Stonewall.

Without any evidence?

Not making history:

Two German politicians from the Greens have made history by becoming the first transgender women to win parliamentary seats in Sunday’s national election.

Two men have won parliamentary seats in Sunday’s national election.

That’s not making history. The fact that they call themselves trans women doesn’t make it history.

“It is a historic victory for the Greens, but also for the trans-emancipatory movement and for the entire queer community,” Ganserer, 44, told Reuters, adding that the results were a symbol of an open and tolerant society.

What do trans people need emancipation from?

Topping the priority list for Ganserer, who was elected to Bavaria’s regional parliament in 2013, is an easier procedure for ratifying a change of gender on identity documents.

Which would mean more men intruding on women, whether they’re invited to or not.

And what are these bad clever women supposed to do?

Men fall behind women, and that’s a problem

More female graduates will change work for the better but create a dangerous pool of underachieving and alienated men.

Oh I see, it’s our fault. We create dangerous pools of alienated men who don’t do much. How do we create them? By being cleverer and doing more. The evil just never ends, does it. It might be best to kill most of us off, even things out a little.

Via

It seems the police had plenty of hints about Wayne Couzens but didn’t act on them.

The Guardian understands that an investigation into Couzens’s phone, which was seized after he was arrested for the attack on Everard, revealed he was part of a WhatsApp group involving police officers now under investigation over alleged misogynistic, racist and homophobic messages, sources say.

…

New details of previous indecent exposure claims against Couzens emerged on Thursday. A man was accused of being naked from the waist down in a car in Kent in 2015, and of twice exposing himself at a London McDonald’s days before the murder, with details of cars linked to Couzens in both instances passed to police.

A simple registration plate check, available to police on systems belonging to the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, could have linked Couzens to alleged offending, but officers failed to identify him, the Met assistant commissioner Nick Ephgrave confirmed, and no action was taken before Everard’s murder.

The thing about that is, it’s easy to say they should have acted now that we know what he did, but it wouldn’t have been that easy before he did it. It’s hard to remember to adjust for that “they didn’t know then” piece of the story. I had to keep nudging myself as I read, to remember that they didn’t know what he was going to do before he did it, so the pants off wasn’t the Obvious Flag then that it is now. But that’s not to say it isn’t a damn good reason to do something about the pants off cop. Do we want sex creep guys as cops? No. Laurie Penny would say just don’t look, but that’s not adequate.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating whether chances were missed by Kent in 2015 and the Met days before the murder of Everard, to identify Couzens as a threat to women.

…

The victims commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Vera Baird, told the Guardian that chances had been missed. “He was accused of flashing when he was in Kent and nothing came of that and three days before he murdered Sarah, he was accused of flashing again,” she said.

“Where was the red flag that should have gone up after these incidents? Surely better notice should have been taken of that. There should have been an intervention. If he were arrested for that, the chances are he wouldn’t have been able to do what he did.”

Well, the police have an awful lot of transphobia to worry about these days, it keeps them busy.

You couldn’t make it up.

Fallon FOX?????? He’s the trans-identified guy who broke a woman’s orbital bone, aka eye socket, in a fight.

Some safeguarding inspiration.

Dangerous to women? Meh. We don’t care.

Fight 4 the equal right of men to kickbox women.

Graham Linehan responds to Matt Lucas, starting with a phone call from Lucas a few months ago begging not to be cited for throwing women under passing buses.

He told me that with a big gig coming up, he had to stay out of trouble. I agreed to lay off, because he seemed to understand that he had called the whole thing wrong.

So Lucas shits on the LGB Alliance anyway.

Matt, I’ll say again what I just sent you in a text. Kate and Bev have been fighting for the rights of gay and gender-nonconforming people since before you were born. Allison Bailey is a lesbian barrister who Stonewall tried to have fired for standing up for her rights. You have smeared them all disgracefully.

Your tweet shows that you “don’t care to know” lesbians who are being harassed and coerced by entitled , aggressive AGP men, who are using trans rights as a cover for their abuse. You “don’t care to know” the gay men who are facing the same pressure from young, straight women who are convinced they are gay men. You “don’t care to know” the young women, many of them gay, who have had their bodies taken from them because they fell into the trap of gender ideology at a young age.

Never mind all that L and G nonsense, it’s all about the T now.

Not literally “whole” though.

It’s not his whole life. It’s what remains of his life, but that’s not the whole of it. It is in fact a much smaller piece of his life than the piece he stole from Sarah Everard by murdering her after he raped her. He’s 48.

Another witness testifies.

What does he mean by “anti-trans”? That the LGB Alliance wants to harm trans people, or exploit them, or oppress them?

No, of course not, he just means that the LGB Alliance doesn’t view trans people as literally the sex they identify as, and that it defends the rights of lesbians and gay men.

