Lindsey Graham opens a new front in the war on women:

Senator Lindsey Graham has unveiled his proposed nationwide abortion ban, which would outlaw the procedure after 15 weeks, with certain exceptions.

Not something that will ever ruin Lindsey Graham’s life. Women? Well that’s another story.

Graham said the proposal, dubbed the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act”, would match similar laws in European countries. He said the 15-week threshold is when fetuses will feel pain, however that doesn’t quite match the science. Many scientists say fetuses can’t feel pain before 24 weeks, although the subject is complicated and continuing to be researched.

And anyway what does it mean to “feel pain” at that stage of development? Is a 15 week fetus conscious enough to register pain?

And what about the pain the woman experiences while pushing out the baby? Why does the notional pain of a 15 week fetus trump the all too real and intense hours-long pain of a grown woman?

From the afternoon session. I don’t see a thread reader yet so I’ll just quote from tweets directly.

Discussions around ‘born in the wrong body’ narrative. BB explains terms have evolved but some T ppl still use it. KM – Ed Dept published guidance not to use. You made a statement following this you wouldn’t promote that narrative.

BB: I have no recollection of this guidance being the reason though. Was emerging discussion. If so we managed to respond v quickly.

KM: would you have been involved in consultation on DoE guidance?

BB: dont know

KM: met with civil servants / ministers involved?

BB: would like to, don’t know in this case

KM reading through the guidance. If LGBA were to have criticised the narrative born in wrong body that would not have been problematic?

BB: complicated. DoE is guidance not fact on lived reality of trans people’s lives. It seems ok as guidance to me but some trans people use the term.

The “lived reality of trans people’s lives” she refers to is the “born in the wrong body” fairy tale. “Lived reality” in this sort of context translates to “lived fantasy.”

Fantasy can be very important in people’s lives, and can also be healthy and enriching and so on. But it needs to be recognized as fantasy, not translated into “lived reality.”

KM moving on to LGBA schools material. LGBA dont think children should be confused or upset by ideology, agree?

BB: not the way we would speak about this issue to kids

KM: But reflects what Cass found that we need to be careful

BB: I think Cass didn’t use the word ideology

Ah yes, you don’t like that word, do you. But it is an ideology. It’s not just a Big Box of Facts.

KM: used belief. moving on – if child isn’t gender conforming shouldn’t lead educator to say trans

BB: agree not appropriate

KM: A GNC child eg girl who plays football might well be led to think trans …

BB: No this is section 28, being trans is not easy, implausible.

Is it though? With all the frantic valorization and sympathy going on? Is it really implausible that young teenagers would start calling themselves trans in this climate?

KM: Template letter here about RSE guidance and ‘what we cannot accept that children should be taught can be Born In The Wrong Body’.

BB: I can’t believe that was being taught.

Why not?

More from John Nicolson testimony:

KM – referring to assertion of extensive political campaigning of LGBA. Is that the right place for them to go?

JN – yes, but they should be doing some charitable work as well. They are only doing lobbying. I have yet to see an example of their charitable works.
KM – we will hear about that when they give their evidence so you don’t need to worry about that. Now reviewing the correspondence. You refer to their lobbying – are these appropriate avenues to be lobbying.
JN – yes, but they need to be doing some charitable people. Kemi Badenoch in particular was not an appropriate person to be holding the Equality brief, given her gay rights voting record.

I have no idea what that has to do with the question, but it seems KM does.

KM – but they are the appropriate offices and departments to be lobbying,

JN – yes.

KM – going on to ask about JN’s tweets and evidence that LGBA attacks and denigrates others on social media. Tweet sent by JN on 15 April, linking a documentary, commending it 

JN – yes a constituent
KM – goes on to a response from JN that refers to LGBA as sinister.
JN – on that night I got a deluge of abuse from supporters of LGBA and many DMs.
KM – go back to the question, that was the first engagement with LGBA. 

He got a deluge of abuse. What about the abusiveness of an MP calling a lesbian/gay organization “sinister”?

JN – they whip up their supporters and hide behind them, it’s no conspiracy, you can search Twitter and find it.

KM – you describe a group you have had no engagement with at all as ‘sinister’, at 1 am.

JN – perfectly seemly to tweet this.

Really? Perfectly seemly? No problem at all, not even slight? I beg to differ.

The stuff that LGBA then tweets abuse at me. One of their directors has continued obsessively tweeting about me. I have never commented on an individual at LGBA. They impersonated a member of parliament.

KM – That is all I have.
J – any questions from IS

IS – you said that 20% of LGBA supporters are lesbians.
What is your evidence of that.
JN – referring to previous case where Stonewall won, saying that evidence showed only 20% of members are lesbians, have been thrown off two largest fund raising platforms, many off shore followers, tiny accounts.
IS – goes back to campaign documents. Which did you think were worse?
JN – press pause was obviously seen by LGBA as too benign. So they went on to ‘green light to predators’ to get people to read the article. 

