I just want to underline this trendy new brand of feminism.
What she says:
I’m so baffled by terfs – trans exclusionary radical feminists. I don’t understand how anyone takes them seriously when they’re so fucking ugly.
How much more feminist can you be?
Ah yes the “sex workers” – especially the ones who happen to be children. Julie Bindel in Al Jazeera:
In recent decades, so-called “sex workers’ rights” campaigners working to decriminalise pimping and buying of sex have attached themselves, just like trans rights activists, to the movement for the rights of same sex attracted people. This was a logical – and highly beneficial – move on their part. Being seen as part of a proud, widely-respected social justice campaign undoubtedly helps their efforts to perpetuate the myth that “sex work is work” and “prostitution is liberating”.
One of the more…er…surprising moments of the hostile divorce between Freethought Blogs and me was when Greta Christina and her enforcers labeled me a big meany to “sex workers.” Won’t somebody please think of the pimps?
Their acceptance into what came to be called the “LGBTQ+” movement, however, has been incredibly harmful to the most vulnerable members of society, and especially children.
Recently in California, for example, so called LGBTQ+ activists have successfully mounted opposition to planned increased penalties for adults soliciting sex from prostituted children.
In April this year, Republican Senator Shannon Grove put forward a bill that would have made soliciting a minor for sex, or agreeing to engage in any form of commercial sex with a child, a felony offence, carrying a mandatory jail time and a requirement for sex offender registration for repeat offenders.
“The crime of purchasing a child, of any age, for sex in the state of California should be a prison felony,” said Grove. However, LGBTQ+ activists, opposed the bill citing concerns about “unintended consequences”. They claimed that increased penalties for those who abuse minors caught up in the sex trade will affect the LGBTQ+ community “disproportionately”.
Meaning members of “the LGBTQ+ community” are disproportionately abusing minors in the sex trade, and “activists” are defending that. How very progressive.
You might think that harsher penalties for buying and selling children for sex should be a no-brainer, but these activists argued that “studies have shown that LGBTQ+ people, particularly gay and transgendered individuals, are more likely to be charged with sex offences compared to their heterosexual counterparts”. They went on to state that “LGBTQ+ individuals are nine times more likely to be charged with sex crimes, and are thus more likely to be incarcerated – which will in turn lead to increased difficulties in finding housing and employment.”
If these here LGBTQ+ individuals are nine times more likely to be committing sex crimes against children then maybe the activists should be rebuking them rather than trying to help them continue committing sex crimes against children. Wouldn’t you think?
Who would have thought that in the US state of California, it would be this difficult to protect children from men wanting to purchase them for sex? And why is the California LGBTQ+ community trying to frame soliciting of children for sex as part of a sexual identity rather than a depraved, inexcusable crime?
Why indeed. Who knew the enigmatic “+” meant pimping out children? No wonder it’s enigmatic.
That people are advocating for decriminalisation of prostitution, and lenient sentences for those who buy sex from minors, in the name of protecting the rights of gay and trans-identified men, means something has gone terribly wrong with the movement for lesbian and gay rights. However it is dressed up, this is nothing more than child abuse apologism. It should be countered, for the benefit of children as well as lesbians and gays who want the movement for their rights to be urgently divorced from harmful prostitution advocacy.
Damn right it should.
These eight incredible Canadian Women, Elle Canada exclaims, then promptly goes on to reveal that #1 and #3 are men (while #2 sports a tight bandage over her hair and neck because Islam is such a women-friendly religion).
Quadruple threat Vivek Shraya is all the things: musician, writer, actor and artist. Last year, she debuted her Canadian Screen Award-winning CBC web series, How to Fail as a Popstar, which is based on her own adventures growing up in Canada and trying to make it big and become the world’s first trans, brown Madonna. Shraya is also the founder of the award-winning imprint VS. Books, which offers publishing opportunities to emerging BIPOC writers. Meanwhile, her last book, 2022’s People Change, was included on CBC Books’ list of 26 Canadian Books to Read for Pride Month.
