I’m nostalgic for the days when we didn’t sell T shirts for little girls urging them to Bend Over.

The New Republic reminds us that what Trump is doing is not legitimate response to rivals but something else entirely.

The idea that Trump should pursue “revenge” and “retribution” for prosecutions is everywhere on the right. After a federal judge ordered Steve Bannon to surrender to prison, numerous MAGA influencers, including the MAGA God King himself, angrily vowed such payback. Republicans have said Trump should “fight fire with fire” (Senator Marco Rubio) and that GOP district attorneys should declare open season on Democrats (Stephen Miller). Trump, of course, has offered many versions of this, including to Dr. Phil and Hannity.

In the media, this story tends to be framed as follows: Will Trump seek “revenge” for his legal travails, or won’t he? But that framing unwittingly lets Trump set the terms of this debate. It implies that he is vowing to do to Democrats what was done to him.

Criminals don’t get to “seek revenge” for being convicted of crimes. That’s not how any of this works.

But that’s not what Trump is actually threatening. Whereas Trump is being prosecuted on the basis of evidence that law enforcement gathered before asking grand juries to indict him, he is expressly declaring that he will prosecute President Biden and Democrats solely because this is what he endured, meaning explicitly that evidence will not be the initiating impulse.

Nor will it be the ongoing impulse or the terminating impulse. It won’t have anything to do with it.

You might think this distinction is obvious—one most voters will grasp instinctually. But why would they grasp this? It’s not uncommon to encounter news stories about Trump’s threats—see here, here, or here—that don’t explain those basic contours of the situation. Such stories often don’t take the elementary step of explaining the fundamental difference between bringing prosecutions in keeping with what evidence and the rule of law dictate and bringing them as purported “retaliation.” Why would casual readers simply infer that prosecutions against Trump are legally predicated while those he is threatening are not?

Conclusion: don’t let Trump frame the subject this way. Correct it every damn time.

Oh good GOD.

How do they get this way? How do they not see it?

The woman asks him why he said, in connection with Rosie Duffield, that “only women have a cervix” is “something that shouldn’t be said” and “is not right.”

“Well,” he says, “look, what I said then and on other occasions is simply that I do not like the way that this becomes so quickly a toxic conversation. I want the conversation to be had with respect…I think about that poor girl Brianna who was murdered and the terrible circumstances of that death…” [clip ends]

Sir, sir, are you aware that women get murdered? Has no one told you that? How does the murder of a teenage boy explain why women shouldn’t say that only women have a cervix?

You will sign the Loyalty Oath or else.

Staff at a top university say they feel coerced to subscribe to a Stonewall agenda by signing a pledge to oppose transphobia and demonstrate “allyship” by sharing their pronouns.

Exeter University last week asked its academics to sign the “inclusive practitioners commitment” produced by its “LGBTQ+ colleague and student” group.

Well that will be why they feel coerced, then – the fact that their employer “asked” them to sign a pledge to believe in bullshit.

The online document requests staff make six pledges to prove they are “the kind of person that LGBTQ+ people can confide in and feel safe around”.

Isn’t it fascinating that universities have never “requested” (actually demanded) that staff make pledges to prove they are the kind of person women can feel safe around?

These include promising to “affirm trans staff and students” by using their chosen names and pronouns. They are then encouraged to seek out LGBTQ+ people’s contributions to their teaching subject and ensure when they refer to trans and non-binary experts they “respect their identities, names and pronouns”.

Lecturers are also told to “educate” themselves about how anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment can be perpetuated through “micro-aggressions, dog whistles and talking points”.

Honestly, how does this happen? How do adult people running universities take this childish drivel seriously? Why aren’t they all rolling their eyes and throwing it in the recycle bin?

In addition, they are asked to promise that they are “firmly against” transphobia, bi-erasure, acephobia (discrimination against asexual people) and intersexism, a term for prejudice against people with variations in their sex characteristics. Finally, staff are asked to ensure their “allyship” is visible by sharing their own pronouns where appropriate.

Who is in charge of all this asking?

Exeter University is part of the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index, which ranks employers on how LGBTQ friendly their working environments are. It is also a member of the charity’s controversial Diversity Champions Scheme, which has been criticised for encouraging employers to stifle free speech and debate in relation to trans issues.

It sounds more like a daycare facility than a university.

I saw this

Shall we sample? Let’s.