Victoria Smith quotes Andrea Dworkin’s “The only good woman is a dead woman.”

Self-styled good men are very good at feeling sad about women that bad men have killed. They are not so good at thinking these bad men might have anything to do with them, let alone that the “epidemic” of male violence against women and girls might be the responsibility of male people as a sex class. They’re worse still at listening to women who might have an analysis — one built up over decades of feminist scholarship in addition to personal experience — into why male people, and not female ones, feel entitled to do what they do. These men are good at seeing women as victims, and crying about woman victims, providing these victims know their place and aren’t actually able to speak. The moment a victim speaks, she turns bad.

Unless “she” is a man, of course. Trans women are allowed to speak all they want, but women, no.

Men can describe us as fearful — poor, little fearful princesses, waiting for our princes — but the moment we name what we fear, this fear becomes an irrational phobia. Men can pity us fretfully walking the streets — a pity forever tinged with that manly sense of superiority — but the moment we ask for spaces of our own, we are selfish hoarders of privileges we don’t deserve.

We’re dinosaurs. We’re abusers of women who are men, who are infinitely more vulnerable and persecuted than we mere women are.

Even knowing the rules — having had them identified decades ago — you still have to ask what kind of man sits there, declaring he wants to do more for victims, after months of saying fuck all about the rape and death threats a female colleague has been receiving from members of his own party? What kind of man is that incapable of making the connections? A man who likes the idea of himself saving passive victims, but wouldn’t dream of putting his neck on the line for the sake of a woman who hasn’t yet been hurt, or at least not hurt enough to meet his passive victimhood standards. A man who treats female victims of male violence as the mirror reflecting himself back at several times his actual level of goodness and integrity.

Read every word.

Yes yes, that’s right, we’re the ones who are saying the equivalent of “the moon is made of apple pie.”

Who is Abigail Thorn?

Abigail Thorn is a British actress (formerly known as Oliver Thorn; born 24 April 1993)… Thorn publicly came out as a transgender woman in January 2021.

So Thorn doesn’t have a female body, Thorn isn’t biologically female. It’s just lying, this kind of thing – unabashed brazen lying. It’s gaslighting in its most basic sense. It may be true that Thorn thinks he “feels like” a woman, but if it’s true that he came out as a trans woman last January then it’s not true that he has a female body. (It could be the Oliver version that was not true, I don’t know, but if it is true that Thorn is a trans woman then it isn’t true that he has a female body. “Trans woman” means a man (who has a male body) who identifies as/calls himself/claims to be a woman. It doesn’t mean a man who has a female body.

It’s not Satanic to point this out.

Breathtaking.

Sean Ingle at the Graun reports:

Trans women retain physique, stamina and strength advantages when competing in female sport, even when they reduce their testosterone levels, new guidelines for transgender participation in national and grassroots sport published by the UK sports councils will say on Thursday.

The long-awaited report argues there is no magic solution which balances the inclusion of trans women in female sport while guaranteeing competitive fairness and safety. And, for the first time, it tells sports across Britain that they will have to choose which to prioritise.

See I don’t think it should be a difficult choice. Competitive sport has never been about “inclusion” in the sense of “include everyone regardless of how unfair or dangerous that is.” How could it have been? How can you have competition if you also have to be inclusive? Competition excludes by definition – that’s what competition means.

Stressing that finding new ways to encourage greater inclusion is also hugely important, the report urges national governing bodies to find “innovative and creative ways to ensure nobody is left out” – including coming up with new formats, such as non-contact versions of team sports, that can be played safely and fairly by everyone.

I don’t think it is hugely important though. Even apart from the fact that competition entails exclusion, I don’t think it’s hugely important. Nobody gets included everywhere. I think men who want to live as women should just accept that they still can’t compete against women in sport. If that makes them sad I can’t really care all that much, I suppose because I think they shouldn’t want such a thing, any more than adults should want to be “included” on children’s teams. I’m not into all this “but still let’s do remember how sad this is for trans women.”

“Sport must be a place where everyone can be themselves, where everyone can take part and where everyone is treated with kindness, dignity and respect,” the guidelines state.

Sport in the most general sense, sure, but sport in the sense of competitive sport, well, it can’t be, can it. There is no competitive sport in which “everyone can take part” because people get weeded out.

H/t Naif

That’s just a pointless headline and a pointless lede.

Women’s and trans rights are not in conflict, says Angela Rayner

That depends on what rights you’re talking about. It’s meaningless to say that without defining anything.

“Women’s rights are not in conflict with trans rights,” Labour’s deputy leader has told a fringe event at the party’s conference.

Depends. Which rights? The right to get on with your life and not face abuse? Sure. The right to compete against women in sport, to take jobs and awards meant for women, to run rape crisis centers? Those are definitely in conflict with women’s rights.