Again, it’s interesting that all he can see is the putative harshness of “green light to predators” – that he doesn’t pause for a second to consider the possible truth of the claim. Maybe throwing women’s spaces open to men is in fact a green light to predators. No skin off his nose, he’s not a woman.

JN – The idea that the FM of Scotland a life long feminist with a gender balanced cabinet would do anything to harm women and children is laughable.

IS – anything other comments?

JN – designed to elicit fear, scare women and children, straight from the Clause 28 playbook. 

Yes but what if the source of the fear is real?

Next up is Dr. Belinda Bell, chair of Mermaids.

KM – let’s discuss gender dysphoria. The easiest way to deal with it is through the Cass Review. I’m sure you’re aware of the Cass Review. Undertaken by NHS England, there has been an interim report by Dr. Cass.
BB – just to be absolutely clear, I am not a medical doctor.
KM – obviously
BB – the Cass Review is not in MM area. We do not do medical stuff, we don’t treat dysphoria.
KM – MM supports youth with dysphoria, many of your participants are either referred to GIDS, or are on a medical pathway.
BB – again, we are not a medical organisation.

What is “gender dysphoria” if it’s not medical? Is it psychological? Is there a neat split between psychological and medical?

KM – Dr Cass criticisms of GIDS.

BB – many critical of GIDS inability to serve patients.

KM – Cass critical of many of the concepts, not so much the service capacity. Cass is exploring what gender dysphoria means. I’m exploring this because you said that is one of your areas of focus.
BB – some of our children have gender identity issues, some may have dysphoria. 

KM – directing BB to witness statement, gender dysphoria is one of most important area of focus.
BB – yes.
KM – reading out comments and concerns from interim Cass Review, a clinician may have a position and that impacts their approach.
BB – you said believe, it is position. Belief is a loaded word.

So is “gender dysphoria.”

Jumping ahead:

KM – is it reasonable to be concerned about this treatment given this lack of data?

BB – yes a parent might be concerned about puberty blockers but also about a child about to undergo ‘wrong’ puberty.

But then, Mermaids itself encourages the belief that there is such a thing as “the wrong puberty,” and that it’s not a very rare brain glitch but a quite common body glitch that’s easy to correct via blockers.

KM – so LGBA has an evidence base to be concerned about the lack of evidence? 

BB – we don’t give health care advice, and I would expect that given the difficulty in this area, any charity would be very careful in focusing on this area and would need deep specialism.

So Mermaids is very careful in this area?

Really?

KM – now moving on to consequences (lack of fertility) and (stunted penile growth)

BB – are you asking if I have a comment?
KM – are you saying that you have no experience and no concern with the treatment pathway etc that children are put on? If so, I can stop my questions and ask the Tribunal to read the review.
BB – MM meets with GIDS about once a year but I can’t tell what point is appropriate to prescribe puberty blockers.
KM – are you accepting that LGBA has an evidentiary basis for their concern about the treatment of dysphoric youth?
BB – explains that puberty blockers are a pause button, and once off, puberty starts.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I guess this is Mermaids being “very careful”?

KM – I will ask again, do you disagree that it is unreasonable for an LGBA charity to worry about what is happening to lesbian girls?

BB – it is too specialised and technical for them.

But it’s not too specialised and technical for Mermaids. Why is that? Why is it that Mermaids is competent to advise teenagers to meddle with their puberties but LGBA is not competent to advise them not to meddle with their puberties?

They broke for lunch at that point.

John Nicolson MP is the witness today. KM is Karon Monaghan KC – Counsel for LGB Alliance.

KM – outlining the panel, fairly stringent requirements

Now going on to proposed reforms. 

KM – may apply for a GRC if 16,
JN – you can vote in Scotland at 16 that is the motivation
The use of the word child is ’emotive’ and that person has adult responsibilities.
KM – Legally ‘child’
JN – You would agree that a child is not allowed to vote
KM – I’m not here to answer your questions.

JN – repeats point. Then can we agree ‘young adult’.
KM – I will say child.
JN – I will say young adult.

Naturally. Words are magic; that’s the whole point. A man is a woman if he says he is; a kid of 16 is an adult if John Nicolson MP says she is. Meanwhile whatever you call the person age 16, the reality is that her brain is still a work in progress, and people her age are not generally fully equipped to make drastic decisions that will change the course of their lives for the next 50 years or more.

KM – brief discussion of interim vs full GRC (to do with persons who are married)

KM – prepare a declaration, born in Scotland, lived in your acquired gender for 3 months, intend to live in acquired gender. That is all. That is a fundamental change is it not? 

JN – the objective is to make it easier and less intrusive.
KM – and highly controversial

There are some things that shouldn’t be made easier and less intrusive for very young people. Driving a car for instance. Drinking gin. Owning a gun. Getting married. Having babies.

It seems John Nicolson talks too fast and not always on topic.

(Struggling to keep up with JN responses to KM questions)

JN – explains his role on parliament committee, and overwhelming support for LGBTQ persons.

KM – asks JN to focus on questions and answer them, interrupting JN to do so.

