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.

“I believe they’re just saying that”

How DARE you???!!!

“That’s rilly rilly offending, especially being a transgender woman myself”

Also you can tell from the mug shots – that’s a man.

Oookaaay.

Kids and bondage:

Luxury fashion house Balenciaga has apologized for featuring children cuddling teddy bears dressed in bondage gear in its latest advertising campaign.

…

In its original press release, the company said that the line featured “dozens of new products ranging from homeware, petwear and scent, from everyday items to limited-edition collectibles and bespoke furniture.”

But there was an angry response on social media to the shots which featured young children with plush teddy bear bags dressed in what looked like BDSM-inspired outfits. One child is pictured with an assortment of empty wine glasses.

They’re luxury bespoke kids, all right? They’re fine with it. They’re sex workers, it’s kink, get over yourselves.

“We sincerely apologize for any offense our holiday campaign may have caused,” the statement said.

Always the way. Any offense; may have caused. They have no idea what everyone is so pissed off about, but they’re nice people so they’re willing to say soooooooreeeeeeee you’re offennnnnnnndeddddddd and move on to the next shoot.

Hours after issuing the apology, Balenciaga posted a further statement on Instagram apologizing for displaying “unsettling documents” in a separate campaign, referring to documents from a Supreme Court case relating to child pornography laws.

They what now? This eloquent guy has the details:

Originally a comment by maddog on Clinicians and parents are trying to make sense of it.

how parents and professionals should respond to children who express distress about their gender

Girls aren’t distressed about their gender. They are distressed about their sex. And why wouldn’t they be? Society teaches girls, from birth, that they are less-than, second class, subservient, and essentially worthless non-entities. Their only value is in their fuckability.

Being a sex object — not a person — for boys and men becomes more critical for girls at puberty, when the consequences of being female — the body’s ability to become pregnant — become acute. No wonder girls don’t want to be girls. Boys have freedom; girls are imprisoned. No wonder girls hate their breasts: palpable objects of sexualization and subjugation.

At puberty, the members of both sexes develop into adults capable of sexual reproduction. Girls suffer life-changing consequences of sex in a way that boys do not. No wonder girls would like to opt out.

Gender ideology purports to offer girls a chance to opt out of their subservient status. Unfortunately, the promise is hollow. There is no such thing as changing sex. It’s simply not on offer. Instead, what girls get is mutilation and permanent medicalization, and a lost opportunity to become a fully developed adult. It’s a fraud, false advertising.

But it’s utterly unsurprising that large numbers of girls fall for the false promises. They want to escape the chains of non-personhood. They want the freedom that is denied to girls and women. No shocker there.

Announce you’re appalled first! Find out what you’re appalled about later!!

What treatment? How do they know it represents the opposite to of the College values when they don’t know what it was?

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on He’s a Mx.

In the initial digging through the killer’s online tracks, was there the faintest whiff of ‘nonbinary-ism? Were ANY pronouns specified? Might this be a bit of theatre to mock the victims? [John the Drunkard]

But according to the logic of self-ID, the sudden “discovery” of one’s EnBeeness, or Transness is perfectly legitimate and must be respected, centered, and validated. That won’t stop them from playing the “No True NB” card, though. They want it both ways, and they want it now. Trans activism has long since stopped seeing (if it ever saw to start with) the many contradictions in its position. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense, coheres or is consistent. Trans activists don’t need to convince anyone if they can browbeat and bully everyone into compliance. Better still if they can get others to do their bullying for them. Who needs vote and consultation and consent when you can bludgeon your way to your policy goals?

It is mildly shocking that a government is so willing to discredit itself by passing something as fundamentally opposed to reality as this bill. 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. They’ll run out of gaol cells and prisons long before Reality changes its mind. The world will go on its merry way, producing only two sexes of humans, without regard to Scottish Law, which can only prosecute recalcitrant humans rather than a blithely unconcerned biology.

Yesterday –

And of course there’s the issue of “what is gender inclusive healthcare?”

It’s this, for example:

Single-sex spaces – trans women need to be housed in all-female wards, this decreases violence towards trans women.

But of course it increases the risk of violence towards women, but that doesn’t matter at all to our fingernails-in-flesh “expert.”

It’s so typical, this blithe and complete indifference to the existence and needs and rights of women in favor of people like himself with a customized luxury gender idennniny. And then he she they whines about getting questions.

More from the Guardian “why the surge in girls saying they are trans?” piece:

“Left-handedness increased over time after we stopped punishing left-handed children in schools, because some children are naturally left-handed and were now able to express it,” said Cleo Madeleine, a spokesperson for the trans support group Gendered Intelligence.

“In the same way, increased visibility and acceptance of trans people has led to a gradual increase in young people who feel comfortable expressing their trans identity. The most important thing is to recognise that this is not a problem to be solved or a bad outcome to be avoided.”

It is though, at least when it involves surgeries and/or blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. And that’s just the outcome for the girl who says she is trans; there are also bad outcomes for other people, from the ideology in general and potentially from the “transition” itself. It’s not like being right- or left-handed that way; it’s a much more drastic change.

Meanwhile parents have to figure out which advice to follow.

Anyone looking for clarity from NHS England’s most recent draft guidelines on how to support under-18s experiencing what it calls “gender incongruence” may not find it helpful.

Published in October, the draft seems to put greater emphasis on the possibility that, for some, particularly pre-pubescent, children, this may be a “transient phase”.

It also suggests it is not a “neutral act” to help children transition socially (by using preferred names and pronouns) while they explore their gender identity, and stresses that more research is needed to “gather further evidence on the safety, potential benefits and harms” of puberty blockers.

