They are if they say they are. No really.

A notorious transgender pedophile in Scotland was forced out of his house on October 19 following a citizen’s protest against his presence in a public housing complex in which many children resided.

Katie Dolatowski, 22, a trans-identified male, appeared in Kirkcaldy Sheriff’s Court on October 18 after breaching a probation condition which required Dolatowski [to] inform police of his address changes. Dolatowski is a registered sex offender, and his conditions stem from two incidents involving young girls.

On February 8th, 2018, Dolatowski was caught filming a 12-year-old girl in a women’s bathroom at an Asda supermarket in Fife, Scotland. Dolatowski was with a care aide using the women’s restroom and as the pair left, he doubled back alone to film the young girl who was within a cubicle in a state of undress by holding his phone over the cubical wall.  After noticing she was being filmed, the girl screamed for help and Dolatowski ran away. He was later identified on the supermarket’s CCTV and 12 seconds of film of the girl were found on his mobile phone and iPad.

About a month later, at another supermarket women’s restroom, he grabbed a 10-year-old girl by the face, pushed her into a cubicle, and told her to get naked below the waist. Fortunately she punched him and got away.

You’d think this would be one category where even the most ardent True Believers in the gender religion would rule out self-identifying into the female sex. If you’re a male predator who goes around attempting rape in women’s toilets then the state really should not be helping you to pretend to be a woman.

Despite his two attacks on children, Dolatowski avoided jail for the incidents, and was instead handed a three-year community order. He was also banned from having contact with children, placed on the sex offenders registry, and ordered to complete community service.

So what did he do? Amble off to live in a women’s hostel. What could go wrong?

Remember Dr Carol Hay? The philosophy academic who mourned the tragic plight of trans women in Ukraine while cheerfully calling actual women “terfs”? She’s still busy living her definition of feminism as a movement for men who call themselves women.

“Feminist professor of philosophy” her Twitter bio calls her. Yes it’s so feminist to welcome men into feminism, to center men in feminism, and to call feminist women who object rude names.

So according to “intersectional feminism” Donald Trump is a woman and a feminist if he says he is. Elon Musk is. Alex Jones is. Boris Johnson is. All they have to do is say so.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Smirky little goon.

What they owe her is the courtesy of actually understanding her stance before going public about her.

It is a sign of the times that the trans activists could simply say “transphobe” and have so many people turn on someone, even in many cases, someone they’ve felt respect for, they liked, they spent time with.

It’s the casual betrayal of someone you’ve been close with (to some degree) for years that really gets me. They don’t want to be linked to the pariah. Not because she actually is one, but because everyone else says she is. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint would have had better access than most to talk to her privately if they felt so inclined. I’m thinking none of them did. If they had, they could claim to have talked with her personally to no avail, and thus acquire even higher trans cred. Seeing how low they’ve already stooped, I doubt they’d have had any qualms about betraying the contents of any such private conversations, had they occurred.

None of these people ready to pillory Rowling for her public statements seem to understand that the rest of us can read what she actually said, and see there was nothing “hateful” or “transphobic” in them. It puts people like Radcliffe at an extreme disadvantage to have to rely on the hearsay of others’ distorted takes on them when confronted by people who have read her words for themselves. We know better. It didn’t have to be that way; they knew her.

Another individual who has tried to save his ass in all this is screenwriter (now producer) Steve Kloves. In writing the screenplays of most of the Harry Potter films, and producing the Fantastic Beasts series, he has worked alongside Rowling for the better part of twenty years. You’d think that if he’d been that close to her for that long, something would have come up. I would think he would be better placed than most to know what she thinks on any number of subjects. If anything had come up in the course of their working relationship, he could have commented on it. But what is he reacting to? Activist-led fallout from Rowling’s public statements. Not the statements themselves, not any interactions they might have had in the time of their collaboration, but the perception that whatever it was she said is “transphobic.” Did he say, “yes, I felt she was transphobic when I was working with her,” offering proof and corroboration to the charges leveled against her? No. He’s just riffing on “trans rights” in conjunction with the baseless smear campaign that failed to address or quote (or sometimes even link to) what she actually said that was transphobic. If he had any additional ammunition to bring to the fight, he would have. But he didn’t. So his lofty “statement” in “solidarity” is just another opportunistic joyride on the libelous bandwagon.

