Dang, says it all.

Tweet one says an African woman at the FILIA conference is talking about her experience of rape and ethnic cleansing, while “protesters” outside are shouting and drowning her out. The “protesters” at the conference were trans activists and allies who want to force women to be “inclusive” of trans women, i.e. men who call themselves women, in everything women do. This noble cause of forcing women to include men in everything we do drowned out the words of an African woman talking about rape and ethnic cleansing. Their trivial and unreasonable grievance over not being allowed to grab everything that belongs to women drowned out genuine and hideous violations of women’s rights in Africa.

The egomania of it is suffocating. And this “Steph” says if only FILIA were reasonable the egomaniacs wouldn’t have been punishing them. Sounds so familiar.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on This time it’s global.*

We humans see species being lost in huge numbers, but nothing catastrophic happening as a result. So we shrug and call environmental scientists alarmists, infuriating iknklast in particular. But obviously this is only sustainable for a little while and when climate change and habitat loss reach such a level that key species disappear and damage begins to propagate exponentially… well, we’re certainly going to notice then.

The short human lifespan (and even shorter business and election cycles) offer a poor basis for judging the results of our environmental perturbations. Our timescales are not well attuned to slow changes in our surroundings. Even outside of human activity, the Northern hemisphere is still undergoing post-glacial isostatic rebound after the most recent retreat of the great ice sheets. We even have a hard time noticing changes from events orders of magnitude faster, assuming we’re interested in paying attention to them in the first place. In Harold Edgerton’s high speed photographs of bullets passing through balloons, the punctured ballons retain their prior form for a brief instant before exploding and collapsing into a shapeless mess. When it comes to evaluating our impact on the environment we’re still in that instant before the explosion and resultant shapeless mess.

In the West the concept of extinction itself is barely 200 years old. Just looking at our destruction of a few species of birds, it’s only been about a thousand years since the extinction of Madagascar’s Aepyornis, about 600 years since the demise of Moa species in New Zealand, 350 since the death of the Dodo and just over 200 years since the functional extinction of the Great Auk. The passenger pigeon has been gone for just over a century. On top of the extirpation of these birds, we also cleared land, planted crops, and introduced other species, both wanted and unwanted, into most of their former haunts. In the waters where Auks once lived, we mined cod to the point of collapse. So we piled change upon change in rapid succession, heedless of the results of the initial destruction, ignorant of unintended conseqences, barely cognisant of what we actually did do.

An ecosystem which has suffered the extinction of one or more of its constituent species can never “return” to its previous “balance”. It must find a new shape. Given our continued disruption of so much of Earth’s environments, that new shape and balance, the accomodation to the imposed new order, is still being worked out, in many cases without the courtesy of our notice or concern until that new configuration and functionality has some unfortunate, unforeseen impact on our interests, comfort, or profits.

We’re living in the midst of a massive, multi-generational, uncontrolled and unrepeatable experiment on the entire biosphere of the only planet in the universe known to support life. Poorly designed, and launched without any ethical review, carried out with little or no follow-up, this experiment, thousands of years into its run, is only now stirring concerns about its effects and morality. Well, better late than never, I guess.

*Which is his own post. It feels faintly absurd to guest post a comment on the guest poster’s own guest post, but it can’t be helped.

This is repulsive coming from an MP.

They’re not a hate group! That’s such a foul thing to say.

He has me blocked on Twitter. I have no idea why, which means he probably subscribes to one of those “automatically block all the feminists” lists.

Misogyny is the new “progressive.”

We’re not allowed to talk about that, declares enlightened academic Alison Phipps.

“Trans lives are not up for debate” is a slogan meant to shut people up without saying “shut up.” What does it mean? Besides “shut up,” that is.

It means that we’re not allowed to question, or point out the flaws in, the elaborate claims about “gender identity” that are meant to underpin the political campaign to force everyone to pretend that men are women if they say they are. If a huge furious man with clenched fists shouts at you that he is a woman, you’re not allowed to point out that he’s acting like a man, and is threatening to you, and could do you harm if he threw a punch with one of those fists. It means the huge man’s claim to be a woman is his life and is a trans life and is not up for debate.

If that’s not up for debate then what is up for debate? If we can’t question claims as flagrantly untrue and untethered to reality is that then what can we question?

Whose rights to what.

The Government is spending £150 million at women’s jails on 500 new cells which can be used for transgender lags.

