Nazir Afzal straight up says it.

Others also say it.

Joan Smith has been saying it and saying it.

How to Empower Birth: say that everyone can give birth.

Full text:

Most people who become pregnant and give birth will identify as women. There are some trans men who get pregnant and give birth, and they are not women. There are also some non-binary people who get pregnant and give birth, and they may not be women. There are some intersex people who get pregnant and give birth, and they may not be women either.

In recent history white people were very worried that a small number of black people might grow in number and influence, and somehow dilute the whiteness of their society. There were academic papers written about the ‘problem’. We now thankfully realise that black people are people and that whiteness is not supreme, and there are movements towards equality and justice.

Today some radical feminists are very worried that a small number of transgender, non-binary and intersex people might grow in number and influence, and somehow dilute the effort towards women’s rights and equality. There are many social media posts about the ‘problem’. We once again need to realise that diminishing the recognition, rights and belonging of one group of people in order to further the status of another is not acceptable.

Unlike whiteness, feminism is a valid agenda, but its success does not lie within the disqualification of birth amongst people who are not women. The fight for women’s rights and equality does not rest on holding transpeople to ransom until they admit a feminine identity and accept being misgendered.

Feminism is more than that. It is more respectful, more loving, more kind. It is more inclusive and more powerful, with a much further reach. Feminism is not defined by the ability to birth, as feminists and women who cannot or chose not to birth will attest. Feminism is not defined by exclusion and will not be diluted by efforts to respect every human, fullstop.

Not all people who give birth are women. And that’s ok.

Yes…they are!

That’s some stupid shit right there.

Also, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: feminism is not “more loving, more kind.” That’s not our job, and it’s not what we are. That’s not to say we’re hatey and cruel, it’s to say being “more loving and kind” is part of the role that has been forced on women forever, and it has nothing to do with the political struggle for our rights. Feminism isn’t here to be nice, to suck up, to suck anything, to make the dinner, to kiss the booboos. Feminism is here to collect what’s owed to us, not to beg. You want loving and kind, get a puppy.

The College Fix wrote about the Carol Hooven/Laura Simone Lewis clash on Twitter a couple of weeks ago:

“I am appalled and frustrated by the transphobic and harmful remarks made by a member of my dept,” wrote Laura Simone Lewis following the appearance by Human Evolutionary Biology colleague Carole Hooven on “Fox & Friends.”

Lewis continued: “Let’s be clear: if you respect diverse gender identities & aim to use correct pronouns, then you would know that people with diverse genders/sexes can be pregnant incl Trans [sic] men, intersex people & gender nonconforming people. That isn’t too hard for medical students to understand.”

Yes let’s be clear. People with “diverse sexes” can’t be pregnant. Only one of the two sexes can be pregnant. That’s how you be clear. You don’t be clear by trying to get a man pregnant.

‘You know, we can treat people with respect and respect their gender identities and use their preferred pronouns,’ [Hooven] said on Wednesday.

‘So understanding the facts about biology doesn’t prevent us from treating people with respect.’

I have to say though – it’s not really treating people with respect. It’s more the opposite. It’s treating people as too fragile (or stupid or self-indulgent or something) to be able to face reality, so you decide to humor their delusions so that they don’t fall apart in front of you. Does that sound like respect to you?

Or you might be treating them with fear as opposed to respect. You might humor their delusions because if you don’t they will get you fired or otherwise punished, so you do what they bullied you into doing. That too is not respect. It’s respect in the Vito Corleone sense maybe, but who wants that?

Would it be respect for academics to refer to their students as kittens or bears or space aliens because the students are so addicted to fantasy that they can’t stand being human? Hardly.

As the Taliban swallows Afghanistan…

In many districts captured by the Taliban, new rules have already been imposed, including restrictions on women’s movement. Women are not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male guardian and fully covered in the traditional burqa.

Why? You know why. Because men are people, and women are nothing but gaping holes. Men make the rules, women wear bales of cloth to hide their obscene gaping holes. Men can’t avoid raping women, so women have to be walking shrouds on the rare occasions they’re allowed to go outside. Men matter, and women are garbage. Men need children, and women are the only way to get children, so women must be bullied and punished and extinguished so that the children won’t be contaminated by them.

Most terrifying, however, is the practice of forced marriages of young girls and widows to Taliban fighters. “We are very worried about the forced marriages by the Taliban. If they come for us like this, then we will end our lives. It will be the only option for us,” says Tahira.

