishes.

Why not send children gasoline and matches, bomb-making instructions, handguns, bottles of arsenic, against their parents’ wishes?

Let’s hope this is a serious crack in the foundation.

This really pisses me off.

It says it right there in the headline – international day for the elimination of violence against women. WOMEN. But we can’t have that, can we – women just don’t matter enough to have a whole day to themselves, not even a day for the elimination of violence against us. We have to share everything.

That’s because we’re not fully people. We’re incomplete. We’re inadequate. We’re semi-people – half-finished – put together from inferior parts. We’re kind of flimsy, kind of insubstantial, kind of trivial. Not important and significant like men.

That’s why there’s so much violence against us, if you think about it. We’re just a drag on society, a drag on everything. It would be ridiculous to set a whole day aside for skimpy shadowy meaningless people like us.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on It’s like voting to annul gravity.

It’s like voting to annul gravity. Gravitation is never going to be brought to book, or appear in the dock. The world won’t give a shit, and people will keep falling down, even if you do lock up everyone who points this out unfortunate fact. Punishing the people who know how reality works, and arresting those who “calls it as they sees it” is all they’ll be able manage.

This kind of thing has happened before. Stalin’s regime decreed that natural selection was invalid. They rounded up all the geneticists and killed them or sent them to the gulags. They set about restructuring the nation’s agriculture around communist ideals instead of genetic facts (e.g., crops of the same species should be kept together because they’re of the same “class” and are therefore prone to cooperate and share resources; planting sensitive crops in hostile climates will teach their offspring to become hardier, etc). As a result, about 40 million people died of famine.

The communists hated natural selection because it told them they didn’t have control over their bodies — genetics is not meritocratic; it’s based entirely on inheritance: you are made of what your mother and father gave you, and your genetic makeup will have a profound impact on how your life will play out. No amount of hard work or noble intentions can change that.

This is directly analogous to the gender cult, which hates biological sex because it’s undemocratic: you have no say in what sex you’re born into. You’re one sex or the other, and your sex will have a profound impact on how your life will play out. No amount of gender-bending or hormone injecting can change that.

Humans are mammals. Human life is ultimately the dominion of natural selection and sexual reproduction. It seems the more complicated human society becomes, the more we try to wrestle control away from the cold, hard facts of biology. In some ways we are beating the system: medicine, law, democracy, art, education… these are things that make being alive a lot more enjoyable to endure — for us humans at least. (We’re not making life very pleasant for the other species on the planet.) But human life is still fundamentally a biological concern, and sex is at the very core of our biology. We can do all sorts of things to make life more comfortable, but we can’t change the nature of life itself. You’re born a mix of your parents’ genes; you’re born one sex or the other; you reproduce based on the principles of genetics and sex; then you die. Hopefully you got to have a nice time and see a beautiful sunrise while you were alive. That’s what life is. Even if we wanted to change these fundamentals, we’re not going to get anywhere by making declarations and rounding up all the naysayers. If the gender cultists really want to unshackle themselves from the burdens of biological sex, I wish they’d go off and put their efforts into something like transhumanism, and leave the rest of us to live our lives in peace until they find a way to upload all our consciousnesses into their agender utopian Matrix.

Five an hour.

A new study by UNODC and UN Women shows that, on average, more than five women or girls were killed every hour by someone in their own family in 2021. The report comes ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25 and is a horrific reminder that violence against women and girls is one of the most pervasive human rights violations worldwide.

Yes yes yes, very terrible, now we have to talk about the tragic fate of men who say they are women.

This year’s figures also show that over the past decade, the overall number of female homicides has remained largely unchanged, underscoring the urgency to prevent and respond to this scourge with stronger actions. Even though these numbers are alarmingly high, the true scale of femicide may be much higher. Too many victims of femicide still go uncounted…

And yet the chief object of concern and sorrow and solidarity in the UK and Canada and the US these days is the TQ “community.” Why is that? Why is global femicide ignored while imaginary “transphobia” causes people to stab themselves with their own fingernails?

However, gender-related killings, as well as other forms of violence against women and girls, are not inevitable. They can and must be prevented, with a combination of early identification of women affected by violence, access to survivor-centered support and protection, ensuring that the police and justice systems are more responsive to the needs of survivors, and primary prevention by addressing the root causes of violence against women and girls including through transforming harmful masculinities, social norms, eliminating structural gender inequalities and gender stereotypes.

And calling women terfs and Karens.

This is that Dr Joseph Hartland who experienced the Incident of the Fingernails because people asked questions when he Explained Gender to them.

“Deconstructing gender is vital, gender is a form of oppression, it was one of the colonial pillars, and what it creates is essentially inequality for feminine people or feminine-presenting people.”

No, for female people. Not “feminine,” not “feminine-presenting”; female.

Another item added to the pile of legal issues Trump has to deal with:

Writer E Jean Carroll has sued Donald Trump in the US state of New York for allegedly raping her in the 1990s. Ms Carroll, 78, is among the first to sue under the Adult Survivors Act, which came into effect on Thursday.

The state law allows a one-year period for victims to file sexual assault lawsuits in New York over claims that would have otherwise exceeded statute limitations.

…

In a statement, Ms Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said the new lawsuit filed on Thursday is intended to hold Mr Trump accountable for the alleged assault.

Alina Habba, a lawyer for Mr Trump, told US media that, while she respects and admires individuals that come forward “this case is unfortunately an abuse of the purpose of this Act” and “runs the risk of delegitimising the credibility of actual victims”.

Ah yes, we respect people who come forward except for this one, who is our client.