Page 1:

Menstruation is defined as “the monthly shedding of the lining of [the] uterus”
(Cleveland Clinic, 2019, para. 2). Although menstruation is often considered in the
context of the experiences of cisgender women (Brantelid et al., 2014; DeMaria et al.,
2020; Donmall, 2013; Jackson & Falmagne, 2013; Mason et al., 2013), many scholars
have begun to critique the idea of menstruation as an experience unique to women and a
mark of womanhood.

Menstruation is defined as that but it also is that. People who’ve done it can confirm. (They’re all women, by the way.) Knowing what menstruation is isn’t just a matter of looking in the dictionary. It’s not a word like “affable” or “landscape” or “confusion.” Just for one thing, it’s part of a process that results in all of us. Without it none of these fucking fools would be here gurgling about the definition of menstruation and none of us would be here wanting to smack them.

No real scholars “have begun to critique the idea of menstruation as an experience unique to women.” It’s too stupid. Scholars would spot that right off. Even scholars in astrophysics or church history would.

It’s not an “idea” that only women menstruate. It’s reality. People didn’t sit around and dream it up; it’s reality.

But this pile of tripe is for a degree of Master of Arts, so I guess respect for truth has no role. Make no mistake though: this is ridiculous contemptible childish garbage. A university that takes it seriously should close its doors.

Scholars have promoted a more feminist and gender-inclusive conceptualization of menstruation and have acknowledged that not all women menstruate and not all who menstruate are women.

It’s not a club. It’s not a party. It’s not a class outing to the botanical gardens. It’s part of a biological process essential for making new humans. It doesn’t need to be “inclusive” and it can’t be. Trying to be more “inclusive” about it is pointless and absurd and childish.

Page 2 is just as stupid. I stopped reading there.

There’s a thing called Clarks Village, for (it says) Somerset Outlet Shopping. Lots of stuff to buy, for up to 60% off! Whoopee! Also have you heard about our lord and savior the things you can do to support the LGBTQIA+ community? HAVE you?

Wait there’s more. It has a Pride Tree! And a whole long list of things you can do!

This year, the fabulous Bristol Pride Day takes place on Saturday 13th July on The Downs. A Pride event with the community at its heart, international headliners, and all without the high ticket price, Bristol Pride is determined to keep Pride accessible for everyone that wants to celebrate diversity, champion inclusivity, and protest prejudice. This year, The Human League is headlining the main stage, along with tons of other fantastic acts.

There are various ways to support Bristol Pride, including buying a Pride Supporter Wristband, which gets you free bus travel and other benefits on the day, and by online donations. Buy your supporter wristband and see how else you can help by visiting the website.

Surely, you think, I’ve messed up and found the wrong page somehow. Nope: this is an outlet store that moonlights as the Somerset edition of Pink News.

It has tips. Tips on what? Silly question. How to be a better ally, of course.

1. Call out homophobic and transphobic behaviour when you see it, if it is safe to do so. For example, correct your friends or family if they’re using outdated terms or inform a member of staff if you hear abusive language on public transport.
2. Use inclusive language to help everyone feel united. For example, address a group of people with “Hi everybody” instead of “Hi ladies and gentlemen”. It’s a subtle change in phrasing that makes a big difference.
3. Normalise the use of pronouns, such as ‘he/him’, ‘she/her’ and ‘they/them’. Adding pronouns to your email signature or social media profile helps to create a more welcoming environment for transgender and non-binary people.

The “use of pronouns” has been normalised as long as the language has existed. We all use he and him, she and her, they and them, every single day, because they come up in ordinary conversation. How much more normal do you want “you” and “we” to get?

1. Expand your knowledge! There are plenty of educational resources online. To start, you could look up a glossary of common LGBTQIA+ terms to ensure you’re speaking to those around you in the most respectful way. We also recommend reading about the incredible history of LGBTQIA+ activism and the struggles the community has faced, to understand why Pride month is so important.
2. Show up in person. Find out about events, marches and volunteering opportunities to support your local Pride organisations. Taking part in our Tree of Pride is a great start!
3. Don’t make assumptions. Lazy and incorrect assumptions are damaging to the LGBTQIA+ community. For example, guessing somebody’s sexual preferences, assuming a gay man has certain interests or assuming someone identifies as a woman due to the way they’re dressed can be very offensive and upsetting. Your intentions may be positive, but the outcome might not be.

Oops time’s up! The outlet’s closing. Sorry you didn’t have time to shop. See you next year!

Pragna Patel on why religious courts are bad for women.