The Taliban hates women because God hates women.

Katie Benner at the Times reported a couple of days ago:

Byung J. Pak, a former U.S. attorney in Atlanta, told congressional investigators on Wednesday that his abrupt resignation in January had been prompted by Justice Department officials’ warning that President Donald J. Trump intended to fire him for refusing to say that widespread voter fraud had been found in Georgia, according to a person familiar with his testimony.

To put it another way, Trump tried to coerce a US attorney [i.e. a DoJ employee] in Atlanta to lie about voter fraud in Georgia, and was going to fire him for refusing to comply. Trump was going to fire a DoJ attorney for refusing to lie for Trump.

While he did not discuss Mr. Trump’s role in his decision to resign at the time, he told the Senate panel that the president had been dismayed that Mr. Pak had investigated allegations of voter fraud in Fulton County, Ga., and not found evidence to support them, according to the person familiar with the statements.

Mr. Pak testified that top department officials had made clear that Mr. Trump intended to fire him over his refusal to say that the results in Georgia had been undermined by voter fraud, the person said. Resigning would pre-empt a public dismissal.

To put it another way, Trump intended to fire him for not lying about the election so that Trump could overturn it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is examining Mr. Pak’s departure as part of its broader investigation into the final weeks of the Trump administration and the White House’s efforts to pressure the Justice Department to falsely assert that the election was corrupt.

To put it another way, the committee is digging into Trump’s efforts to force the Justice Department to steal the election for him.

The NY Times doesn’t allow itself to put things as bluntly as we can, but the result is that the dirty reality gets lost under the polite language.

Mr. Trump met with top Justice Department officials to discuss the possibility of replacing the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, with Jeffrey Clark, a department leader who was willing to falsely tell Georgia officials that fraud might have affected the election outcome.

Trump wanted to replace the acting AG with one who would commit crimes for him in order to steal the election for him.

Terry Gross talked to Benner yesterday, which is good, because she too can put things more bluntly than the Times allows itself to.

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Donald Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and declare himself the winner are being investigated by the Department of Justice’s inspector general, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

See? First substantive sentence, she’s already clearer than the Times house style. I kind of wish their house style weren’t quite so cautious. I kind of wish Benner could have led with: Trump tried to steal the election, and a DoJ lawyer he tried to force to help him testified to Congress today.

My guest, New York Times reporter Katie Benner, broke the story that led two investigations. That article revealed that Jeffrey Clark, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, tried to get DOJ leaders to falsely claim that investigations into voter fraud in Georgia cast doubt on the Electoral College results. She also reported that Clark had plotted with President Trump to oust the acting attorney general, replace him with Clark and use the Justice Department’s power to force Georgia state lawmakers to overturn its presidential election results.

In hopes of stealing the entire election and installing Trump as dictator. We’d be another Belarus right now if they’d succeeded.

There’s a story going around that Trump was supposed to be “reinstated” today. Cool word choice: it suggests that he was uninstated illegitimately when in fact this time he lost the electoral vote along with the popular (aka actual) vote.

“The morning of August 13 it’ll be the talk of the world,” Mike Lindell, the MyPillow impresario and purveyor of discredited conspiracy theories about a stolen presidential election, warned during a recent appearance on a conservative podcast. Lindell, who is being sued for billions in damages by Dominion, a maker of voting machines that the right-wing bedding entrepreneur has called fraudulent, promised a day of reckoning, when the “Communists” would be kicked out of power and Donald Trump would rightly reassume his place in the Oval Office. Trump, himself no stranger to barely intelligible theories of political change, was reportedly a believer, telling underlings that he would somehow be reinstated as president in August.

He could always draw himself in with a Sharpie.

One of the more annoying thought-terminating clichés of the moment is the “please, let’s not talk about the roots of misogynist violence now when the news is fresh, lets give the families time to mourn” one.

I say this because I’m grinding my teeth over one I just saw.

Joan was on Womans Hour because she has a new book on the subject, and because the Home Office has heeded her advice. But behold, a man appears.

I’ll refrain from sharing his actual tweets, but I’ll damn well quote what he said, because I find it so annoying.

Hi Joan, I agree with you on extreme misogyny and radicalisation but can we wait until things are a bit calmer? My parents live a stone’s throw from there – these are raw wounds for the people of Plymouth.