KM – (back to question) 

KM – asking the question again, ‘it is a model that is usually called self id or self declaration’
JN – yes
KM – it sets the bar lower for changing sex
JN – lower is an emotive word. Less intrusive is better.
KM – the concern is that it will erode sex based rights. 

Sir, sir, “less intrusive” is also emotive. It’s not the emo you object to, it’s the direction of emo. You want to direct the emo your way: in the direction of “being trans is awesome and teenagers should be encouraged to embrace it in every aspect.”

KM – when a person does not have a GRC they can be excluded from a single sex service with a lower bar. Do you understand that? 

JN – I understand that those without a GRC can be excluded.
KM – so getting a GRC is an important thing.
JN – It is such an important thing for someone who is born into the wrong body, that’s why it is such an important progressive piece of legislation. 

There’s no such thing as being born into the wrong body. That’s a fairy tale; it’s an absurd thing for adults to be invoking with a straight face.

KM – perhaps I will have to take you to what MM and the DoE say about the wrong body narrative.

JN – what do you mean narrative. It is their lived experience.

Oh good god.

KM – do you understand the view of LGBA is that sex matters and that this reform will undermine sex based rights. 

JN – I know that LGBA has expressed extreme views and tweeted abuse at me, calling me a pedophile and a rapist enabler.
KM – I do not believe there is one piece of evidence before the tribunal that supports that.
JN – of course they have, and it is a minority view.

KM – you understand that individuals are entitled to campaign and comment on matters in the public domain.
JN – refers to section 28 period, abuse in public, free speech.
KM – so I take it you agree that members of the public and civil society are allowed to comment. 

There’s some quarreling, during which the judge tells Nicolson to answer the questions.

KM – sorry, I meant, it is reasonable for them to express this view.

JN – yes, but some of things they express in this document are expressly false. Especially ‘danger to children’.

KM – I will come on to that. ‘Believe in respectful polite debate’. Nothing problematic there? 

JN – except its a very coy statement and it runs counter to how they are campaigning.
KM – are you saying there are hidden messages?
JN – they don’t want their supporters submissions to be rejected because they are aggressive
KM – next page sets out current position. 

JN – implies that people are whimsical in their decision to change their gender,
KM – says it will be much easier and become automatic
JN – you say easier but it is incredibly traumatic to change your gender.
KM – and access risk, with a GRC you can access spaces. 

Wait. It’s incredibly traumatic to change your gender, but young teenagers should be completely free to do it. Isn’t it possible that the incredibly traumatic part is a reason not to let children make irreversible changes to their developing bodies?

Skipping ahead a bit –

KM – do you agree that sex based rights are at risk?

JN – and I’m going to completely disagree.

KM – a male that gets a GRC, and is a heterosexual, does that make that person a lesbian? 

JN – I just do not understand this obsession with people’s genitalia, LGBA appears to think about nothing else from the moment they get up in the morning until they go to bed at night.

He talks like a Twitter jockey, not an MP.

KM – do you accept that changes in legislation should be debated and discussed in the public domain.

JN – ‘this will allow predatory men’, straight out of the Section 28 playbook, debate needs to be respectful, truthful and not hurtful.
KM – you accept that this is discussing men, all men, not gay men.
JN – men don’t need a GRC to access women’s spaces and they do it now. Nobody in my experience goes to M&S and is asked to prove their gender.

So blithely unconcerned with what women might worry about.

KM – you understand why there are women only spaces?

JN – I understand that lots of women do not want to be naked in front of men in public spaces.

KM – do you respect that ?

JN – I have always and will always respect that.

KM – do you understand that women are concerned that predatory men will use a GRC in order to access women’s spaces?
JN – Predatory men is scare mongering and no evidence from other jurisdictions that this is happening, there is no ‘epidemic’.

He will always respect that, except of course when he doesn’t.

KM – do you respect the views of women who worry about this?

JN – I always respect minority views.

Hey! We’re not a minority!

KM – do you respect their concerns?

JN – yes.

KM – this advertisement is not aggressive and uses measured terms.

JN – it dogwhistles aggression towards trans people and LGBA are whipping up fear and trepidation. Scaremongering, deeply offensive. 

So that’s a no.

JN – they are linking predators to transpeople, that is prejudicial.

KM – they are linking men to predators.

JN – prejudicial to transpeople.

KM – looking at these documents to see if we see anything aggressive. Making observations about sport, hospitals, GIDS and the impact of maligning lesbians who are concerned about this as transphobic. You profoundly disagree with LGBA and there is nothing problematic about that.
JN – full of false statements, untruths, scaremongering, trans people do not simply grow up to be gay.

KM – Have you read the Cass Review?
JN – I have read a short summary.
KM – asking for a break.
JN – I have other duties, we are 90 minutes in and we haven’t yet discussed their charitable duties.
KM – if the witness would answer the question we could finish more quickly 

They took a break at that point, so I’ll end the post here.

Mermaids reports on the first day of the tribunal:

Paul Roberts, CEO of LGBT+ Consortium, gave evidence in support of Mermaids.