Contrast this to what happened with the accusations against Cosby and Weinstein. Once the lid was off, others came forward with their own stories of abuse suffered at the hands of these two predators. The personal testimonies of those who came forward added details and showed what appeared to be a pattern of behaviour that extended over many years. They were their own accounts, in their own words. It wasn’t the tired repetition of anodyne, boilerplate statements of “solidarity” that added nothing to the substance and detail of the accusations. Had there been a similar outpouring of previously hidden Rowling statements and actions, detailed by people who were in a position to know what Rowling “really believed,” and who were now speaking out with evidence of actual hatred of trans identifying people, then that might have been a clue. If there was more to point at than the careful, malicious, misrepresentation of her public statements, then we would have heard about that. It would have blown up all over trans twitter. Trans activists would not have hesitated to use the most powerful evidence and arguments at their disposal: instead, they were forced to make shit up, because they had to. If any such actual evidence had come up, there would be some reason to suspect that Rowling harboured some pre-existing animosity towards trans people. (That she might now feel some amount of dislike or distaste at trans activists would hardly be surprising, given the treatment she’s received at their hands. Not everyone is as eager as Mike Pence is to lick the hand that’s struck you.)

Rowling’s greatest sin was to expose the lie of “no conflict” between trans “rights” and women’s rights. What little she said about trans identified males was actually very tolerant and compassionate (more so than I would be inclined to be). Most of her statements have been about protecting the rights, safety and dignity of girls and women. Her need to voice her concern showed that she believed that trans demands were a danger to girls and women. She was right to so believe. It is instructive that this was reflexively understood by trans activists as being “anti-trans.” The careful failure to quote exactly what was transphobic about what she actually said is also telling. It would have exposed the fact that what Rowling was saying was reasonable and correct. Better to hide her actual words under your own preferred spin than to give wider exposure to her completely logical, pro-woman position. To rephrase Lewis’s Law, the response to any statement in support of protecting women’s rights against trans demands demonstrates the very need for those rights.

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on A set of enduring core principles.

The problem is that the Founders were so terrified of democracy that they installed a system with so many “checks and balances” that it’s a recipe for gridlock and lack of accountability. Recent custom has only made this worse through things like requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass most measures.

In other countries, one party (or a coalition of parties) wins an election, and has more or less free reign to govern as they see fit, subject to some broad restrictions. Then after however many years they have to return to the voters and be judged on their governance. But in the U.S., what are voters deciding this midterm election on? Democrats haven’t been able to do much of what they’d like because they weren’t able to get 60 votes in the Senate, or because Manchin or Sinema wouldn’t supply the 50th vote, or because the Supreme Court intervened. And it’s even worse when there’s divided government. Assuming the GOP takes at least one house of Congress, governance in 2023-24 is going to consist of whatever Biden can do through executive power alone, plus the bare minimum that can actually be agreed upon to keep the government funded and the debt ceiling raised. Will voters in 2024 blame Biden for not getting more done, or blame the GOP for obstructionism? Who knows? We’re lucky if the average voter knows who controls either house of Congress at any given point in time, they sure as hell don’t know what a cloture vote is.

Since most voters don’t know who to praise or blame for what they like or don’t like about the state of the country, there’s no real accountability. As a result, we’re seeing more and more “Constitutional hardball.” Not enough voters give a shit about things like democratic norms, so the GOP seeks to grab power by whatever means are technically available or at least give the appearance of being available.

Some Americans are so used to Constitutional hardball that they’re befuddled that other countries don’t play it. Many of them can’t grasp the idea that the sovereign of the United Kingdom “reigns but does not rule.” (Note: I’m not referring to Americans who dislike the idea of monarchy or have objections to it. I’m just talking about the jokers who think that there’s a real danger that Charles is going to, I don’t know, outlaw certain types of architecture he doesn’t like.)

The Canadian constitution allows federal and provincial legislatures to override the constitutional Charter of Rights, via something called the “notwithstanding clause.” It gets used occasionally, but mostly to prohibit strikes by certain unions (Ontario is considering that now, I believe), or by Quebec to enforce some of its language laws. There’s also a power of disallowance whereby the federal Cabinet — it doesn’t even require a vote of Parliament — can veto a provincial legislature’s passage of a bill. That power hasn’t been used since 1943. I can only imagine the shitshow that would result if American states could override the Bill of Rights, or if a President could invalidate state laws.

A new literature review is published, experts in the field say it’s terrible.

Other than that…

Trans “woman” mocks woman for…having short hair. Progress!

Is constitutional originalism even possible? Does it even mean anything?

Advanced most influentially by Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia, two law professors turned judges, originalism contends that the Constitution should be interpreted and enforced on the basis of its “original meaning,” namely what it meant when it was adopted.

But how do we know what it meant when it was adopted? How do we find out what it meant then?

There is a certain appeal to originalism. At a time when the world seems increasingly complicated, originalism, like other forms of fundamentalism, promises simple answers. At a time when distrust of institutions, including courts, is high, originalism purports to tie judges’ hands. And in a divided nation that no longer seems to have shared values, originalism directs courts to enforce the understandings of a presumably more cohesive past.