Yay he’s trans and brown, so Elle Canada gets two prizes for incloosivitee.
No one walks the talk more than Ontario member of provincial parliament Sarah Jama. Since the conflict in Gaza began in October 2023, she has repeatedly called for a ceasefire and spoken in defence of the Palestinian people. After a kaffiyeh ban was introduced in the Ontario legislature in April, Jama continued to wear hers anyway—again and again, even after being removed.
Ah yes “the conflict in Gaza began in October 2023” – when Hamas slaughtered a bunch of people at a music festival. That “conflict.”
Few log as many overtime hours as Fae Johnstone, executive director of Wisdom2Action, an LGBTQIA2S+ consulting firm that facilitates the improvement of LGBTQIA2S+ inclusion for non-profits, government agencies and other organizations. The Ottawa native, who is also the executive director of the Society of Queer Momentum, has worked long and hard advocating for more rights and social support for the queer community, particularly amid resurgent homophobia, transphobia and misogyny.
Fae Johnstone is misogyny.
Elle Canada is a sour joke.
It’s almost as if this controversy isn’t medical at all but purely political.
‘Witch-hunt’: BMA tries to identify who leaked planned opposition to Cass review
The British Medical Association (BMA) has been accused of undertaking a “witch-hunt” to try to identify which senior figure leaked that it was set to oppose the landmark Cass review on transgender healthcare.
It has warned its ruling council’s 69 members that whoever tipped off the media about its stance should own up or face their non-cooperation being seen as “an act of dishonesty”. Critics said its action is “disgraceful”, “Orwellian” and “witch-hunt-like”.
In other words not medical, not technical, not about evidence or argument, but a matter of loyalty and commitment. Politics rather than epistemology.
The BMA has been heavily criticised by key medical figures since it voted on 17 July to in effect reject Dr Hilary Cass’s report. It is the only medical organisation in the UK to not accept and find fault with her findings, which were accepted by the last government and its Labour successor.
It’s the Guardian saying all this. Something has shifted. No doubt the Cass report itself helped that shift.
The union has been in turmoil ever since. Its dismissal of the report as “unsubstantiated” has led to a serious split, resignations and huge tension within the body that represents about 195,000 doctors – a large majority of the UK medical profession.
As it should. The dismissal is outrageous – political instead of medical.
Dr Clare Gerada, an ex-BMA council member and ex-chair of the Royal College of GPs, said: “I think the BMA are blaming the messenger, not themselves.” She questioned why it had adopted such a controversial position on such a sensitive subject without asking members for their views first. She is among an array of leading doctors who have signed a letter voicing serious concern at the BMA’s stance.
The edifice is tilting.
Not vulgar enough yet? He can do more!
Donald Trump has reposted a crudely misogynistic comment about Kamala Harris on Truth Social in a move that reprised his past record of sexist behaviour and brazenly flouted pleas from members of his own party to emphasize issues over personal attacks.
With fresh polls showing Harris further improving her standing – and widening the gap with her opponent among women voters – Trump drew online opprobrium by sharing a vulgar post on his social media site implying that the Democratic nominee owed her political rise to sexual favours.
Trump is a rapist, and proud of it, while he tries to pretend to believe that Harris is that other thing. Your basic good old boy has done his share of raping because if he hadn’t he would be a pussy, i.e. a woman ew gross. Men can’t do any wrong and women can’t do anything right. Heads they win tails we lose.
The post – originally posted by another user – featured photos of Harris and Hillary Clinton alongside the comment: “Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently…”
…
The Harris campaign made no immediate response to Trump’s latest burst of social media activity, which followed disclosures of an altercation between his campaign team and staff at Arlington national cemetery, the resting place of fallen US military heroes, during a visit on Monday.
However, the CNN host Anderson Cooper – in a lengthy segment – said the posts took Trump’s previous campaigning to a “whole other level”.
“This is the Republican candidate for president and the 45th president of the United States, talking about two women who, no matter what you think of their politics, are two of the most accomplished women in American political history,” Cooper said.