They will be single occupancy with ensuite loos and showers. But some will enable women to have their kids overnight to prepare for life at home.

Tory Baroness Scott of Bybrook confirmed the cells plan to support “transgender needs” as required by law and jail policy.

In July, a High Court Judge ruled holding transgender women in female jails is lawful because a ban would ignore their right to live as their ­chosen gender.

Their what? What right? What right is that?

There is no such right. That’s not a right. There’s no such thing as a “right” to live as any fictional category. There’s no right to live as a leprechaun, there’s no right to live as a visitor from another planet, there’s no right to live as a talking rabbit. None of that is forbidden, either, and people can fantasize whatever they like, but when it comes to requiring expensive special arrangements paid for by other people – forget it. When it comes to demolishing the rights of other people, knock it over the head.

Poisoning the well much? The day before the Filia conference started:

Flagpoles in Guildhall Square are currently flying the colours of trans, LGBTQ+ and non-binary people, as well as suffragettes.

“trans, LGBTQ+ and non-binary” – so trans and non-binary get mentioned twice, while boring old lesbian and gay have to make do with once.

It comes ahead of a two-day ‘peaceful’ protest in support of trans rights that has been organised over the weekend (October 16-17).

That is, over the weekend of and in front of the feminist conference, protesting feminism. That protest.

Attendees of the Standing Against Transphobia will meet as a conference hosted by women’s liberation group Filia – which is accused of being ‘transphobic’ – will be held inside the Guildhall.

Thus sending the message that feminist women are evil and oppressive.

One of the protest’s organisers, Councillor Claire Udy, said: ‘This is a clear message from the council that trans and non binary lives are valid.

‘It also sends a message that it is time to reclaim the women’s suffrage flag, which has been co-opted by a transphobic movement.’

That is, it sends a message that it’s time (yet again) to tell women to stop talking about their issues and focus on trans issues instead, aka suck my dick you cunts.

Just last month a peaceful trans rights protest was held outside a University of Portsmouth building as a talk on single-sex spaces by Woman’s Place UK took place inside.

Peaceful or not, why is anyone protesting single-sex spaces? Why can’t women be allowed their own spaces?

But the piece does give Raquel Rosario-Sanchez the last word.

‘We support everyone’s right to protest but we do not support the way these protesters target and vilify us as women just because we are enacting our rights.’

I don’t support anything about these protesters.

The ACLU’s fascination with customized pronouns goes back several years. It’s a deeply peculiar cause for a civil liberties organization to focus on, because it has nothing to do with civil liberties – on the contrary, it’s a campaign to coerce people’s language for no good reason.

A blog post from ACLU Northern California in July 2015:

“Hello, my name is Anna and my pronouns are she, her, and hers.” That has now become my standard greeting at meetings and events. It wasn’t something that happened naturally, but with a little practice and intention, it became a habit.

Sure, anything can become a habit. “Hello, my name is Anna and I’m a wombat” could just as easily become a habit, but that doesn’t make it a sensible thing to say unless you’re joking.

And where’s the civil liberty? Whose civil liberty is being fostered here? Is it a civil liberty to be called by a customized (i.e. inaccurate) pronoun? It is not.

As an Organizer with the ACLU of Northern California, I spend much of my time advocating for schools that are welcoming and inclusive to transgender students. Part of that advocacy includes talking to people about gender, and educating people about transgender issues.

That’s not much about civil liberties either. Maybe a little bit, in that people can’t exercise their civil liberties if they’re being bullied or abused, but the ever-expanding claims about what it takes to make schools and everywhere else “welcoming and inclusive to transgender students” are more in conflict with civil liberties than they are protective of them. Women, in particular, are being ordered to give up a lot of civil liberties in order to be “welcoming and inclusive” to our trans sisters, i.e. men.

All people are impacted by gender and have identities that need to be affirmed and respected, but many cisgender people do not need to worry about having our gender identities recognized. We have the privilege of not having to think much about our gender or about people respecting our names and pronouns.

We also have the “privilege” of not having to think much about our species or about people thinking we’re tigers or naked mole rats or fruit flies. It’s a novel idea that there’s such a thing as “gender identity” and that everyone has it and that some tragic people have an opposite one and we have to rearrange all of life to make them feel more cozy – a novel idea and a batshit crazy one.

That is not the case for many gender nonconforming and transgender folks. Many transgender people fight on a daily basis to have their names and pronouns respected, which is no small or trivial feat. Names and pronouns shape how we are viewed in the world and are important pieces of our identities.