This is what I’m saying. Cleo Madeleine doesn’t get to pronounce that it’s not a bad outcome, because sometimes it is.

So the Guardian is starting to allow its journalists to talk about it, occasionally, with much caution and hesitation.

Earlier this year, a team of NHS researchers was asked to investigate why there has been such a huge rise in the number of adolescent biological girls seeking referrals to gender clinics.

I have to interrupt for just a second to point out that that’s a bit like asking why there was such a huge rise in the number of people talking about Harry Potter in 1997. One reason there’s been such a huge rise in the number of adolescent girls joining the trans bandwagon is the fact that it’s a bandwagon. It hasn’t always been a bandwagon; now it is; that’s one reason for the rise. Capeesh?

According to a study commissioned by NHS England, 10 years ago there were just under 250 referrals, most of them boys, to the Gender Identity Development Service (Gids), run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS foundation trust in London. Last year, there were more than 5,000, which was twice the number in the previous year. And the largest group, about two-thirds, now consisted of “birth-registered females first presenting in adolescence with gender-related distress”, the report said.

So I’ll interrupt to tell myself that the “why more girls” question isn’t a bandwagon question, although the “why the huge rise in referrals” is.

Meanwhile, clinicians and parents are trying to make sense of it themselves.

…

Their testimony reflects the lack of consensus within the medical profession about how best to proceed if a child experiences gender dysphoria – and, in turn, how this confusion contributes to the central dilemma faced by concerned parents: how should they support their child during what may be the most challenging period of their lives?

Do they accept them changing their name, gender and pronouns at home and at school and investigating medical options, or should they try to help their child to accept their natal sex?

This is radical stuff. The Guardian is openly saying it’s not just obvious and beyond question that the only guide is how their child identifies. The Guardian is admitting that helping girls accept their sex is an option.

Several parents said they had been relaxed when their daughters initially began identifying as non-binary, but became uneasy when they said they wanted to take puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones and began binding their breasts.

Gee I wonder why. Could it be because the first set is entirely reversable, and not much different from what many daughters have been doing for generations? And the second set is a drastic attack on the body for a very flimsy reason?

The uncertainty parents felt was compounded by the highly polarised debate – within the NHS, politics and the media – about how parents and professionals should respond to children who express distress about their gender.

“We were terrified of being accused of being bigoted,” said the woman, who asked to remain anonymous to protect her child’s privacy.

All the more so given that one consequence of that could easily be a permanently estranged child. This stuff isn’t just social media, it isn’t just chitchat, it’s relationships between parents and children, which if you think about it is pretty significant. Understatement intended.

To be continued.

Nottingham Council admits wrongdoing.

A council spent more than £10,000 on legal fees and handed out £570 in compensation after “unlawfully” banning an event hosted by an author.

A talk by feminist campaigner Julie Bindel was stopped by Nottingham City Council due to what it said were her views on transgender rights.

…

The talk, organised by Nottingham Women for Change, had been due to take place on 25 June. However, the day before the event, the group was told by the council it could not go ahead. The authority said Ms Bindel’s views “fly in the face” of its position on transgender rights.

The council’s position “flies in the face” of my position on women’s rights. Women are half of humanity; trans people are a tiny fraction of humanity, one with delusions about what sex and gender and identity and rights mean. It’s not obvious that trans ideology should trump women’s rights.

Following three months of pre-action correspondence, the parties reached agreement on mutually acceptable terms, including an apology, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

In October, the council apologised to Ms Bindel and admitted it had acted “unlawfully” in cancelling her talk. Now it has emerged the authority spent £10,680 on legal fees and provided a £569.99 “settlement”, which the council said was paid to the author, organisers and ticketholders “in respect to their reasonable losses”.

Ms Bindel says she had not asked for compensation and the payout was for “out-of-pocket expenses” incurred.

“I’m a socialist so I would never take money from a cash-strapped council,” she said.

She has principles. Nottingham City Council, not so much.

We do this every day now, sometimes more than one a day.

At least six killed in Virginia Walmart shooting

At least six people were killed Tuesday night inside a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, according to local officials. The shooter is also dead.

• At least six people were killed Tuesday night inside a Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia, according to local officials. The shooter is also dead.
• Four victims are in area hospitals with unknown conditions, according to Chesapeake Police. The gunman was identified as a 31-year-old Walmart employee.
• The shooter was a manager at the store, four sources tell CNN. Investigators believe he opened fire on other employees in a break room, a law enforcement source tells CNN.

This is a bad place.

The SNP will simply ignore the rapporteur.

A leading UN official has condemned the SNP’s gender recognition reforms as posing a danger to women and urged Scottish ministers to postpone the legislation.

…

In a 4,500-word letter to the UK government Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, appealed to Sturgeon to allow “sufficient time to complete a thorough assessment of all foreseeable consequences”.

The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill is set to be enacted by Christmas, though it was introduced at Holyrood only last month. It aims to make it easier for trans people to switch gender through “self-ID” and by lowering the age limit from 18 to 16.

I’ll never understand the obstinate, determined recklessness of this.

Alsalem amplified many of the concerns raised by campaigners. She said: “Such proposals would potentially open the door for violent males who identify as men to abuse the process of acquiring a GRC and the rights associated with it. This presents potential risks to the safety of women in all their diversity.”

I would say “will inevitably” rather than “would potentially.” Why wouldn’t violent men take advantage of such a wide-open door?

Alsalem said the consultation on the bill had been insufficiently fair and inclusive. She added that although a Holyrood committee had listened to the voices of trans women, she was concerned that the same MSPs had told five survivors of male violence they “did not have time to see them and to put their objections in writing”.

Men who say they are women matter, women don’t matter. How did this happen?