Presumably indeed; it was “cohesive” in the sense that most people had no voice, which does simplify things a lot but doesn’t demonstrate that everyone agrees with the few voices that do get heard.

But the simplicity and objectivity that originalism promises are a charade. In Worse Than Nothing, Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and one of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars, offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises—and if it could, no one would want what it is selling.

…

Originalists must first decide which historical evidence counts, and as every historian knows, that requires a great deal of judgment. Early versions of originalism referred to the “original intent” of the framers, but little evidence of their intent exists.

Well it’s like God’s intent. There is no evidence, but we know it when we see it.

After years of criticism along these lines, scholars advocating originalism conceded the difficulty with discerning “original intent.” So the revised version of originalism directs judges instead to the “original meaning” of the Constitution, that is, what its words meant to the public when they were adopted.

And to discover that all we have to do is ask said public. Simple.

Original meaning is guided by dictionaries of the time, as well as contemporaneous usage and practice. But dictionaries often provide multiple definitions for a given term, legal meanings can differ from ordinary meanings, and contemporaneous practices often varied greatly, even assuming that the Constitution was meant to codify some of them. Thus, Chemerinsky argues, “for most constitutional provisions, there is no ‘original meaning’ to be discovered. Instead, there is a range of possibilities that allows for exactly the judicial discretion that originalism seeks to eliminate.”

But but but how can that be? How can it be complicated? Surely the further back in time we go the simpler everything gets!

Even when the Constitution contains relevant text, its meaning is often ambiguous. Many books have been written explicating the meaning of “equal protection” and “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment; a dictionary from 1868 or a review of contemporaneous laws and practices will generate multiple possible definitions, thus vesting the originalist with plenty of discretion about which to choose.

It’s ok for the originalists to have discretion, but those pesky liberals can’t be trusted with it.

More significantly, does the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit racial segregation? If one reads the term “equal protection” in light of contemporaneous practices in 1868, one would conclude that segregation was permissible—as seven of eight Supreme Court justices did in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). To hold that segregation is prohibited, one must read the guarantee of equal protection at a higher level of generality and apply its principle of equality in a way that the ratifying generation would not have. The same is true for whether the clause prohibits sex discrimination. In 1868, women lacked the vote and were excluded from many professions, including the practice of law. And the immediate aim of the amendment was to protect newly freed slaves, not women. It wasn’t until the 1970s, in the midst of the women’s rights movement, that the Supreme Court interpreted it to presumptively prohibit sex discrimination.

Higher level of generality=something like: no discrimination on arbitrary grounds that keep some groups of people powerless and marginal. It’s a very important higher level of generality, one that was apparently so high that almost no one could even see it until relatively recently.

Perhaps most fatally, originalism fails its own test. There simply is no evidence that the Constitution’s original meaning was that it should be interpreted according to its original meaning. There is substantial reason to believe the contrary. The fact that the framers used general terms, such as “liberty,” “due process,” “equal protection,” and “cruel and unusual punishment,” strongly suggests that they understood they were drafting a charter meant to long outlive them, one that could guide unforeseeable resolutions to unforeseen problems. If you want to bind people to your specific intentions, you write with specificity. The framers chose not a stringent straitjacket but a set of enduring core principles whose meaning and applicability would unfold over time to meet the evolving needs of a growing nation.

Evolving needs: who could possibly have foreseen such a thing?

Philadelphia Magazine has a list of top influential people in that city. Coming in at number 27 is the ever-popular William “Lia” Thomas, celebrated cheat.

In a profile of Thomas last winter, Sports Illustrated called the elite swimmer “the most controversial athlete in America.” It’s not a title the recent Penn grad ever set out to hold. When Thomas decided to begin her gender transition process in 2019, her aim, she told ESPN, was simply “to be happy, to be true to myself.”

Well he would say that, wouldn’t he. He wasn’t going to say it was in order to take all the prizes.

NCAA rules allowed Thomas, who’d spent three years on Penn’s men’s team, to compete with the women after undergoing transformative hormone therapy. So she did. Next came intense public scrutiny, an NCAA championship title (the first for a transgender swimmer), and an all-out culture war. And while it’s true that Thomas’s story brought no shortage of big questions to the fore — about trans rights, women’s sports, fairness, feminism, equity, gender, biology — one thing is undebatable: Far more seasoned athletes than Thomas have buckled under far less pressure. And less vitriol.

Ah that’s nice, isn’t it – they admit, in a veiled sort of way, that he’s an affront to fairness and to women, but go on to flatter him anyway. Thanks, Philadelphia Magazine.