On 1 June 2024, the world’s first Sikh court will open in London. This demands our urgent attention. For many years, I – as the co-director of Project Resist, and the former director of Southall Black Sisters – along with groups such as One Law for All have campaigned against the growth of religious courts because we believe they are tied to a wave of religious fundamentalism targeting the rights and freedoms of women.

Let’s face it: one of the core claims of most (or all) religions is the inferiority hence subordination of women. A goddy court that doesn’t think women are lesser beings is unlikely in the extreme.

The use of religious laws to regulate minority women’s lives is not only discriminatory, it is immensely harmful in a context where domestic abuse and related femicides of South Asian and other minority women remain persistently high.

The court presents itself as a professional, quasi-legal body, willing to adhere to formal legal rules of engagement. But so far, spokespeople justifying its existence have indicated a much more worrying agenda.

On 25 April 2024, Baldip Singh, a founder and spokesperson for the Sikh court, pointed to the so-called failure of the secular courts to take account of religious values in a case concerning a divorced Sikh woman who, as the primary carer of her young son, supported his decision to cut his hair in defiance of the wishes of his father (her ex-husband). The stance represents a fight for the preservation of the father’s rights that echoes a wider ideological battle, being fought by abusive men, about how the family courts are biased against them. The all too familiar demand for respect for religious values, regardless of the circumstances, is a worrying patriarchal precedent.

Because religious values are patriarchal values. God is a dude.

When many minority women seek to escape abuse, they are subjected to pressure and coercion to stay silent, and tolerate the abuse for the sake of keeping their family unit intact. Their profoundly unequal status, coupled with an unequal power distribution over knowledge of legal rights, will make it even more difficult to reject attempts at mediation, or to complain when decisions are made against their interests. The formal UK legal system allows women to obtain legal advice and representation in compliance with the rule of law and principles of fairness. However imperfect, that is a stark contrast to religious courts.

Gods hate women.

Awkward.

Now that Donald Trump is a convicted felon, his list of countries to visit has gotten much shorter.

Trump was found guilty on Thursday of 34 counts of falsifying records in an effort to keep adult film star Stormy Daniels quiet about an affair that occurred in the 2000s. That means certain freedoms Mr Trump once enjoyed may be out of his reach — and could have a serious effect on his ability to carry out his presidential duties, including travelling to foreign countries.

Nearly 40 nations – including Canada and the UK – have strict policies when it comes to allowing individuals with criminal records across their borders, and barring a special accommodation, Trump would be held to those same standards. 

It’s not quite as gratifying as it sounds, because the Independent goes on to clarify that the bar to felons is mostly optional. The nearly 40 nations can exclude him as a felon, but most of them don’t have to. It would be better if they had to.

The lack of gender is your real gender.

Hey don’t yell at me! I’m just sharing the wisdom.

Our book is called Real Gender for two reasons. The first is to emphasize our conviction that the gender (or lack thereof) that one lives or feels authentically is one’s real gender, regardless of whether it matches the gender one was assigned at birth.

The lack of gender is one’s real gender.

That’s a universalizable claim, by the way. The lack of hair is one’s real hair. The lack of teeth is one’s real teeth. The lack of a brain is one’s real brain – as demonstrated by these two.

Excuse me?

The Canadian Cancer Society is apologizing for using the term “cervix” on a web page for transgender and non-binary people assigned female at birth.

On the page dedicated to cervical cancer screenings for members of the LGBTQ+ community, the charitable organization explains in a disclaimer they “recognize that many trans men and non-binary people may have mixed feelings about or feel distanced from words like ‘cervix.’”

They probably have “mixed” feelings about words like “cancer” too; so what? Is the Canadian Cancer Society going to change its name to “Canadian Owie Society”?

The charity acknowledged in a section titled “Words Matter” that some members of the community may prefer to use other terms such as “front hole.”

Yes, words do matter, so why has no one told the Canadian Owie Society that “hole” is a hostile contemptuous name for women? That referring to female genitalia as a “hole” is contemptuous and hostile?

“We recognize the limitations of the words we’ve used while also acknowledging the need for simplicity,” the Canadian Cancer Society wrote. “Another reason we use words like ‘cervix’ is to normalize the reality that men can have these body parts too.”

No they can’t. Next question?

Originally a comment by Artymorty on While Tatchell rages.

The left walked right into this, and they’re so entrenched, we’re seeing a mass exodus to the right among the very youngest cohort of voters and young adults.

There seems to have been a delay of a few years between cause and effect, when the left went all-in on radical gender ideology, and the reaction among the electorate to it.