LGB Alliance’s legal team cross-examined Mr Roberts on his Witness Statement for several hours, and under intense questioning, he was clear that Consortium’s view is that trans women are women, trans men are men, and trans people belong in the LGBT community.

The tribunal also ruled in favour of publishing documents relevant to the case, including skeleton arguments and witness statements.

That’s it. That’s the sum total of their reporting. One of the martyrs was questioned for hours but he stuck fast to the dogma.

Not to mention the circularity of “trans people belong in the LGBT community.” Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? The “community” is lesbian, gay and bisexual people. If you add a T then you’re talking about a different “community.” Many people in the LGB community don’t agree that it has to be incloosive of T people, and consider it forced teaming. The issue is not whether trans people belong in the LGBT community but whether they belong in the LGB community.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Incredibly diverse and incredibly intersectional.

AR – what I am putting to you is that it is reasonable for you to hold that trans women are women and for LGBA to say that they are not.

PR – they are transphobic and focus on trans phobic activities.

AR – gender critical views are transphobic views?

PR – yes.

AR – you don’t think that anyone that has gender critical views should be running a charity in the LGBT sector.

PR – I don’t believe that any charity that is campaigning to remove the rights of trans people to live their lives safely and fully, should be allowed to exist.

AR – despite the fact that gender critical views are protected under the Equality Act.

PR – I’m not an expert.

BOOM!.. as he runs at full speed into the Forestater decision.

I think the crux of the matter is going to be the need to demonstrate how not including trans in LGBA is somehow “campaigning to remove the rights of trans people to live their lives safely and fully.” How does simply not including trans issues in their remit harm trans people? If being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is completely different from being trans, then there is no reason that trans “inclusion” should be a requirement. Even if it was not completely different, is it not permitted for lesbian, gay and bisexual people to have organizations of their own? Trans activists seem to to think that they are a conjoined twin of the LGB “community”, and that somehow “excluding” them from everything that LGB people do is inherently unjust, cruel, and hurtful. Does that mean that each and every charity, whatever the cause, is “harming” trans people if they do not specifically include trans people in their mission statements? They’re going to be suing a lot of charities.

Trans activists aren’t very good at explaining their position at all. They’re more accustomed to compelling obedience than justifying their actions, and they are taken aback when they have to support their own position. Like all the online activists unable to quote instances of JKR’s “obvious” transphobia, when put to the test in situations they can’t avoid, the weakness and illogicality of the genderist position is painfully obvious. A skilled lawyer can get them to lay bare the inconsistencies and incoherence of trans claims for them. One might almost feel sorry for them as you read the transcripts, the pointed questions zeroing in on the empty ideas defended by empty rhetoric.

The initial success of the “NO DEBATE” strategy allowed for the swift capture of key institutions and organizations, but left them ill-prepared to defend their conquests once people woke up to what had happened. Having not needed to argue their case, they are now unable to do so. Like hormone blockers, “NO DEBATE” stunted the movement’s reasoning and argumentation, leaving it with nothing but bullying and intimidation with which to respond. Combine this with the forced teaming with LGB, and you get the effects of both authoritarian inflexibility and intransigence, along with a dependency which has prevented them from arguing their corner and growing the fuck up to stand on their own.

Ah so this is yer man –

He “leads to ensure Consortium stays community focussed and LGBT+ issues are listened to by a range of stakeholders…”

But that’s not true, is it. He doesn’t lead to ensure LGB issues are listened to by a range of stakeholders; very much the opposite. He’s shockingly ignorant on some of them, and shockingly hostile to some of them. He’s all about the T; he’s very much not all about the L.

Nice work if you can get it.

Next installment:

AR: moving on. You complained about a tweet by Bev Jackson who observed that female lesbians are being driven off lesbian dating apps. If you are told by the people running the site that you cannot specify that you only want to meet female bodied people you are being denied service by the dating site based on your sexual orientation.

PR – I’m not on these sites and not a woman.

He’s not a trans woman, either, but that certainly doesn’t stop him advocating for their purported rights to the detriment of other people’s rights.

AR – you complained about this tweet, so I hope you can answer some questions. 

PR – yes
AR – Do you agree that those lesbians are being denied service based on sexuality?
PR – I believe that dating site is interpreting the Equality Act in the same way as I do, to be inclusive of trans women.
AR – let go back to the Stonewall definitions. Is it reasonable that a woman could be kicked off a lesbian dating site for that preference?
PR – The service is inclusive of transwomen.

AR – the definition of trans includes cross dressers. Does a lesbian have the right to exclude male cross dressers from her dating pool? 

PR – if the service is inclusive, then a transwoman should be able to use that service.

AR – you are not focusing on the question. A woman is kicked off a dating site for specifying that she is only interested in female bodies. Is that reasonable? 

PR – trans women should be able to access that service.
AR – we are not talking about trans women. We are talking about is it reasonable for lesbians to exclude men from their dating pool.
PR – back to trans women.
AR – it is clear that this is an example of a conflict between the rights of LGB people and trans people.
PR – there is no such conflict.
AR – We are talking about lesbians being excluded from lesbian dating services.
PR – back to trans women, they have a right to use those services and not be excluded. This is trans exclusion. 