Of course they’re raw wounds for the people of Plymouth, but what’s that got to do with Joan Smith talking about policy on Twitter? Are the people of Plymouth going to be made more upset by Joan’s tweets?

Of course not! And what do this guy’s parents have to do with anything? What does their proximity to the exact spot have to do with anything?

Bupkis. I think he just grabbed the opportunity to say something pious. And the pious (stupid) thing he said amounts to saying can we wait to talk about this until no one is paying attention? And the answer is no, you fucking fool, because the whole point is for people to pay attention.

He amplified:

I fundamentally agree that it should be talked about beforehand. Misogyny and the violence associated with it is a dangerous and worrying trend in society. But I feel like leaving it a few days so the families can mourn the victims is appropriate.

Again: that’s stupid. It’s a cliché, for some reason, and it’s utterly stupid. It’s become a conventional thing to say, and why? I don’t know, I guess because people enjoy saying pious stupid things. It’s stupid because talking about the connection between violence and misogyny does not in any way interfere with anyone’s mourning.

If advertisers were hammering on the doors of people who are mourning the victims to offer promotion opportunities, that would be interfering with the mourning. But public discussion? Don’t be ridiculous.

The Times yesterday on the male CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis:

The head of one of Scotland’s largest rape crisis centres has claimed that “bigoted” people seeking help from her organisation could be “challenged on their prejudices” in an apparent comment on trans rights and women-only spaces.

Not a great lede – the waters are muddied already. The head of that rape crisis centre is a man, but nobody who didn’t already know that would realize the waters have been muddied. It’s not “her” organisation. I know we’re under strict orders to use the pronouns that match the lie, but if we do that we mislead the people we’re supposed to be informing.

Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman and former SNP parliamentary candidate, was appointed chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis in May, a job that was advertised as being reserved for a woman.

Which he’s not. Jobs that are reserved for women should not go to trans women, even if you believe that trans people should be obeyed and flattered and chucked under the chin. Trans women shouldn’t even try to get jobs that are reserved for women. Why is it that we’re supposed to give them everything they demand while we get nothing? Why don’t they have the basic decency to realize that they shouldn’t be grabbing jobs running rape crisis centers and that their “identities” aren’t what matter in that situation?

Some feminist campaigners claimed she had no gender recognition certificate and has not undergone gender reassignment surgery so is not legally entitled to be classed as a woman.

And even if he were legally entitled under some stupid set of stipulations he still shouldn’t be, because he shouldn’t have that job. It’s fucked up. It’s rapey.

Wadhwa has issued a statement.

It says that as if we were longing to hear more from him, rather than much much less. He probably wrote the tweet himself.

I am writing this because I want to make clear what I said on the Guilty Feminist Podcast, whilst I wish my language had been clearer, a few sentences in particular have been taken out of context. My input on the podcast is based on almost two decades of experience I have in working to tackle violence against women and support survivors of sexual violence.

But he’s still a man. He’s still a man who feels entitled to be CEO of a rape crisis shelter. Whatever decades of experience he may have he’s still a man, forcing himself on women.

Let me make this very clear, if a woman engages with our services, through any route, and she feels she is not comfortable with the support worker allocated to her, we will of course, prioritise that need and will do whatever we can to provide the right support – this is the very basis of a person-centred approach and is a foundation of service delivery in advocacy work and support services across a number of sectors.

But she will have to ask. We won’t just refrain from allocating a man to her, we will make it her problem, so that she will have that to deal with in addition to the rape.

Alongside this, it is also critical that we act as proactive bystanders and lead by example as an organisation dedicated to equality and human rights. If what we see/hear from someone is clearly prejudiced and we are not responding to their urgent support need it is also part of our role to provide a space to explore and challenge this, in as kind a way as possible.

And by “is clearly prejudiced” he means “is able to recognize a man when she sees one.” She sees a man, and tries to get away from him, and the staff explores and challenges this instead of providing the support she is there to find.

In order for us to create a safe space for survivors it also needs to be a safe space for staff and volunteers, where everyone feels valued, safe and respected.

Except women who want to be in a women-only shelter in the wake of being raped. They won’t feel valued, safe, and respected.

That must be a priority if we are to be an ethical service provider for all survivors using our service, as well as an employer, taking seriously our role in creating a fairer society; this would be the case for any prejudice experienced be it racism, classism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or transphobia.