Thomas, who has only rarely spoken with journalists, has remained outwardly stoic, steadfast, the picture of perseverance — likely the same traits that helped her excel in the sport to begin with.

Erm, no. He didn’t excel in the sport before he cheated. He was more like average. He didn’t “excel” until he gave himself a massive advantage by competing against people inherently smaller and less muscular than he is. No doubt being callous and obstinate helped him do that, but it’s a funny thing to praise.

(They’re also traits that will come in handy in law school, where Thomas has said she intends to study civil rights and public interest law. She’s grown passionate about “fighting for trans rights and trans equality,” she told ESPN.)

He’s passionate about fighting women’s rights, that’s what he’s passionate about.

This is not just snide, it’s stupid and wrong.

JoAnne Harris is a novelist and the Chair of the Society of Authors. Some members of that society think it’s crappy that such a snide cheerleader for trans ideology is in that role.

As for the substance of her comment: nobody is claiming Rowling gave Daniel Radcliffe a job or that he has to share her beliefs out of gratitude. The point is that he would be a nobody if it were not for Rowling: her Potter books and the cult around them are why the films were made. The point is not that he has to agree with her but that he could just shut up about her. It’s not a general rule, it’s certainly not a law, it’s just a feeling that in the circumstances it’s ugly and kind of misogynist for him to keep trash-talking about her. If she were a Nazi or a Trump supporter I wouldn’t say that, but the hysterical martyrdom frenzy over trans women is a very different kind of controversy, and I think he could just figure that out and then button his lip.

David Bell replied to Bernadette Wren’s LRB piece; he paints a drastically different picture of GIDS from the conscientious, thoughtful, torn in many directions one that Wren painted.

As the author of the ‘damning internal report’ referred to by Bernadette Wren, I was one of several people to draw attention to concerns about the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (LRB, 2 December [2021]). In 2018, between a quarter and a third of the staff working in GIDS sought me out in my role as academic and clinical staff representative on the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust’s council of governors.

They didn’t seek him out to ask about his holiday snaps, they sought him out because they were alarmed.

Wren writes that any ‘genuine disquiet’ about failings at GIDS should have been reported ‘through the institutional channels that exist to oversee and regulate clinical work’. But it was. And there’s no question that it was ‘genuine’. Before members of GIDS staff approached me, they had already raised their concerns with their managers; with the trust’s Speak Up guardian; with Sonia Appleby, the trust’s child safeguarding lead; with the trust’s medical director and with the CEO. It was clear that they had been intimidated and sometimes threatened and were anxious about the repercussions of approaching their staff representative.

Funny, Wren didn’t say anything about intimidation and threats in her piece.

Intimidation at GIDS was confirmed by the findings of an employment tribunal in September, which awarded Appleby £20,000 and criticised the trust for mishandling the issues she raised, including the active encouragement of young children to transition ‘without effective scrutiny of their circumstances’. For the record, the trust also tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent my report going before the governors and initiated disciplinary proceedings against me.

Wren made the trust sound so anguished and dedicated…not secretive and belligerent.

It keeps reminding me of Jonestown – not of the mass murder but of the groupthink, the discipline, the bullying, the secrecy, the absolute impermissibility of any dissent or questioning.

Many CYP [children and young people] who came to GIDS were gender non-conforming gay or lesbian children. For a number of reasons, including pressure from family and peers, they could not accept their sexuality and developed an internalised homophobia, manifested as hatred or rejection of their sexual bodies – a devastating condition, including for the clinician faced with it. Yet sexuality and sexual orientation were largely under-discussed in the service, having been displaced by an overriding preoccupation with gender.

Why that sounds like the rest of the world – where gender is The Hot New Thing while sexual orientation is old news [yawn].

Wren alludes to ‘subsequent feelings of regret’ on the part of patients who have transitioned. Detransitioners are a rapidly growing group, many of them young lesbians and gays, who now ‘regret’ the irreversible damage to their bodies, as in the case of Keira Bell (no relation, contrary to rumour), and the consequences of assessments which affirmed, rather than explored, the nature of their gender dysphoria.

“Affirmation” is not always the best medicine.

Michael Biggs responded to Bernadette Wren’s long piece in the LRB defending the GIDS.

Richard Rorty is a favourite philosopher of Bernadette Wren, and her Diary (‘Epistemic Injustice’, London Review of Books, 2 December 2021) brings to mind his definition of truth as ‘what your contemporaries let you get away with saying’.