No, it’s men exclusion from lesbian dating sites. It’s staggeringly rapey to keep insisting “trans women” have a right to use lesbian dating services.

AR – what I am putting to you is that it is reasonable for you to hold that trans women are women and for LGBA to say that they are not. 

PR – they are transphobic and focus on trans phobic activities.
AR – gender critical views are transphobic views?
PR – yes.
AR – you don’t think that anyone that has gender critical views should be running a charity in the LGBT sector?

R – I don’t believe that any charity that is campaigning to remove the rights of trans people to live their lives safely and fully, should be allowed to exist.
AR – despite the fact that gender critical views are protected under the Equality Act.
PR – I’m not an expert. 

But I understand that there is a difference between expressing those beliefs and holding those beliefs. And trying to remove the rights of trans people to live their lives.

What about the rights of lesbian people to live their lives?

AR – I will put it to you that you have created an echo chamber with no diversity of thought. 

PR – I absolutely disagree, our sector is incredibly diverse and incredibly intersectional.
AR – no further questions.

The whole thing is incredible.

More Tribunal:

(I’m not sure if this is the next ReaderApp thread in the sequence or a third for the day.)

AR – we are talking about material that children might use to decide whether to go on to a medical pathway.

PR – I disagree, our members are providing helpful materials to young people struggling with their identity.
AR – a young person wouldn’t look at these words and attempt to figure out their identity.
PR – It’s a very complex area, lots of organisations working in this area helping young people.
AR – lets go back to the definitions. Gender identity is about whether you instinctively relate to the gender stereotypes of your sex 

PR – I feel like you’re forcing me into dictionary definitions.

So Paul Roberts wants “trans” and “gender identity” to be undefined? That’s what he’s going with? But everyone has to be “inclusive” of it despite not knowing what it is?

AR – I asked you earlier if you agreed with these definitions and you said yes.

PR – there are so many nuances here and its a complex area. These are Stonewall’s definitions. 

There are so many nuances and it’s a complex area but everyone must act as if it’s clearly defined and absolutely mandatory.

How’s that working out?

They talk about the Gingerbread person, with PR being as steadily evasive as ever.

AR – its not a stretch to relate the number of gay children being referred to GIDS to this notion that they are born in the wrong body. 

PR – I disagree.
AR – what is happening is when a young person identifies as trans they are immediately affirmed as trans.
PR – I disagree. Affirmation is giving the room to explore.

Uh, no, affirmation is affirmation. It’s the opposite of room to explore. It’s a box.

AR – Do you agree that it is reasonable for LGBA to be concerned about the schools campaign?

PR – I disagree. Young people are being given access to information, the materials are about exploring their identity.

What does “exploring their identity” mean? Why is it something schools are promoting? Why is “identity” being treated as coterminous with gender and gender alone? In what sense is the Gingerbread Person “information”?

AR – as a result of this information, a 4000% increase in girls, who are 70% non-heterosexual, being referred to GIDS. This LGBA campaign is entirely legitimate.

PR – I disagree. They are preventing trans people from exploring their identity. 

How does PR know the trans people he mentions are in fact trans people? How does he know that’s a real category? How does he know it’s not a fad, aka a social contagion?

AR – referring to single sex services. Women at risk 

PR – yes, single sex services.
AR – we agree that the Eq Act provides for single sex services.
PR – a mention of single sex services including trans women.
AR – but let’s look at why: strength and men’s tendency towards violence against women. PR – I’m not an expert, I don’t know if men are stronger or the statistics on male violence.

He doesn’t know if men are stronger.

There aren’t enough eyerolls in the universe.

AR – you don’t accept that men are stronger and more prone to violence.

PR – I don’t have those statistics. I’m not an expert.
AR – we exclude all male bodies because we have no way to distiniguish. between the overwhelming number of men who are not violent and those who are.
PR – I can’t answer this without thinking about vulnerable transwomen.

He can’t answer a question about male violence against women without thinking about men in dresses. Misogyny on stilts.

He won’t like that.

International guests are said to have been asked to travel on commercial flights and forbidden to use helicopters or private cars to reach the [Queen’s] funeral. They are to arrive together on a bus from a site in west London, Politico said, citing official documents.

Westminster Abbey is expected to be so full that only one representative from each country can attend, although they can be joined by their signficant other.

Questions have been asked in the US over whether the former president, Donald Trump, would be invited but British sources have scotched the idea that he could accompany the US delegation and said there would not be space for Biden’s predecessors. The former US president Dwight Eisenhower attended Churchill’s funeral, but in a private capacity.

They worked intensely together preparing for D-Day.

Bets on Trump trying to crash the funeral?

Tribunal part 3:

AR – going back to charitable objects of LGB Alliance, same sex attraction and advocacy.