Well, it’s been a few years, the reaction is starting to manifest among the masses, and I fear the left is about to discover that it’s a MASSIVE rejection, and it will all be too little, too late for them.

And it breaks my heart, becuase there are global, universal, grand matters that the right are woefully short-sighted about. And in general, I just can’t bring myself to shift to the right. Trump and that madness aside, there are fundamental ideological views, and even personality traits, that are preferred by the right over the left, that I just absolutely find to be less informed, less balanced, less agreeable, than those on the left — or at least the left of my principles, if not at all the mess of the real-world left, with its witch-hunts and its pronoun madness…

Strange and scary times…

I hate it that the Tories are better on women’s rights than Labour is.

Kemi Badenoch has said the Conservatives will change the Equality Act to rewrite the definition of sex and allow organisations to bar transgender women from single-sex spaces, including hospital wards and sports events. The party will make clear that the protected characteristic of sex means biological sex, enabling those who wish to bar male-bodied people from organisations or activities to do so.

Or to put it less pejoratively, enabling women who want organizations and activities just for women to have them. It’s not that women have a deep perverse longing to “bar” men from things, it’s that at some times for some purposes we want women-only orgs and acts. The point is not “no men” but “women only.”

“Whether it is rapists being housed in women’s prisons, or instances of men playing in women’s sports where they have an unfair advantage, it is clear that public authorities and regulatory bodies are confused about what the law says on sex and gender and when to act – often for fear of being accused of transphobia, or not being inclusive,” Badenoch said.

Confused or just plain hell bent on destroying everything women have built up. It’s not all just innocent confusion.

Tatchell of course is all-in with the contempt for women.

News from the front:

A UK trans activist found guilty of sending threatening messages to author JK Rowling and Labour MP Rosie Duffield has now been sentenced. Glenn Mullen, 31, avoided jail as his eight-week prison sentence was suspended for two years.

Mullen, a Manchester-based trans activist, was arrested and charged with issuing violent threats to the two women which he sent in January of last year. 

And that’s why we’re doing as little as possible about them.

While police initially refused to comment on his arrest, they later confirmed that Mullen was behind a series of violent messages sent from a social media account named “gaymon de vaslayra.” The threats were issued just ahead of a planned women’s rights demonstration in Glasgow, and included Mullen posting audio recordings of himself threatening the women in the Gaelic language. X users translated the audio, revealing the nature of the threats.

In one audio, Mullen threatened Member of Parliament Rosie Duffield, making a statement which was roughly translated to: “I am going to see Rosie Duffield at the bar with a big gun. I hate her so much. Many thanks.” Mullen sent additional verbal audio threats to Harry Potter author JK Rowling, where he similarly spoke in Gaelic and said: “I’m going to kill JK Rowling with a big hammer. JK Rowling is very horrible, and I hate her so much.”

All this rage and hatred and longing to kill because women don’t agree that men are women if they say they are.

Mullen admitted to the two charges of conveying threatening messages, contrary to the Malicious Communications Act. After Mullen was bailed for sentencing, Westminster chief magistrate Paul Goldspring said that Mullen would get credit for his early guilty plea, but declined to remand him to immediate custody. Goldspring ultimately agreed that the threats occurred in “isolation,” and that Mullen had “strong views about gender equality. Quite appropriately so.”

Ah, well there you go then. Mullen is right that these two women who talk are bad bad bad people, so Mullen didn’t really do anything wrong.

The UK government issued a review thingy back in March about diversity and cohesion and similar feel-good words that clash with each other. It makes for deeply weird reading because of its total failure to make clear what it’s talking about.

The theme is something it dubs “freedom-restricting harassment” or (wait for it) frh for short.

Victims of freedom-restricting harassment suffer devastating impacts yet are often not treated as victims or offered the support they need. The impact on the religious studies teacher at Batley Grammar School provides a harrowing example.

As an in-depth victim case study and for the first time since the incident occurred, we reviewed the case of the religious studies (RS) teacher at Batley Grammar School who was forced into hiding in March 2021 following accusations of blasphemy. Having delivered an educational lesson on promoting fundamental British values, he faced an online and offline campaign of intimidation and abuse. Threats and harassment included incitement to violence against both him and his family.

Notice anything missing?

The specifics. The specifics are carefully left out. The specifics are carefully hidden, kept secret, tacitly denied. Forced into hiding by whom? Accusations of blasphemy from whom? Blasphemy in terms of what religion? Who was behind the campaign? Who was threatening and harassing?