Wren blames the disarray in her Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) on the increasing number of referrals starting in 2016. She must know that a whistle-blower, Sue Evans, had already raised concerns over a decade before. The ensuing internal review in 2006 highlighted all the problems that have become familiar: the failure to collect basic data on patients (the unit did not bother to count the number of adolescents subjected to endocrinological intervention); the inability to understand informed consent; and the pressure from patients influenced by lobbying organizations. The review was buried, of course, until the Information Commissioner’s Office forced its release last year.

Wren talked about how they thought about treatment for gender misery, but she didn’t talk about collecting basic data or counting the number of adolescents subjected to endocrinological intervention. She touched on informed consent in general but not the inability to understand it, if I remember correctly. Her leaning was all in the other direction, toward doing away with this antiquated idea that very young people are too young to make informed decisions about things like endocrinological intervention.

As Wren notes, the National Institute for Health and Care Evidence found no evidence to justify puberty suppression as a treatment for gender dysphoria. (The drugs have never been licensed for this condition, in the United Kingdom or anywhere else.) What she does not acknowledge is the responsibility of the GIDS for this lack of evidence. For over thirty years it has refused to collect data on long-term outcomes, conveniently losing track of patients when they turn 18. Indeed, it only published the short-term results of its initial experiment with puberty blockers after a protracted campaign by Stephanie Davies Arai and me.

I wonder why she doesn’t explain any of that in the LRB piece.

Was it a coincidence that clinicians started taking consent from patients exactly when the legal challenge to GIDS was launched in January 2020?

Central to that legal challenge was Keira Bell. Her absence haunts Wren’s Diary, which cites the eponymous legal judgment but never refers to her as an individual person, let alone a woman with the courage to speak honestly about her treatment. Wren continues to deny the harms inflicted on vulnerable patients like Keira Bell—say her name!—by clinicians who pursued what Wren grandiloquently calls a ‘justice project’ rather than practicing evidence-based medicine. As the former Head of Psychology at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and the Associate Director of the GIDS, she should not be allowed to get away with it.

One person’s justice is another person’s trashed body.

I’m reading a 5k word piece by Bernadette Wren in the LRB last year. In the first part, at least, she comes across as highly aware of the questionable nature of and risks attached to the gender ideology. Around halfway she gets to the controversies.

I will offer only a few brief reflections on some of the issues over which GIDS has been most vociferously attacked. The first contention is that there wasn’t enough research evidence to enable GIDS to offer medical therapies to young people with confidence. This is an important challenge, but it relies on an idealised conception of medicine as offering effective and safe interventions, based on a wide range of randomised-control studies with extended evaluation. The problem with this view is that many paediatric medical interventions are not backed up by such studies, but depend on confidence in the existing, broader knowledge base (often from studies on adults) and are justified by the concern to relieve suffering.

But is trying to swap a person’s “gender” actually a medical intervention at all? Is it medical at all?

 Very many mental health treatments (medical and psychological) are poorly evidenced by these standards, including those routinely offered at the Tavistock to both children and adults. But compassion demands that we provide forms of treatment that are grounded in theory and in the experience of well-trained and accredited professionals, and which correspond to the values of the patient. Put simply, many questions around treatment are not settled by science alone, because scientific knowledge is itself social knowledge. When we devise treatment plans, we inevitably work within what society considers a just response to suffering; our research is based on culturally derived ideals about what constitutes a worthwhile life; treatment decisions reflect prevalent notions of self-determination, including of the rights of minors.

But is trying to change someone’s “gender” really a treatment? Or is it something else? I think I get what she’s talking about, but I also think “gender” swapping is snake oil, and very damaging snake oil at that.

A second point of attack is that the service was in the grip of an ideology, one that has taken hold in government, academia, medicine and the law. I disagree. GIDS’s patchwork of pragmatic, values-based commitments, its agnosticism about causality and its hesitancy over the absolute normalisation of gender transition in young people, strike me as far from ideological.

Well, she knows it from the inside and I don’t, but there is for instance Keira Bell, so…

What is true – and perhaps the ideology attack is trying to get at this – is that GIDS, from its modest start, was a justice project as well as a therapeutic project. By justice, I mean it aspired to widen the circle of people whose experience of the self is listened to with respect. This meant not automatically deeming a child’s atypical gender identification problematic, and not striving to modify that identity in the direction of a more orthodox body/mind relationship. It also meant not evading the fact that trans, non-binary and queer people have been (and often still are) dismissed as knowledge holders within healthcare systems; that they are subject to ‘epistemic injustice’, since society as a whole lacks an adequate interpretative framework to understand their experiences.

Ah. Perhaps this is where the problem resides. The thing is, there are good and compelling reasons not to take “a child’s atypical gender identification” at face value, or to “affirm” it, or to amplify it with hormones or blockers or both. There are good and compelling reasons not to take a child’s experience of the self at face value. Children are children. Their brains are still developing. There’s a lot they don’t know, and a lot they don’t understand. A justice project that overlooks that or pretends it’s not true is going to make mistakes.