That’s not even true. Ambulance crews don’t pause to try to re-educate the person on the stretcher on classism or homophobia. Fire crews don’t cut the hoses to re-educate the bigots whose house is in flames. Nurses don’t pause intubating a patient to explain trans doctrine.

I, the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre or the Rape Crisis movement in Scotland is not looking to re-educate survivors when they come in for the urgent, potentially life-saving support they may need – that would be inappropriate. What we can do, when they are ready and if they are interested, is to help them take part in wider discussions about how violence against women is a cause and a consequence of a deeply unequal and sexist society.

But he’s a man. We don’t want to hear it from him. He’s the wrong person to be telling women that. He shouldn’t even be there.

When I speak about sexual violence and domestic abuse, I speak from my experiences; as a migrant, as a woman of colour and as a trans woman – I am open about all of that, because being open about our experiences and being able to tell our own stories is one way that we can create a fairer society and fight back against the inequality that silences us.

There’s that ploy again – he gets to count himself twice, because he’s a woman of colour and a trans woman. He gets to count himself as more oppressed than mere women, because he’s a woman and a trans woman.

I am drawing a line under the podcast and in desperate hope that my words here are understood in full and with the compassion and integrity I am writing with.

So that’ll be zero then. You got it.

I was re-reading Richard Noll’s The Jung Cult this morning and there was this passage from a 1974 essay by Mircea Eliade that reminded me of some things.

What is more general is a rejection of Christian tradition in the name of achieving an individual and, by the same stroke, a collective renovatio. Even when these ideas are naïvely or even ludicrously expressed, there is always the tacit conviction that a way out of the chaos and meaninglessness of modern life exists and that this way out implies an initiation into, and consequently the revelation of, old and venerable secrets. It is primarily the attraction of a personal initiation that explains the craze for the occult. As is well known, Christianity rejected the mystery-religion type of secret initiation. The Christian ‘mystery’ was open to all; it was ‘proclaimed upon the housetops,’ and Gnostics were persecuted because of their secret rituals of initiation. In the contemporary occult explosion, the ‘initiation’ — however the participant may understand this term — has a capital function; it confers a new status on the adept; he feels that he is somehow ‘elected,’ singled out from the anonymous and lonely crowd.

It is primarily the attraction of a personal initiation…it confers a new status on the adept; he feels that he is somehow ‘elected,’ singled out from the anonymous and lonely crowd.

That. All too familiar, isn’t it. It’s that adolescent delusion that one is Special, Different, Interesting. Singled out from the boring conventional cis crowd.

Updating to add: Never mind. I was assuming it was a real competition of the athletic kind, and it’s not. This one he can have.

/update

You can’t.

You can’t. You can’t make “a moment of understanding and education” by competing against women when you are a man, especially when you are a retired professional wrestler man. That’s not “competing.” It’s cheating, which rhymes with competing but that’s where the connection ends.

It appears Waterstones is actively censoring Helen Joyce’s bestselling book.

Which is, you know, the whole point of bookstores.

Jo Bartosch at The Critic:

On 2 August, the chief executive of [Edinburgh Rape Crisis], Mridul Wadhwa, appeared on the popular podcast The Guilty Feminist to discuss working in the women’s sector. While writing this, I am mindful that referring to Wadhwa as a man could be deemed a hate crime in Scotland — potentially carrying a hefty custodial sentence. But this legal gag cannot undo the fact that, despite identifying as a transwoman, Wadhwa is male. Furthermore, Wadhwa has boasted about not having a Gender Recognition Certificate and has taken multiple posts which are usually reserved for females, claiming that at least one of his previous employers didn’t know he was male.

When asked about “building bridges” between those who believe that women’s spaces should be segregated by sex, and others who believe they should be open to men if they identify as transwomen, Wadhwa opined:

“Sexual violence happens to bigoted people as well. And so, you know, it is not a discerning crime. But these spaces are also for you. But if you bring unacceptable beliefs that are discriminatory in nature, we will begin to work with you on your journey of recovery from trauma. But please also expect to be challenged on your prejudices.”

So if it’s a man who identifies as a woman who raped you, or a man who claims to be a woman when he’s accused of rape, then you can come in and they will “begin to work with you” but they will also challenge you for saying that the man who raped you was a man.

That should make the whole experience highly rewarding.