PR -yes,
AR – the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
PR – that’s what they claim.
AR – that’s quite a broad object many ways they could do that. AR – they do not hide their object that they are campaigning to maintain the definition as same sex attracted.
PR – what there aims are and what they do are different
AR – we are not talking yet about what they do, there is no dark agenda. They don’t lie about it. 

PR – what they say and what they are doing is different. I disagree.
AR – nothing they are doing is attempting to prevent trans people living their lives in peace and dignity
PR – I don’t agree, they are undermining trans rights in reality.

What are trans rights?

There is no “right” to force other people to see you the way you see yourself. There sure as hell is no “right” to force people to have sex with you despite the fact that they are not sexually attracted to you. Who is actually undermining rights here? I’d say it’s Paul Roberts, trying to guilt lesbians and gay men into having sex against their inclinations.

More tribunal:

AR – you agreed its transphobic to say that a person with a female body can be a gay man.

R – yes
AR – you believe that it is transphobic to say that gay men do not have sex with people with female bodies.
R – its not for me to say who should have sex with anyone. 

Naughty. That’s not the issue. The issue is definitions.

AR – I’m not talking about individuals. Is it a transphobic statement in general?

R – that puts it in a very binary way and I’m not sure I agree.

But that’s the whole point. The trans ideology does put it in a very binary way: it does shun and punish and exclude people for the crime of saying gay men do not have sex with people with female bodies. That’s what this hearing is about.

AR – anyone with a female body who is attracted to men is a heterosexual, that is an opinion held by many

R – there will be some who believe that
AR – you think it’s bigotry?
R – we are talking about preferences there and its up to that individual
AR – the view that someone with a female body attracted to men, is a heterosexual woman, that is inconsistent with the values of your organisations? 

R – yes, that is inconsistent with our values.

The truth at last.

AR – the phrase ‘same sex attraction’ had fallen out of currency until LGB Alliance was formed.

PR – yes, but practice was mixed.
AR – Stonewall formed using the term Same sex attraction’.
PR yes
AR – you say it’s not meant to be exclusionary but by its very nature it excludes people who are not same sex attracted.
PR – the difficulty is that it makes sex and gender binary
AR you no longer advocate for people for who are same sex attracted 

PR – we do advocate for them
AR – you advocate for same gender attraction not same sex

PR – we advocate for LGB trans people
AR – stonewall glossary, ‘homosexuality is a medical term for those who are attracted to the same gender’
PR – yes
AR – gender is to do with masculinity and femininity and are culturally determined. If it is culturally determined then it is not innate.
PR yes
AR – a man could be feminine and a woman could be masculine.
PR – people are who they are

Tautological but true, and men are not women.

AR – being attracted to people of the same gender is very different from being same sex attracted.
PR – I do not see the world as that binary.
AR – describes lesbian couples that may be one butch and one femme, aren’t they a straight couple based on gender identity?
PR – I don’t believe there are many lesbian couples like that (Outburst from spectators)

Hahahahaha I just bet there was.

AR – but will you not acknowledge that people who believe in same sex attraction exist?

PR – I believe if someone is denying the human rights of a trans person, that is transphobic.
AR – are you suggesting that Fanshawe and Harris are denying Human rights to trans people?
PR – I’m not accusing anyone of that, I’m not a legal expert.

AR – you exclude anyone who wishes to describe LGB as same sex attracted?
PR – we exclude organisations that would exclude trans men and trans women.
AR – that’s a yes, then
PR – yes. 

There you go.

Putative LGB organizations exclude actual LGB organizations that don’t pretend trans people are literally and for all purposes the sex they are not. The “rights” of trans people to be “validated” now trump the rights of LGB people to be same-sex attracted.

The Mermaids-LGB Alliance tribunal has resumed.

AR is Akua Reindorf for LGBA, R is Paul Roberts, CEO of LGBT Consortium, for Anti-LGBA. I’ve filled out some of the tweets a little without marking them because they’re quick stenography.

AR – you believe they have a transphobic agenda?

R – yes that is correct

AR – you believe that they have deliberately adopted a positive stance to deceive the Charity Commission and the wider community.
R – yes that is correct
AR – you describe their messages as innocuous, are they delivering Hidden messages?

R – Yes
AR – CC decision looked at LGBA inevitably denigrates T people. Quoting from website, ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’ ‘dialogue’ ‘disagreement is not hate’. Do you believe those words are a sham and deceitful?
R – I disagree that that is how they are operating.

AR: now referring to witness statements from Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. Both discuss pride and history of lesbian activism.
R – that what is written here.
AR – that is 100 years of activism for progressive causes.
R – activism yes, not sure it is progressive

Bam. Decades of activism for lesbians and gay men, he’s not sure it’s progressive.

AR – you believe that they have set up this charity with sole objective of removing rights from trans people?
R – yes, I believe that is their prime objective
AR -you realise that they are bombarded daily on social media with accusations of being a hate group?
R – yes, I understand that. 