Where are the civil liberties? All this explaining and still not a word about them. It’s not a civil liberty to force the world to “validate” personal fantasies. If you’re trying to force people to “validate” personal fantasies you’re coming perilously close to trying to impose a theocracy. We don’t have to “validate” fantasy genders any more than we have to “validate” the father the son and the holy ghost.

The ACLU appears to have completely lost the plot.

The ACLU wants to force people to use weird counter-intuitive inaccurate pronouns. Force them. That’s a civil liberty?

To be more accurate myself, the ACLU isn’t actually trying to do the forcing itself, it filed an amicus brief explaining why it’s wrong and evil not to.

There’s no such thing as “trans and non-binary students’ pronouns.” Nobody owns pronouns. We don’t each have our own pronouns. In English the convention is to call female people she or her and male people he or him. That’s it, it’s just the convention, it’s there to make communication flow. It’s meaningless to talk about “using a student’s pronouns.”

Also the cutesie goggly eyes don’t add anything. This isn’t a fucking joke. This is the ACLU helping maniacs try to force us to use Special Words just for them. Not going to happen.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The climate has no pronouns.

Yes, the climate disaster is here, and it is going to get worse, especially for people who aren’t lucky enough to make it to rich Western countries. Some smart dude has a couple of posts about how it isn’t going to be end-of-civilisation bad which have caused me to re-think my own position slightly from “humans will probably go extinct in the next thousand years” to “billions of people will remain a permanent underclass while a small percentage of the species explores and colonises space”.

I’m just thinking out loud here, too.

I think humans as a species are tough and resilient; it’s civilization that is fragile. For the forseeable future, as long as Earth remains to any degree habitable, humans are going to be inhabiting it, albeit in far smaller numbers, as iknklast noted. Supporting billions of people requires civilization, and if that collapses, then you can’t feed billions of people, so there won’t be billions of people, “underclass” or no. The surviviors of such a collapse will be those who are able to exist within the limits of natural, living systems rather than artificial, industrial ones. The West’s dependence on a small number of industrialized monocultures requiring massive inputs of industrialized chemicals and machinery for planting, growth, and harvesting is a weak point, not a strength. The few human communities which have managed to remain unentangled with and dependent upon modern civilization may have a better chance of survival if they can adapt their lifeways to the changing world around them.

As temperatures rise, climate zones and biomes will tend to shift northward. If they can. Not all of the things that make up a given biome can just get up and trek north. Like soil. There will be massive disruption. Some species and combinations thereof will be squeezed out as they run out of “north” to go, or leave conditions upon which they’d depended behind them. This will be as true for human agriculture as it is for natural ecosystems. The Canadian Shield is not noted for its crop-ready acreage.

Life on Earth is actually pretty resilient, too, if not particular species and ecosystems. We are disrupting the current configuration of plants, animals and climate, but we are not destroying the foundations for life itself. A new balance will emerge, but not necessarily on a timescale convenient for human lifespans, or conducive to human civilization, but life will go on, with or without us. As for putting our hopes on space for continued human survival, even a post-nuclear-holocaust, post-climate-change world will be far more hospitable to life than anywhere in the solar system we can get to or build. Any space colony will always be a few critical technical failures away from extinction.

But it seems…funny, to me, how so many people in the West can look at the most prosperous and healthy and free and equal society in the history of the world and only see doom and gloom and evil and suffering. Yes, doom and gloom and evil and suffering all exist, but they have existed everywhere, for all time. And every generation has had lots of people who were absolutely certain that theirs would be the last generation, or at least would be the apex, with nothing but chaos and dissolution and destruction to follow. It has been that way at least as long as we have written records, and likely far longer. Yet we are still here, and we have made a civil society out of the chaos of nature, regardless.

The problem is how much of Western prosperity, freedom and equality is dependent upon the infliction of doom, gloom and evil upon others? As iknklast noted, humans are operating beyond the carrying capacity of the planet. Earth cannot support seven billion people living at a North American or European standard of living; it’s just not possible. Stripmining asteroids only works for some materials. It doesn’t address the destruction of biodiversity brought about by expanding agricultural production. Either we reduce our numbers, or it will be done for us. We are swiftly destroying the natural systems upon which our own civilization depends, before we’ve had a chance to figure out how they all work and interact. We are in fact, entirely dependent on “the chaos of nature.” As we diminish the natural world, we destroy the very foundations upon which civil society is built. That society is only possible because of nature, not in spite of it.