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that we are never told. The specifics are carefully concealed…which makes the whole report worthless. How absurd.

We know why they do it of course. They don’t want to incite “Islamophobia.” But that’s just it, isn’t it. That’s the problem. Islam has a bug up its ass about purported “blasphemy,” and way too many of its adherents are way too eager to murder people for what they consider “blasphemy.” Post-war UK governments seeking cheap labor encouraged immigration from former colonies which happened to have huge populations of Muslims. Not all of those Muslims gave up their ideas about “blasphemy,” as became all too clear when Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding.

But it doesn’t do to say so. Result: a report that tries to talk about intolerance and harassment without ever mentioning the elephant in the sock drawer.

It hints at it briefly, but still carefully without naming it.

There was a considerable lack of leadership by the agencies named above. They should have issued clear messages that threats, harassment and abuse would not be tolerated under any circumstances. Nor was there any clear condemnation of those engaged in such behaviour who were creating an intimidatory and threatening climate. There was a disproportionate concern for not causing offence to the religious sensibilities of those who, unaware of the facts, chose to engage in intimidation and harassment.

Yes but which religious sensibilities? Sssshhhh – we’re the government; we mustn’t say it.

We heard of more cases of self-appointed ‘community faith leaders’ aggressively interfering in everyday teaching at some schools in Batley and creating a climate of fear. This appears to suggest there is a wider cultural problem in the area that is not being adequately addressed.

Yes but what community? What faith? What culture?

It’s so pathetic that they refuse to say.

Jolyon Maugham has a strange tale to tell. Very strange. Hard to credit kind of strange. Almost as if he’s making it up level strange.

Really. There’s been a massive increase in deaths among young trans people. A massive increase from…zero? I ask because people who investigate the blackmailing “trans kids will kill themselves!!!” claims report that they find nothing. There is no detectable epidemic of suicide among young trans people. But maybe Maugham doesn’t mean suicide, maybe he means general deaths, deaths of any kind? That the NHS is somehow concealing?

Well, he put it in writing, so it must be true.

The BBC starts by saying it’s dangerous, then moves to saying be careful when you do it. They should have stuck with it’s dangerous.

Boys as young as 14 have been asking their teachers how to choke girls during sex, a teacher has told the BBC. Dr Tamasine Preece, who teaches at Bryntirion Comprehensive in Bridgend, said some children now felt it was a normal part of sex and asked if “a soft squeeze on the neck is OK”. Health experts said pornography was a key contributor and that there was no safe way to strangle someone.

There you go. Third sentence: there’s no safe way to strangle someone. And yet the Beeb goes on to give advice on how to do it.

Dr Preece, the school’s curriculum lead for health and wellbeing, said there had been questions “creeping in, such as ‘How can I choke someone safely?'”. She added: “I’ve certainly been told by some children that they think that girls really want to be choked – with one saying girls are mad for it.”

Johanna Robinson, Wales’ national adviser on violence against women and girls, has heard similar examples. “I’ve spoken to sexual health nurses who told me men in college were asking questions like ‘How do I safely strangle my partner?’ One young person was quoted to me asking ‘What do I do if I need to resuscitate my partner?’.'”

You don’t. There’s no such thing as “safely strangling.”

Dr Preece said conversations needed to include consent and how that must continue throughout sex. She encourages conversation in her classroom, so teenagers understand consent is needed rather than “just blindly accepting it” and encourages children to talk to their parents as well.

Oh ffs. Consent is not the issue! It’s no good asking for consent to throw girls off tall buildings; just don’t do it. Go back to the beginning of the article, where it says strangling is NOT SAFE.

So the climate thing wasn’t a joke?

The planet just marked a “shocking” new milestone, enduring 12 consecutive months of unprecedented heat, according to new data from Copernicus, the European Union’s climate monitoring service. Every single month from June 2023 to May 2024 was the world’s hottest such month on record, Copernicus data showed.

The 12-month heat streak was “shocking but not surprising” given human-caused climate change, said Carlo Buontempo, the director of Copernicus, who warned of worse to come. Unless planet-warming fossil fuel pollution is slashed, “this string of hottest months will be remembered as comparatively cold,” he said.

Is planet-warming fuel pollution going to be slashed? Hahaha that’s a good one. The planes fly, the cars zoom, the cruise ships go north and return, the air conditioners struggle to keep up. No we’re not slashing our fuel consumption.