AR -tweet from J Maugham, describing LGB Alliance as a dark money funded hate group. O Wilson: similar tweet.
R – yes I see that
AR – you may not know how many followers they have but they are influential.
R – yes

I think O Wilson must be Owen Jones. They’re transcribing at lightning speed so flubs are inevitable.

They discuss transphobia and “a disgust for trans people,” R agrees that’s what he thinks they have.

AR: are you prepared to entertain that they are acting in good faith?

R – they might believe they are acting in good faith, I believe they are not.
AR: you say earlier they have deliberately deceived the Charity Commission, therefore they must be acting in Bad faith.
R – yes, I agree.
AR: so you are not prepared to entertain that they may be acting in good faith.
R – they are trying to remove rights from trans people. That can’t be good faith.

R is talking about removing rights from trans people without spelling out what rights he’s talking about. That can’t be good faith.

They talk about how recent the addition (aka “inclusion”) of trans to LGB is.

AR: the opposition is that LGB are sexual orientation and T is about identities. 

R – That is the argument.
AR – you don’t see that there are any conflicts between LGB and T rights.
R – I see that some might disagree.
AR – but you are exclusive of people who disagree with including T with LGB.
R – we are not inclusive of those who exclude T 

But they are inclusive of those who exclude the LG who exclude the T.

AR – you expect members to be inclusive. An org that focuses on gay men must include trans gay men

R – yes.
AR – that means that an org that focuses on gay men, must include people who are born female, but identify as men and are exclusively attracted to gay men. 

With the interesting result that an organization that focuses on gay men no longer focuses on gay men. It’s compelled heterosexuality under a “progressive” label.

AR – going back to the example, anyone who identifies as a man is quite a wide population.

R – yes.
AR – may not have surgery or taken hormones etc
R -yes
AR – so we are talking about self-identification.
R – yes.
AR – you mean that they are literally men?
R – no, there would be differences but my understanding is that they are men under the law

Ah, there would be differences. Interesting. There would be differences but the law says they are men, and everyone must obey the law. I wonder if the law can compel the gay men in these organizations that focus on gay men to be attracted to the women who are “men under the law.”

R – you keep using the word literally, what do you mean.

AR – actually, objectively.
R – trans men are men and should be treated as such.
AR – orgs must accept that a person with a female body can be a gay man. it is transphobic to say otherwise.
R – if someone is being Denied access to a service yes.
AR – do you believe it is transphobic to say that someone with a female body cannot be a gay man?
R – yes, I agree. 

Because sex isn’t about bodies, it’s about gendered souls.

To be continued

This comment of Sastra’s sent me to the source to get the full context.

The source is

SEC. 1101. DEFINITIONS AND RULES.
``(1) Race; color; religion; sex; sexual orientation; 
        gender identity; national origin.--The term `race', `color', 
        `religion', `sex', `sexual orientation', `gender identity', or 
        `national origin', used with respect to an individual, 
        includes--
 ``(A) the race, color, religion, sex, sexual 
                orientation, gender identity, or national origin, 
                respectively, of another person with whom the 
                individual is associated or has been associated; and
                    ``(B) a perception or belief, even if inaccurate, 
                concerning the race, color, religion, sex, sexual 
                orientation, gender identity, or national origin, 
                respectively, of the individual.

``(2) Gender identity.--The term `gender identity' means 
        the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other 
        gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of 
        the individual's designated sex at birth.

There.

It’s disconcerting. How? In its flimsiness, its triviality, its lack of the heft, the inescapability, the reality of race and sex and the others. Mannerisms??? We’re basing equality legislation on mannerisms now? Are they serious? There’s also the circularity of course. What does gender identity mean? It means the gender-related identity. Ohhhhh, thanks, that clears that up.

And on the basis of this circular absurd trivial nonsense they passed a law protecting men who want to elbow women out of women’s sports and prizes and jobs and everything else. Based on the men’s mannerisms.

Christ on a bike.

Guest post by James Garnett.

More and more these days I keep seeing pop technologists ranting on about AI and “transhumanism”, which is to say, moving beyond biology and injecting our consciousness into machines. There is so much wrong with this even from a merely technical standpoint that I don’t even know where to start.

So much of our consciousness and the way we understand and interpret the world is tied up with our physical bodies and the inseparable link between them and our minds (yes, I said “inseparable”) as to make talking about one without integrating the other almost nonsensical. It betrays the blindered standpoint of persons without disability or dysfunction; people who can mostly ignore the presence of their bodies because nothing impinges upon their awareness to force them to observe.

One person I spoke to recently said that this is exactly what the “Singularity” will mean (downloading one’s consciousness into a computer): freedom from awareness or worries about biology and the body. I submit that this is wholly and completely wrong and mistaken: being unaware of a body that is functioning perfectly is completely different from being cut off from that same body, or from living insensate, or living with a body that doesn’t do what our instinct tells us that it should. It doesn’t take much malfunction to make us very, very aware that we live within it, and that its proper function is absolutely fundamental to our ability (should we enjoy it) of being unaware of its daily operation.