Previous collapses of cultures and civilizations have been relatively local. This time it’s global. There will be no safe havens. Western wealth and power will insulate us from disaster for only so long. Grotesque levels of inequality can be maintained for only so long. We are animals. We have to eat. We can’t eat money. We are dependent upon the air, water and soil just like everyone else. Like it or not, we’re all in this together.

See this is how we know nobody who could is going to do anything to slow global warming:

The most powerful part of President Biden’s climate agenda — a program to rapidly replace the nation’s coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind, solar and nuclear energy — will likely be dropped from the massive budget bill pending in Congress, according to congressional staffers and lobbyists familiar with the matter.

Why? Because Joe Manchin doesn’t like it. One guy who is beholden to the coal industry is all it takes, and we have the one guy. We’ll always have the one guy, or whatever equivalent for want of a nail the war was lost it takes. There will always be some missing nail.

Senator Joe Manchin III, the Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia whose vote is crucial to passage of the bill, has told the White House that he strongly opposes the clean electricity program, according to three of those people. As a result, White House staffers are now rewriting the legislation without that climate provision, and are trying to cobble together a mix of other policies that could also cut emissions.

One guy. Just one guy, who puts his career interest ahead of the planet and the beings that live on it. Joe Manchin might lose the next election if he voted for the bill so go ahead, planet, keep getting hotter.

It will always be like that. One person’s self-interest versus the planet. One person’s self-interest will always win.

Democratic presidents have tried but failed to enact climate change legislation since the Clinton administration. During a year of record and deadly droughts, wildfires, storms and floods that scientists say are worsened by climate change, Democrats had hoped to finally garner enough political support to enact a strong climate law, even as scientific reports say that the window is rapidly closing to avoid the most devastating impacts of a warming planet.

Short-term self-interest is always going to win.

Julie on the misogyny of trans activists:

To the annual FiLiA conference in Portsmouth. A 1,000-strong gathering of women of all ages and viewpoints, united by a desire and commitment to ending male violence, oppression and domination of women and girls.

Everyone there is interested in dipping their toes in the water of the women’s liberation movement. A big focus is the campaign to end rape, domestic abuse, commercial sexual exploitation, and femicide, the killing of women and girls by men because they are women and girls.

As I approach the Guildhall where the conference is taking place I hear the now only-too familiar chants by trans activists: “Trans women are women!”, “No TERFS on Pompey”. One sign reads: “Imagine calling yourself a feminist while trying to dismantle the rights of a marginalised group of women and girls.”

But of course that sign is talking about men and boys, ones who say they identify as women and girls. However marginalized they are, they are not a group of women and girls. Only women and girls are women and girls; men and boys are not women and girls. Feminism is for women. It’s not for men. Also, we (feminists) are not trying to dismantle any rights of men and boys who call themselves women and girls. There’s no such thing as a “right” for men to force women to agree that men are women.

During my session on the themes in my book on feminism, trans activists positioned themselves directly outside the windows, and attempted to drown out my words with “Blow jobs are real jobs” (they also object to any critique of the sex trade).

…

At the end of today’s conference, there will be a vigil to honour the many victims of femicide. The plan was to be outside, in the weak autumn sunshine, reading out the names of the women who died at the hands of men and to call for an end to deadly male violence. The fact that we will have to do this on a pavement defaced with such misogynistic graffiti is as heart-breaking as it is infuriating.

The pavement was covered with a feminist colors flag.

That doesn’t make the misogynist graffiti one bit less disgusting or infuriating or heartbreaking.

More on That conference.

“SUCK MY DICK YOU TRANSPHOBIC CUNTS” has certainly convinced me that trans women are women.

The kitchen table is always there.

Senior academics protesting a feminist conference. Is it 1950?

From That conference;

Ok now I have to pause to mop my eyes.

Tom Ball in the Times:

Students calling for the resignation of Kathleen Stock have said their campaign has been “cloak and dagger” in order to protect their own members from online harassment.

Ahhhhh I see – they want to protect themselves from harassment…so that they can harass Kathleen Stock. Interesting take.

But after all, Kathleen is the tyrannical unelected head of state who tortures and imprisons protesters and poisons her critics, and is protected by a heavily armed military.