Whatever. Women are all filthy whores who won’t have sex with us. They must never get their filthy hands on any kind of power.
Photographic confirmation – Trump grinning and poking his thumb up at Arlington National Cemetery.
Oh COME on.
Really? Really? Because Islam famously stands for women’s rights and women’s visibility and women’s non-erasure?
On what PLANET you woman-hating goon?
Democrat Kamala Harris has surged ahead of Republican Donald Trump, 48%-43%, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll found.
The findings reflect an eight-point turnaround in the presidential race from late June, when Trump had led President Joe Biden in the survey by nearly four points.
…
“I think people are cautiously optimistic that they’re going to have a lot better chance with Harris than they would have had with Biden going head-to-head with Trump,” said Amy Hendrix, 46, of Fort Worth. An independent who usually votes Democratic, she was among those called in the poll. “I’m very excited to vote for a woman, and that’s just the truth.”
I’m excited to smack Trump in the face again.
The Army slaps Trump upside the head.
The US Army issued a stark rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign over the incident on Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, saying in a statement on Thursday that participants in the ceremony “were made aware of federal laws” regarding political activity at the cemetery, and “abruptly pushed aside” an employee of the cemetery.
“Participants in the August 26th ceremony and the subsequent Section 60 visit were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. An ANC employee who attempted to ensure adherence to these rules was abruptly pushed aside,” the Army spokesperson said in the statement on Thursday.
“This incident was unfortunate, and it is also unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked. ANC is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve,” the statement said.
So there, Bonespurs.
The obligatory insult:
Aw, gee, look how enlightened and sensitive and generous the man is when he explains why husbands have to beat their wives. It’s interesting, though, that he doesn’t also explain why wives have to beat their husbands, or even say they do have to beat their husbands. Apparently it’s just men who get to do the beating and women who get to be beaten.
The purpose of the beating, he says earnestly, is to warn the wife that the family is in danger. He doesn’t explain why that can’t be done just by saying it, or how he knows the family is in danger, or in danger from what. Also that the marital relations are in danger, he goes on. It’s odd that he thinks beating her will remove the danger. We secular weirdos think that marital relations should be based on affection, not beating. Beating doesn’t promote affection.
The beating is to tell her to be cautious.
Well, yes, the way fire burning is to tell you to be cautious. The beating might tell her to get the hell out of there if she can.
The beating should be symbolic, he says.
Symbolic of what, dude? The fact that you are always right and she is always wrong? What if that’s not the case? Eh? What if she’s right and you’re wrong? What if you have irreconcilable differences and there is no right or wrong, there’s only disagreement? Where do you get off assuming you’re always right and she’s always wrong?
We know where, of course. The Prophet Station.
Today, Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review (the flagship conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley Jr.), published an article claiming that Donald Trump could win the 2024 election “on character.”
No, really. But bear with me; the headline wasn’t quite accurate.
Trump could beat Kamala Harris, Lowry wrote, not by running on his character but by attacking hers. According to Lowry, you see, one of Trump’s “talents as a communicator is sheer repetition, which, when he’s on to something that works, attains a certain power.”
That’s not a talent though. It may work, but that doesn’t make it a talent. There’s no skill to it. More the opposite – sheer repetition is what you do when you have nothing else, and Trump always has nothing else.
Thus, he argued, Trump could hammer Harris into the ground if he called her “weak” enough times—50 times a day ought to do it, according to Lowry—and especially if he gave her a funny nickname, like the ones he managed to stick on “Crooked Hillary” Clinton and “Little Marco” Rubio.
That might be true, but if it is it’s because people are stupid or greedy or both, not because Trump’s 3 tricks endlessly repeated equal talent.
Lowry and others in that group never became full-fledged MAGA warriors. Many of them hated Trump, as Tucker Carlson, now a born-again Trump booster, admitted in 2021; they just hated Democrats more. But they also hated being reminded of the spirit-crushing bargain they’d made with a tacky outer-borough real-estate developer they wouldn’t have spoken with a year earlier. As Charlie Sykes wrote in 2017, they adopted a new fetish: “Loathing those who loathe the president. Rabid anti-anti-Trumpism.”