Even the very formation of our thinking and the thoughts within are formed, molded, and ultimately limited by the fact that we have binocular vision facing forwards, or that we stand upright, or that we have two hands instead of eight tentacles, or that we have basic biological firmware mechanisms built in to our very brains that prevent us from doing such things as walking off a cliff, and so on et cetera.

Anyway. Just random blitherings on a lazy sunday afternoon.

Global warming–>more frequent droughts–>crop failures–>famines.

California rice fields:

Normally, by September, the drive north from Sacramento on Interstate 5 showcases vast stretches of flooded rice fields on both sides, farms bustling with tractors and workers preparing for fall harvest.

Not this year, said Kurt Richter, a third-generation rice farmer in Colusa, the rice capital of California where the local economy relies heavily on agriculture. “It is now just a wasteland,” he said.

As drought endures for a third year with record-breaking temperatures and diminishing water supplies, more than half of California’s rice fields are estimated to be left barren without harvest — about 300,000 out of the 550,000 or so in reported acres, provisional data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows. This year, rice is estimated to account for just 2% of total planted acres across the state.

That’s a lot of missing rice.

Espino, the Butte-based farm advisor, said the options are limited for rice farmers in the Sacramento River Valley, and continued drought would likely result in only those with the economic capacity to withstand the financial swings brought forth by the drought remaining.

But it’s hard to predict what exactly will happen this winter — if there will be plentiful rain to nourish these lands once more. “Nobody really knows what’s going to happen,” he said. “The only thing we can do is keep positive and hope for rain.”

Cross all those fingers.

There’s an awful lot of flapdoodle around over the public’s supposed “grief” – and not for the first time.

Ours what? Our “grief”? Come on.

The queen said so herself – the fictional one at least.

Erin Friday on the move to change Title IX at the expense of women and girls:

While U.S. citizens, and particularly women and parents, should be celebrating the golden jubilee of Title IX, marking 50 years of protection against sex discrimination, they are instead feverishly trying to stop the Biden administration from implementing sweeping changes to the 1972 federal civil rights law. The proposed regulations undermine the initial premise of Title IX, prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. These regulations will chill speech and enshrine gender identity as a reality…

When reality, oddly enough, is the very thing it isn’t.

Imagine changing federal laws to enshrine other fantasies. Affirmative action for white people who identify as black! Protections for people who were born here to people who were born here but identify as immigrants! Federal scholarships for Wasps who identify as first nations! Stipends for billionaires who identify as penniless!

On Sept. 12, 2022, the Department of Education will close public comments to its Notice of Proposal Rulemaking, a 700-page document rife with inconsistencies and double-speak. Essentially, the executive branch will promulgate new law expanding discrimination protections based on sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Notably, none of these terms are defined, resulting in incomprehensible regulations that guarantee a barrage of lawsuits from both sides of the aisle. Few students, from preschool to graduate school, will be immune to the deleterious effects of these regulations should they be enacted.

But on the plus side, there will be more and more and more precious gender angels everywhere.

Call to action.

The trans and lesbian communities have always been intertwined??? Meaning lesbians have always been intertwined with men who claim to be lesbians? I don’t think so. I really really don’t think so. Why would they be?

Also, there’s no such thing as a “trans lesbian.” Men can’t be lesbians. Men aren’t lesbians. Lesbians are under no obligation to “validate” or embrace or protect or prioritize or defend or scrub the toilets of men who call themselves lesbians.

Also the brandished axes are duly noted. Of course the pretense is that they represent the labrys, which has been a lesbian symbol for decades, but the (at least) double meaning is obvious. “Shut up and comply, bitches, or we’ll chop you up with these here axes.”

I remember when Republicans and the right wing were all about law n order. Seems like a century ago now.

Donald Trump’s non-stop drive to paint the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago to recover classified documents as a political witch hunt is drawing rebukes from ex-justice department and FBI officials who warn such attacks can spur violence and pose a real threat to the physical safety of law enforcement.

But the concerns have not deterred Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and other Trump allies from making inflammatory remarks echoing the former US president.

The unrelenting attacks by Trump and loyalists such as McCarthy, senator Lindsey Graham, Steve Bannon and false conspiracy theorist Alex Jones against law enforcement have continued despite strong evidence that Trump kept hundreds of classified documents illegally.

Evidence shmevidence. The point is that Trump is Our Guy.

“I have been dealing with law enforcement and the criminal justice system for close to 40 years. I have never seen the type or virulence of attacks being made every day against the FBI, DoJ lawyers, and judges,” former justice department inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian. “It’s a chorus led by Trump but that includes elected officials at every level. It is dangerous and unacceptable.”

Bromwich added: “It’s one thing for professional rabble rousers, liars, and nihilists – such as Bannon and Jones – to attack law enforcement and DoJ in the way that they have since the search; it’s quite another for so-called respectable political figures such as McCarthy and Graham to do so. Their recent actions and words reflect that theirs is a politics detached from facts and principle.”

They’re not really respectable political figures any more. They hold respectable offices, but they themselves are just common or garden self-dealing bullies like Trump.