Just kidding. She’s an academic, a professor and writer. She tortures and imprisons no one and is protected by no one. She has opinions on the fungibility of sex that the brave “cloak and dagger” students don’t like, so they hide their identities while they try to bully her out of Sussex University.

Organisers of a protest planned in the centre of campus have advised attendees to “conceal your identity to protect yourself and others”. One of the campaign leaders said that activists did not want to reveal their identities for fear of opening themselves up to abuse or potential defamation claims.

Just as bank robbers don’t want to reveal their identities for fear of ending up in prison.

[Rio] Jacques, who is the first activist from the campaign to speak openly, added: “It’s very much cloak and dagger, but that’s not the way we want it to be. The masks — it’s not meant to be threatening. It’s just for the protection of the people that want to be vocal.”

It’s for the protection of the people who want to abuse and threaten Kathleen Stock with no cost to themselves.

“No one wants to lose their place at university, but at the same time we don’t want to sacrifice our right to defend ourselves with our words.”

Defend themselves from what? Stock doesn’t bully or threaten them. They are the aggressors here.

In its manifesto, Anti Terf Sussex describes Stock as “one of this wretched island’s most prominent transphobes, espousing a bastardised variation of radical feminism”. It claims she is harmful and dangerous to trans people adding: “We’re not up for debate. We cannot be reasoned out of existence.”

The group’s suggested reading includes an essay by Christa Peterson, a PhD student at the University of Southern California. For the past two years years, Peterson has led a Twitter campaign against Stock, culminating in the essay published earlier this year.

Christa Peterson is an absolutely poisonous individual, and she does indeed spend an astonishing amount of time shouting at Kathleen on Twitter.

Much mockery about this story of a primary school canceling a Halloween parade:

An elementary school in Seattle has cancelled its annual Halloween parade this year as the event “marginalises students of colour who do not celebrate the holiday”.

The Benjamin Franklin Day Elementary School’s racial equity team decided to cancel the “Pumpkin Parade”, where students dress up in Halloween costumes, after deliberating for five years. Parents were told about their decision on 8 October through a newsletter.

…

In the newsletter sent to parents, the school noted that costume parties could become uncomfortable for some students and distract them from learning.

Halloween events create a situation where some students must be “excluded for their beliefs, financial status, or life experience”, the school said. “It’s uncomfortable and upsetting for kids”. According to nonprofit organisation GreatSchools, 15 per cent of the students at the elementary school belong to low-income families.

So it’s not so much about students of color as it is about students of not much money. Here’s a shocker: I don’t think this decision is absurd; on the contrary, I wonder why schools need “Halloween parades” in the first place. Halloween is a pseudo-holiday that’s been inflating absurdly over the past…I don’t know, decade? Couple of decades? So apparently schools are joining in, but that seems stupid to me. Halloween is basically about demanding candy from the neighbors. It’s also about the fun of dressing up, but what’s that got to do with school? Nothing.

Holidays are all, without exception, gigantic marketing opportunities, and that’s how they get so ridiculously inflated. Somebody is making a fortune out of conning people into buying yards and yards of white fluff that is supposed to suggest cobwebs and spoils the appearance of October front gardens. Schools don’t need to observe Halloween.

Happening now.

Originally a comment by Enzyme on A trouncing.

Note the sleight of hand from Sally Hines about how other cultures have “recognised” that sex is not binary.

To say that they’ve recognised it is to say that it is the case, otherwise there could be no recognition. But these other cultures having divvied up the world in another way is what Hines presents as evidence that sex is not binary. And that’s question-begging. In effect, she’s saying that we’re entitled to say that sex is not binary because other cultures have recognised it as such; but they can only have recognised it as such if it is, in fact, not binary. This point stands whatever we happen to think about sex and sex-categorisation.

Another, related, point: what entitles these other cultures to say that sex is not binary? Presumably, it’d be some appeal to a fact of the matter. But if that’s the case, we have two competing sets of claims: one built around sex’s being binary, and another built on it’s not being binary. The competing merits of these claims could then be assessed.

I will not offer odds on which set of claims is the more likely to be truth-tracking. And their truth-trackingness has nothing to do with which culture is making it. Sometimes, people are just wrong.

(And sometimes, they’re misrepresented by dimwit sociologists. But I digress.)

Maybe Hines is being sloppy with language: maybe “recognised” is the wrong word to use. But in that case, it’s not at all clear what she’s on about.

But that much we’d all guessed anyway.

The BBC reports on the BBC report on the BBC involvement with Stonewall.