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

In the therapy room, therapist and client draw on these different vocabularies and matrices of meaning, and our task is always to resist speaking one dimensionally; this is the reflexive work of therapy. The decision to recommend physical treatment for young people is then a genuinely shared but imperfect decision, involving the client, family, other professionals in the context of a wider cultural world, in which the meaning of trans is constantly shaped and re-shaped, but which rests on no foundation of truth. The therapist is not burdened with needing to be right or certain, but to offer a reflexive and thoughtful space to help clients explore the architecture and borders of their gendered world view. [Thinking postmodern and practising in the enlightenment: Managing uncertainty in the treatment of children and adolescents, Dr Bernadette Wren]

Time to break out the decoder ring again. Here’s what I get out of this:

We really don’t know what the fuck we’re talking about, but if we notice that we’re in danger of drifting towards concepts of “truth” and “fact”, we’ll move swiftly back to confusing obscurantism that cloaks our ignorance in a smokescreen of esoteric, multisyllabic verbiage. We might be making this shit up as we go along, but at least it will look like we’re doing something.

In the meantime, we’re going to screw around with drugs and “surgery” that might not even help you feel any better about yourself, but we’ll have made you and your family complicit in your own mutilation and permanent medico-psychological dependency. We’re making sure there’s plenty of blame to go ’round, and lots of others who aren’t us to share in it.

There is no end-point or goal in this process beyond the process itself. We don’t know what “transness” is, but we’ll leave no stone unturned in our search for whatever we end up deciding it might be, for the moment. Then it might mean something else, and we’ll chase that fleeting idea too. After all, it’s the journey that counts, and who better to travel with than those of us who’ve helped shape your entire self-image and world view. But if things go south, you’re as much to blame as we are.

And aren’t “reflexive” and “thoughtful” opposites? Are they being hastily deliberative, or are they cogitating immediately? Perhaps she was reaching for “reflective”, but thought it sounded to ordinary and inactive, and so grabbed for the next word in the “matrix of meaning.” One word’s as good as another when you’re making shit up, right?

H/t Night Crow

Narcissism continues its march through the institutions:

A transgender mountain biker dominating the women’s competition has said it’s ‘horrifying’ that critics think people like her are ruining the sport.

People like HIM. Of course people like him will, if allowed, ruin women’s sport.

Kate Weatherly, 20, who began taking hormone blockers when she was 17, said a proposed open competition for transgender athletes would ‘limit their abilities’.

It will “limit their abilities” only in the sense of limiting their ability to cheat by competing against women and thus ruining the women’s sport.

The New Zealand athlete was considered an average rider when she formerly competed in the men’s open division, where she usually finished about mid-pack.

But competing against women of course he wins every race. Bully for him.

In a recent appearance on TVNZ, Weatherly said female athletes faced bigger issues than concerns over transgender women ‘ruining the sport’.

That may be, but it’s beside the point. Weatherly still has no business competing against women, and he’s a flagrant bully to insist on doing so in the face of objections.

‘People talk about the fact that we’re coming in and ruining the sport, but there are way bigger issues that women in sport face,’ she said.

Nevertheless having entitled pigs like him come along and tell them what issues they get to talk about, and that he gets to ruin their chances because there are worse things, is more than big enough.

She told Stuff that she disagreed with a proposed gender-neutral category for transgender athletes because, in her mind, she is a woman.

And the Mail is helping him with all this she her crap.

‘My thing is, I’m not gender neutral. I’m a girl. The whole idea of a third category invalidates my sense of identity,’ she said.

And he considers “validation” of his “identity” more important than women’s opportunities to play women’s sports. He’s entirely happy to ruin it for all women who have to compete against him, for the sake of his precious idenniny.

Is that right?

In case you can’t read it, it’s “India” Willoughby replying to a tweet about stochastic terror and the violence against Pelosi:

Stochastic Terrorism is when an individual, website or movement doesn’t physically attack you themselves – but knowingly creates the mood so that others do. Think Donald Trump, the British Gov, the GC movement, Kiwi Farms or Twitter trolls like Alex Belfield.

Yes, Donald Trump, Kiwi Farms, gender skeptical feminists – they all go in the same basket.

The reality is it applies much better to Willoughby, as illustrated by this very tweet. He’s a taunter, a shit-stirrer, a puller of hair, a thrower of spitballs. He’s not serious, he doesn’t make arguments, he just sneers and draws absurd analogies.

Bolsonaro manages what Trump never has and probably never will:

Jair Bolsonaro has reportedly thrown in the towel after his presidential election defeat in Brazil on Sunday, telling members of the supreme court: “It’s over.”