Ms Rayner said it was wrong to suggest there was choice to be made between women’s and trans rights.

No it isn’t. Some men who identify as women are determined to take everything that belongs to women, and delighted to be able to bully and abuse women with the approval of supposedly progressive people.

Harry Lambert at the New Statesman starts his piece on Helen Joyce’s book with an observation:

When the Labour government introduced the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, few involved in its implementation expected that 17 years later Britain’s leading medical journal, the Lancet, would refer to women as “bodies with vaginas” in an effort to be gender inclusive.

That phrase is the latest in a string of new and unusual terms (“people who menstruate”, “birthing people”, “bleeders”) used to describe women. This change in language is the product of a rapid shift in Western culture towards the idea that biological reality is a social construct.

Yes but what else? There’s another piece to this puzzle.

The what else is that it’s women this is done to. It’s not men. It’s women who get erased, and it’s not men. No “bodies with penises” on the cover of the Lancet. No much-admired man’s words altered by the ACLU. No talk of “people” needing vasectomies on National Public Radio.

How?

“Sarah Everard was not murdered for her gender identity.” Sarah wrote. “She was murdered for her sex.” Shock horror responds the lecturer in political science, a woman. “This is just the worst take ever. How exactly do you think he knew her sex?”

Pause to straighten eyes after an excess of rolling.

How do we think he knew her sex? The usual way. The way men always have. On sight, to begin with – he has to have known her sex on sight or he wouldn’t have “arrested” her. On sight and then on hearing and touch and smell. He didn’t have to pause and consult a check list, he simply recognized a woman when he saw one – a young pretty desirable woman he wanted to torture and murder, to be exact.

It’s nauseating that adult academics are spraying this nonsense all over us.

“It’s probably the case that trans women don’t have ovaries, but a cervix, I understand, is something that you can have, following various procedures and hormone treatment and all the rest of it.”

The privilege of being a woman:

Sarah Everard was handcuffed by her murderer as he pretended to arrest her for breaching Covid guidelines.

Met Police officer Wayne Couzens abducted her as she walked home from a friend’s house in Clapham on 3 March.

Couzens showed his warrant card before restraining Ms Everard, 33, putting her in his hire car and driving away.

Driving away not to the nearest police station, but to Dover, where he transferred her to his own car. She must have known within minutes that he wasn’t arresting her. Dover is at least an hour from Clapham.

Couzens then drove to a remote rural area he knew well, where he raped Ms Everard. The sexual predator had clocked off from a 12-hour shift that morning.

…

The exact time Ms Everard was killed could not be determined, although she was dead – strangled with Couzens’ police belt – by about 02:30 on 4 March, when he stopped for snacks at a service station.

Snacks. Yes it’s tiring and hungry-making work to drive all that way, rape a woman, murder her, and get back in the car and drive off. Snack time.

A week after she disappeared, Ms Everard’s body was found in a woodland stream in Ashford, Kent, just metres from land owned by Couzens.

Her body and clothes had been put inside a refrigerator and set alight before being moved in builders’ bags.

The court heard that a couple of days after burning Ms Everard’s body, Couzens took his wife and two children on a family trip to the woods.

I hope he brought plenty of snacks.

Now David Lammy wants us to think it’s all a diversionary tactic.

In an interview on Wednesday morning shadow justice secretary David Lammy said Today programme presenter Nick Robinson was “deliberately asking me about an issue that you know does not come up on the doorstep.”

He shouted it more than said it. It was a performance of righteous indignation.

The issue was why Lammy had called Labour women “dinosaurs.”

Mr Lammy said: “You, the BBC, are choosing to land on this subject – that most British people aren’t talking about in a fuel crisis – and spend minutes on this because it keeps Labour talking about identity issues and not about the substantive policies that Keir will set out.”

Then don’t call women dinosaurs who are “hoarding rights.”

Sir Keir was asked about the issue during another BBC issue on Sunday ahead of the party’s conference, and responded by admonishing a Labour MP for saying that only women have a cervix.

Rosie Duffield, to be exact. Keir Starmer was asked about trans blah blah so he seized the opportunity to scold a woman MP for saying only women have a cervix, which of course is true and should not be in any way controversial. Whatever the psychological issues or emotional turmoil of people who say they identify as the other sex, the reality of biological sex is what it is, and women shouldn’t be bullied and punished for telling the truth about it.

The Labour leader said it was “not right” to make the claim and called for a “mature, respectful debate” around the issue. He added that the trans community was “amongst the most marginalised and abused communities”.

But so are women, and there are far far far more of us. Starmer should look up some stats on rape, femicide, domestic violence, and the like. We’re not the dominant caste here.