Copernicus released its data the same day as United Nations Secretary General António Guterres made an impassioned speech in New York about climate change, slamming fossil fuel companies as the “godfathers of climate chaos” and, for the first time, explicitly calling on all countries to ban advertising their fossil fuel products.

Guterres urged world leaders to swiftly take control of the spiraling climate crisis or face dangerous tipping points. “We are playing Russian roulette with our planet,” he said Wednesday. “We need an exit ramp off the highway to climate hell.”

Mixing metaphors, but he’s not wrong.

Dozens have died in India over the past few weeks as temperatures pushed toward 50 degrees Celsius (122 Fahrenheit); brutal temperatures in Southeast Asia have caused deaths, school closures and shriveled crops; and as heat surged in Mexico, howler monkeys dropped dead from trees.

Wellll that’s all far away.

“Extreme events turbocharged by climate chaos are piling up, destroying lives, pummeling economies and hammering health,” Gutteres said.

Humanity is having an outsized impact on the world, he said, likening it to the meteor that began the process of wiping out dinosaurs 66 million years ago.

“In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs,” Guterres said. “We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.”

We are the meteor. That’s a good way of putting it.

The Telegraph is on it. Yo, Guardian, BBC, why aren’t you?

A charity has come under fire after claiming that anyone, of any gender, can have ovarian cancer. Ovarian Cancer Action posted on Twitter: “Did you know that anyone with ovaries, regardless of gender identity, can be at risk for ovarian cancer? “Let’s raise awareness by asking: can men get ovarian cancer? #PrideMonth #OvarianCancerAwareness” The post was accompanied by an emoji of a rainbow flag, as well as an image entitled: ‘Can men get ovarian cancer?’ along with the answer: “Anyone with ovaries, regardless of gender identity, can be at risk of ovarian cancer.

Anyone with ovaries=any woman. Gender idenniny is wholly irrelevant.

Responding to the post, Kate Barker, chief executive of the LGB Alliance, said: “Activists want to see the reality of biological sex replaced with a magical fantasy world of 100 genders and they are prepared to sacrifice the health of women to achieve it.”

…

Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters, added: “This divisive stunt from Ovarian Cancer Action in the name of celebrating Pride Month is an insult to women who have suffered from the disease, as well as to their families. Men cannot get ovarian cancer. To suggest otherwise is misleading and dangerous, particularly when it comes to the health of women with learning difficulties or those who speak English as a second language. Public-health charities should use clear, sex-based language to communicate. The language of gender-identity ideology obfuscates the reality that sex matters in healthcare.”

But it’s worth it for the…um…supportivativity vibes. Yeah, that’s it. Sowing confusion about ovarian cancer is solidarityesqueish.

The Telegraph reports:

Trans rights activists who have publicly trashed the Cass Review and promote puberty blockers are helping the SNP set up a new NHS child gender service in Scotland.

Why should there even be a “child gender service”? Why not a child service for children who think they’re birds? Stick them full of feathers and teach them to fly, yeah?

The Telegraph has seen evidence that a member of the group, which includes activist organisations and academics as well as doctors, used their position to spread disinformation to other members which rubbish[es] Hilary Cass’s findings.

Much bad unclear writing in this piece, unfortunately. The group includes activist organisations and academics as well as doctors. The Telegraph has seen evidence that a member of the group used her [or his] position to tell lies about Cass’s findings.

“Members of this so-called healthcare group are being allowed to abuse their positions with attempts to rubbish the most comprehensive study of its kind ever carried out,” Trina Budge, a director at For Women Scotland, said. “They should not have been let anywhere near positions of influence over the NHS in the first place. But given their behaviour, continued membership is clearly untenable and they must be removed immediately.”

But they won’t be.

An email sent on April 16 by a representative of the organisation TransparentSees, the day before a group meeting was due to take place, urged members to read about “10 potentially dangerous items in the Cass Review”. An online blog it referred to claimed the Cass Review was “biased and prejudice-driven” and that the findings would “cause significant harms to trans children”. It added that the report recommendations were “built on a foundation of prejudice, ignorance, cisnormativity and pathologisation of trans lives”, and accused Dr Cass of promoting “a form of conversion therapy”.

What, medically speaking, is “cisnormativity”? Is it parallel to “two legs normativity” and “being able to see normativity” and “having a head at the top of the neck normativity”? Some people have amputations; some people are blind; some people are beheaded; does that mean it’s cruel and wicked to prefer to have two legs, and eyesight, and a head?

How to raise awareness of ovarian cancer? Hmmm, let’s see…I know! Tell everyone men can get it provided they have ovaries!