He went silent for nearly two days after being beaten by the leftwing former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the vote. When Bolsonaro finally appeared before the cameras on Tuesday afternoon, he failed to explicitly concede defeat or congratulate his vanquisher.

However, shortly after that appearance, he made his way to the supreme court where he met seven of its judges, including Edson Fachin, who later told journalists that Bolsonaro had indicated to them that he understood the writing was on the wall.

He could tell Brazil, or he could tell seven judges. He’s not all that different from Trump.

In an interview with the newspaper O Globo, Bolsonaro’s vice-president, Hamilton Mourão, made it clear he accepted the defeat. “There’s no point in crying any more, we lost the game,” he said.

Mourão also signalled that he opposed the pro-Bolsonaro protests that have involved hardcore supporters blockading roads to demand a military uprising, bringing traffic chaos to cities including Rio and São Paulo. “There are 58 million people who are unhappy,” Mourão said of Bolsonaro’s voters. “But they agreed to take part in the game. So they now need to calm down.”

Bolsonaro appeared to send a different message with his deliberately ambiguous two-minute address on Tuesday. In it, the rightwing populist called the demonstrations “the fruit of indignation and a feeling of injustice about how the electoral process played out”. “Peaceful protests will always be welcome,” Bolsonaro said, although he said destruction was not welcome.

“We love you, you’re very speshul…”

When headlines manipulate the readers:

Gender identity specialists accuse psychology body of ‘contributing to fear’

What are gender identity specialists? What is gender identity? What kind of thing is gender identity? How are specialists in gender identity trained? What do they know? Why can’t they make it make sense?

Some of the most senior gender identity specialists in the UK have accused their professional body of “contributing to an atmosphere of fear” around young people receiving gender-related healthcare.

What is “gender-related healthcare”? In what sense is it health care? In what sense is it not experimentation on children and adolescents?

More than 40 clinical psychologists have signed an open letter to the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK in protest at the organisation’s recent position statement on the provision of services for gender-questioning children and young people.

What do they mean by “services”? Who is defining them as “services”? Is it a “service” to mutilate people’s genitals and/or breasts? What does “gender-questioning” mean? How is it different from “gender identity”? Why was the term changed without explanation?

They say they believe there was a failure to properly consult experts in the field or service users, resulting in a “misleading” statement that “perpetuates damaging discourses about the work and gender-diverse identities more broadly”.

What makes people “experts in the field”? What exactly is “the field”? What is “the work”? What does “gender-diverse identities” mean? Is it the same as “gender identities” and “gender-questioning”?

The co-organisers of the letter, Dr Laura Charlton, who worked at GIDS from 2014 to 2020 and is now clinical lead at the Leeds Gender Identity Service, and Dr Aidan Kelly, who worked at the service from 2016 to 2021 and is now principal clinical psychologist at the Nottingham Centre for Transgender Health, said that the letter was particularly significant because it was the first time that these practitioners, who share many decades’ worth of experience, had come together in public to express their concerns.

Yes but experience of what? Can we be sure it’s not experience of credulous affirmation of a new and highly questionable ideology?

“We acknowledge that there were some valid concerns about the GIDS service, not least the significant waiting times, but we take issue with how it is now being portrayed. This is the first time that so many specialists working within UK gender services have come together to speak out about their portrayal, often by people who do not share our specialist knowledge.”

But what is the “specialist knowledge”? Is it really knowledge? Is it more a collection of assumptions? Is it like specialist knowledge of infectious diseases or specialist knowledge of homeopathy?

Daniel Radcliffe Says Speaking Out Against J.K. Rowling Was ‘Important’: ‘Not Everybody in the Franchise’ Shares Her Beliefs

Yes very important to bite the hand that made him famous and rich, because some people In The Franchise (by which he means some people who have profited hugely from Rowling’s novels) believe in magic fantasy gender.

In a new interview with IndieWire, Radcliffe opened up about why he decided to speak out publicly against the author who essentially gave him his acting career.

We know why he did it. He did it because he believes in a stupid new religion of gender, and he believes that open disbelief in that religion is heretical and evil and should be punished.

“The reason I felt very, very much as though I needed to say something when I did was because, particularly since finishing ‘Potter,’ I’ve met so many queer and trans kids and young people who had a huge amount of identification with Potter on that,” Radcliffe said. “And so seeing them hurt on that day I was like, I wanted them to know that not everybody in the franchise felt that way. And that was really important.”

Radcliffe published his letter on The Trevor Project’s website. The group is a nonprofit organization that focuses on suicide prevention efforts in the LGBTQ community.