Which is tricky, because reasons not to loathe Trump are shatteringly difficult to find. He’s not one of the lovable bad guy types – he’s too boring for that, too dumb, too trashy, too clumsy (those damn hands!), too dim, too painful to listen to.
Stepping outside of years of partisan tribal affiliations comes with professional and social costs (and for politicians, electoral consequences). But principles are sometimes burdensome things; that’s part of what makes them principles. The behavior of the anti-anti-Trumpers continues to be an inexcusable betrayal of the values they once claimed to hold. Many of them spoke, even passionately, against Trump—and then they shuffled into line. And for what? One more federal judge? A few billion more dollars in the account of a donor?
Winning. Winning for the sake of winning. That’s my guess.
It’s like kindergarten. As long as someone, somewhere, said ok, that’s all the permission you need. “Sally said I could!” “Sally, like you, is 5 years old.”
In a post on Truth Social, Trump shared a statement from family members of the fallen soldiers honoured at the event, expressing their approval.
“We had given our approval for President Trump’s official videographer and photographer to attend the event, ensuring these sacred moments of remembrance were respectfully captured and so we can cherish these memories forever,” the families said in Trump’s Truth Social post.
But that doesn’t matter. It’s not their cemetery and they don’t make the rules. Their approval doesn’t override federal law.
But that goes against federal policy, an Arlington National Cemetery spokesperson told the BBC.
Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities on the grounds of military cemeteries, including photographers, content creators or anyone directly supporting a partisan political candidate’s campaign, the cemetery spokesperson said.
Never mind, if Trump wins he’ll make it a Trump property run according to Trump rules.
Trump and his enablers tried to stage a campaign event at Arlington National Cemetery – in disregard of the fact that Arlington National Cemetery doesn’t allow such events.
I think the reasons for not allowing it are pretty obvious. That’s not what the cemetery is there for. It’s a military cemetery, and it doesn’t want to be used as advertising. It’s very typical of Trump and his underlings not to understand what that even means.
Two members of Donald Trump’s campaign staff had a verbal and physical altercation Monday with an official at Arlington National Cemetery, where the former president participated in a wreath-laying ceremony, NPR has learned.
A source with knowledge of the incident said the cemetery official tried to prevent Trump staffers from filming and photographing in a section where recent U.S. casualties are buried. The source said Arlington officials had made clear that only cemetery staff members would be authorized to take photographs or film in the area, known as Section 60.
When the cemetery official tried to prevent Trump campaign staff from entering Section 60, campaign staff verbally abused and pushed the official aside, according to the source.
How…patriotic?
In a statement to NPR, Steven Cheung, the Trump campaign’s spokesman, strongly rejected the notion of a physical altercation, adding: “We are prepared to release footage if such defamatory claims are made.
“The fact is that a private photographer was permitted on the premises and for whatever reason an unnamed individual, clearly suffering from a mental health episode, decided to physically block members of President Trump’s team during a very solemn ceremony,” Cheung said in the statement.
The photographer was permitted on the cemetery premises; it doesn’t follow that the photographer was permitted to take photos of the campaign event in Section 60. It turns out there was no such permission.
In a statement to NPR, Arlington National Cemetery said it “can confirm there was an incident, and a report was filed.”
“Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign,” according to the statement. “Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants.”
But Trump and his goons tried to go ahead anyway.
Why does he not get some time in a cell?
A man berated three women [as] “prostitutes” for not wearing traditional Asian dress and [for] putting on make-up, then violently attacked them, a court heard.
Muhammad Hassan, 26, assaulted the victims after spotting them at a petrol station in Bradford.
In a 51-second attack captured on CCTV, Hassan grabbed the driver and slammed her head on to the dashboard of her vehicle. He then grabbed another woman’s hair and punched her in the head before hitting the third woman.