Governments, Ofcom and the BBC have had their impartiality questioned after involvement in the lobby group’s diversity schemes.

A number of high profile organisations have left Stonewall’s schemes in recent months amid growing controversy about the influence of the group on public policy.

Stonewall says it works for LGBTQ equality and that it is “deeply disappointing” that this can still be thought of as controversial.

See that’s just the usual obfuscating they do by treating L and G and B and T as all one thing, as soup instead of shot [pellets]. No, lesbian equality and gay equality are not being treated or thought of as “controversial,” the issue is the T part. The T is not the same, and should be discussed separately.

The podcast reveals that a senior figure in the Diversity and Inclusion department described Stonewall as “the experts in workplace equality for LGBTQ+ people” in internal correspondence, in response to questions about the BBC’s Allies scheme.

Concerns have been expressed about Stonewall being regarded as “the” experts, given the diversity of opinion among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people over Stonewall’s policies.

And over a great many other things. Yes, exactly – who died and made Stonewall god? Nobody.

The department runs an “Allies training” course, which was set up in conjunction with Stonewall, to provide guidance to staff. In an Allies training meeting, BBC trainers used language and material around sex and gender which is contested. The “genderbred person” – a graphic used by groups like Stonewall to explain sex and gender issues – was presented to staff, with no alternate views presented.

An incredibly childish graphic used by groups like Stonewall to explain sex and gender issues to grown-ass adults. It’s cringe as well as wrong and stupid.

The Nolan Investigates podcast understands that the Diversity and Inclusion department had a role in the drafting of the latest BBC News style guide around issues of sexuality and gender. The style guide sets a standard for the language used by BBC News, often in contested areas.

The document defines homosexuality as “people of either sex who are attracted to people of their own gender”. This is similar to the definition used by Stonewall, and different from the standard dictionary definition, in that it defines attraction as based on gender rather than sex.

And in doing so it’s engaging in this familiar campaign of coercing people gay and straight to fuck people according to gender not sex.

Sam Smith, an investigative journalist who left the BBC recently after working there for 25 years, told the podcast she thinks that some people within the BBC are frightened to speak out to say what they really think about Stonewall.

It would be strange if they weren’t frightened.

She says: “The trouble is the impartiality element of this, for people who do not agree with Stonewall’s campaigning position on the gender identity issue, it is not nice for an organisation to align itself with Stonewall and Stonewall’s mission”.

She said she had queried the BBC’s use of “political” and “campaigning” language but was told “the BBC had checked this with Stonewall and Stonewall were fine they were fine with it and therefore the BBC was fine with it”.

Great. Perfect. So if I’m beating someone around the head with a bottle, and that someone tells me to stop, I just say I’ve checked with Stonewall and they’re fine with it, and I get to carry on with the beating.

In case you’ve been wondering what Robert Winston said on BBC Question Time yesterday (as I had been), zip ahead to about 6 minutes in.

Partial spoiler: the core of it is: “I will say categorically, that you cannot change your sex.”

Oh did they indeed.

The term “mother” was removed from Scottish government maternity policies after they were lobbied by a leading LGBT+ charity, it has emerged.

So we all emerged from a coconut. Not the same coconut, mind; each person xir own coconut.

Documents released under freedom of information (FoI) legislation confirm that the charity wrote to the Scottish government last year encouraging them to adopt terms featured in their inclusive policy toolkit. The word mother now no longer appears on documents outlining maternity leave.

I wonder if Stonewall also lobbied governments to remove the word “father” from everything.

Malcolm Clark, director of the LGB Alliance, which was founded in 2019 in opposition to Stonewall’s policies on transgender issues, claimed the changes were unnecessary and counterproductive.

“Gay people don’t want the word mother removed,” he said. “For a word that has such resonance, and is understood by everybody, to be cancelled by a lobbying organisation, without any public discussion, is just absurd.”

Absurd, misogynist, insulting…erasing. It’s literally a campaign to erase women from the language.

However, Benjamin Cohen, chief executive of the LGBT website Pink News, was supportive of the introduction of gender-neutral terms.

Well he’s not being erased. We are.

“The people who are concerned about this are actually a relatively small but vocal minority,” he said.

You know who else is a small but vocal minority? Trans people.

He added: “Having policy that is inclusive is actually really important to lesbians and gay couples who are starting families.

Does he actually think lesbians want to get rid of the word “mother”?