There is no such “community.” T doesn’t belong, and Q doesn’t mean anything.

“It was really important as I’ve worked with the Trevor Project for more than 10 years, and so I don’t think I would’ve been able to look myself in the mirror had I not said anything,” Radcliffe added. “But it’s not mine to guess what’s going on in someone else’s head.”

Radcliffe should talk to some people in the LGB “community” who haven’t accepted the forced teaming and don’t buy into the gender religion.

Citizen journalism in action:

It didn’t take long for the news of the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, to get wrapped up in conspiracy theories.

Once the police identified the suspect in custody as David DePape, journalists quickly identified blog posts that appeared to be written by him. The writer of those posts embraced far-right views, including antisemitic tropes, false claims about the 2020 election and conspiracies about COVID vaccines. DePape’s daughter told The Los Angeles Times that her father wrote the posts.

So, naturally, people who embrace antisemitic tropes, false claims about the 2020 election, and conspiracies about COVID vaccines are going to rush to embrace fantasy-based accounts of the attack on Paul Pelosi. It’s what they do.

The Gateway Pundit, a website well-known for publishing false stories, called the attack “another liberal lie.” Conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza tweeted “nothing about the public account so far makes any sense.”

Do such things usually “make sense”? Is logic the primary characteristic of violent fascists?

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz shared a tweet calling the attacker “a hippie nudist from Berkeley” and dismissed the idea that the attack was motivated by right-wing ideology as “absurd.” The new owner of Twitter, billionaire Elon Musk, retweeted a story with lurid suggestions from a website that’s notorious for publishing falsehoods. Donald Trump Jr. also shared a meme amplifying that same theme. All three have since deleted their posts.

Oh darn. They might have made it make sense.

As is often the case, many aspects of false narratives aren’t new. One that ISD identified surrounding the attack was that the attack was a so-called false flag operation, where the apparent perpetrator is affiliated with the perpetrator’s opponents.

Alex Jones type of thing.

Jones infamously said that the Sandy Hook school shootings were staged by gun-control advocates to create a pretext to restrict gun ownership. He was recently ordered to pay more than $1 billion in damages stemming from those false claims. Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact have debunked similar false flag claims in the wake of the Uvalde shooting, Buffalo shooting, and El Paso and Dayton shootings in 2019 and have flagged it as a recurring theme.

False flag conspiracies as a reaction to far-right violence became more entrenched after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Holt says. Supporters of former President Donald Trump alleged that the attack was actually engineered by the FBI and other elements of the so-called “deep state” to discredit Trump and prevent him from serving another term.

Donald Trump himself is a false flag conspiracy, engineered by The Left to make The Right look bad. Hahaha it’s working, although the side effects have been a little harsh.

A lot of lies being pushed about the Pelosi attack:

False claims are being spread online about the assailant who broke into the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and attacked her husband with a hammer on October 28. Authorities have stated that the suspect, David DePape, broke a glass door of the home and entered with a hammer, zip ties and other supplies, intending to kidnap the Democratic lawmaker, who was not present. DePape instead confronted Paul Pelosi and struck him with a hammer before he was tackled by officers and arrested.

Authorities have indeed stated that. The Department of Justice for instance has stated it:

A California man was charged today with assault and attempted kidnapping in violation of federal law in connection with the break-in at the residence of Nancy and Paul Pelosi in San Francisco on Friday.

According to the complaint, David Wayne DePape, 42, of Richmond, was arrested on Friday inside the Pelosi residence by San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) police officers responding to a 911 call from Paul Pelosi, husband of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Paul Pelosi later described to police that he had been asleep when DePape, whom he had never seen before, entered his bedroom looking for Nancy Pelosi.

According to the complaint, minutes after the 911 call, two police officers responded to the Pelosi residence where they encountered Paul Pelosi and DePape struggling over a hammer. Officers told the men to drop the hammer, and DePape allegedly gained control of the hammer and swung it, striking Pelosi in the head. Officers immediately restrained DePape, while Pelosi appeared to be unconscious on the ground. As set forth in the complaint, once DePape was restrained, officers secured a roll of tape, white rope, a second hammer, a pair of rubber and cloth gloves, and zip ties from the crime scene, where officers also observed a broken glass door to the back porch.   

DePape is charged with one count of assault of an immediate family member of a United States official with the intent to retaliate against the official on account of the performance of official duties, which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison. DePape is also charged with one count of attempted kidnapping of a United States official on account of the performance of official duties, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds for the Northern District of California, Special Agent in Charge Robert K. Tripp of the FBI San Francisco Field Office, and Chief J. Thomas Manger of the U.S. Capitol Police made the announcement.

But hey, some guy on Twitter said otherwise. Who ya gonna believe?