By “traditional Asian dress” the inept reporter means Muslim or Islamic but of course it’s taboo to spell out that this is male religious bullying in action. The religious belief here is that women are all whores and must wear bags in public to conceal their whorish bodies. That’s the “tradition.”
Hassan, from Bradford, was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years.
Why suspended? Was the violent attack not violent enough? It seems plenty violent enough to me.
I’m amazed.
The Guardian has a great big long piece on childbirth and it uses the taboo word “women” throughout. I could hardly believe what I was reading. Not one single mention of “people who identify as” or “and non-binary people” or just plain “people” where it should be “women.” There are mentions of parents but only where it makes sense, not where it glaringly obviously doesn’t.
“It’s lovely to know other mums hitting the same hurdles as you, so you don’t feel alone,” says Sinead Knights, 38, a travel industry manager from Manchester who did NCT classes in October 2023. She describes them as “a space to share ideas and ask questions and not feel judged” and says she meets up with the mothers from her group weekly. “Hopefully, our babies will be friends for a long time, as the mums will as well,” Knights says.
That’s in the GUARDIAN. Can you believe it? Other mums, mothers, mums.
Childbirth, said Dick-Read, is not inherently painful. It hurt when women – usually educated women in western countries – felt fear, through what he called the “fear‑tension-pain syndrome”. If women relaxed and stopped worrying about childbirth, they could have painless, unmedicated births. Dick-Read became the NCT’s first president and his teachings were enthusiastically promoted by middle-class women, who met at antenatal groups in each other’s homes.
See what I mean? Openly discussing childbirth as something that women do. No pause to include our enby siblings, just women women women.
And it’s all like that, paragraph after paragraph. The word “women” appears 44 times.
Something has shifted.
I see. Threats are ok, but calling a man a man requires investigation.
A city councillor in Hobart, Australia, is under investigation for a social media post describing a trans-identified male as a “man.” Louise Elliot, who was previously the subject of a tribunal inquiry for saying “trans women are men,” was previously the victim of threats from the very individual who reported her for “misgendering” him.
The one who is a man. The kind of man who threatens women. How dare women call men who threaten us “men”?
On July 24, Elliot announced via her X account that she was being subjected to yet another investigation, this time for labeling a trans-identified male who threatened to assault her as a “man.” The incident had occurred the day before while Elliot was campaigning at a shopping center. The man, who cannot yet be named, reportedly walked by Elliot and told her “I’m going to rip you to shreds.”
And she’s not allowed to call him a man? But he is allowed to tell her he’s going to rip her to shreds?
Why is it bad for her to call him a man (which he is) but not bad for him to say he’s going to rip her to shreds? I’d love an explanation of that.
On X, Elliot says
she saysthe individual was overtly male in appearance and behavior.“I described them as a man as that’s what I saw; an obvious male person with heavy male build, male jawline, male gait, male voice, and definitely male aggression,” Elliot wrote. “This person threatened me, and now I’m the one being investigated for ‘misgendering.’ There was no visible name badge, no ‘transwoman’ tattooed on forehead. I have lawyered up to fight this, again.”
We’re supposed to know that men who claim to be women are men who claim to be women on sight with no visible clues or other ways of discerning that they are men who claim to be women? How does that make sense? How are we supposed to know?
Although details of the allegations are limited while the investigation is underway, Reduxx has seen documentation confirming that Elliot is accused of “possible incitement to hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on the basis of gender identity” by “misgendering and insulting transgender women” and “referring to their ‘abuse.’”
However, in a 17-page document outlining Elliot’s alleged offenses, it is claimed that her language may “go further… and may have the effect of inciting hatred towards transgender women and transgender people more generally.”
And yet his yelling at her that he’s going to rip her to shreds gets zero page documentation of his offenses? Why? Why is she being investigated for saying he is what he is while he is not being investigated for loud public physical threats?
I don’t understand the people in charge of this crap. I never will.
Hateful conduct is it.
I replied to a tweet of Rob’s.
Too many all-caps?