ERCC is advertising a post for a chief operating officer. In the blurb ERCC refer to the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act 2010 explaining “only women need apply”, before adding that as a “diverse organisation”, applications from “trans women” (i.e. males) are “especially welcome”. It is entirely possible that the upper echelons of the “women’s sector” in Scotland could soon be filled by men.

Only women need apply but if you tell us you’re a woman we’ll believe you.

While preparing to write this piece, I turned to social media to ask for survivors of sexual violence in Scotland to get in touch. Within minutes I had deleted my tweet because I was overwhelmed; women in direct messages and emails wanted to tell me their stories, to share with me why it mattered to have women-only spaces. Their experiences differed in the detail, but the fear they expressed was the same. These women, survivors of male sexual violence, told me they felt betrayed by RCS; they were angry at being made to feel powerless once again, this time by the very organisation charged with their protection. The most bitter blow for some was how the paid professional feminist class had tried to recast themselves as the victims.

The people who run RCS are putting their political obedience ahead of the needs of the women they are supposed to be helping – they are paid to be helping.

NPR is doing it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doubling down on its recommendation that people who are pregnant get the COVID-19 vaccine following new data underscoring its safety and effectiveness throughout pregnancy.

Hiding the word “women” as if it were radioactive.

This recommendation is coming at a time when doctors across the country are reporting an uptick in the number of unvaccinated pregnant people getting hospitalized with severe cases of COVID-19.

It would be so simple, and easy, and normal, to say “pregnant women” there, but no, we have to think of the self-absorbed brats who “identify as” men in their jeans and binders.

The low vaccination rate in this group is striking, doctors note. As of July 31, only 23% of those who are pregnant had received at least one dose of vaccine against the coronavirus, according to CDC statistics.

“Those who are pregnant”? That just plain sounds awkward, not to mention confusing. Everything was so much easier when we were allowed to say “women.”

“CDC recommends that pregnant people should be vaccinated against COVID-19, based on new evidence about the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the agency said in updated guidance that echoes the urgent recommendation of leading medical societies. “COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all people 12 years and older, including people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or trying to get pregnant now or might become pregnant in the future.”

So NPR and the CDC are erasing women. Awesome.

… Officials say miscarriage rates after the vaccine were similar to the expected rate of miscarriage in any group of pregnant people…She works mostly with pregnant individuals who are sick with COVID-19 and sees the damage the coronavirus can do…Vaccinating those who are pregnant has become especially urgent in states such as Texas, where the highly contagious delta variant currently makes up more than 75% of new cases…It’s an especially dangerous situation when someone who’s pregnant gets a symptomatic case of COVID-19, Turrentine notes, as he breaks down the statistics…

Medical professionals and scientists don’t know exactly why those who are pregnant are at such high risk when they become infected with the virus, but they are concerned this population is especially vulnerable because so many remain unvaccinated.

Since April, the CDC has recommended vaccines for those who are pregnant as the best way to protect them and their babies from the coronavirus. Although people who are pregnant were excluded from the initial clinical trials of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use in the U.S., significant data gathered since then has shown the shots to be safe and effective in this group.

Erase all the women.

Originally a comment by Rob on The judgment of history is too late.

A couple of years ago I attended a conference for the oil and gas industry. We’re not directly involved in that industry, but they make use of our companies services for specialist environmental monitoring.

The conference was heavily picketed and was protected by a significant police presence for the three days it was on. Protestors had even gone to the trouble of placing remote triggered sleep disruption devices on and around the hotel prior to the cordon going up. Kudos for commitment I guess.

Apart from the fact that some of the protesters had taken a four hour return flight to attend the protest, what I found fascinating was that probably 60% of the papers were focused on climate change, the industry’s role in that, and what if anything the industry could do to help reduce emissions. It was pretty obvious that a small number of the audience were outright climate deniers. It was also pretty obvious that most industry participants were very well aware of the true state of climate change (they were well aware that things were on an appalling track) and wanted very much to find some way out.

One senior executive explained over lunch that his young kids were starting to ask why he was destroying the earth. His view was that it was completely on the rich and developed nations to address the problem. As he put it, about 1 billion people use most of the worlds resources. About 2 billion people are just starting to get a taste of the life the rich nations have. The rest (5 billion) rely on twigs and dung for fuel and walk pretty much wherever they want to go. He said it is unrealistic and would be unconscionable to expect those already leading a subsistence life to give anything up – they needed more, not less. For the rich nations to try and keep what they have and use, while demanding that those recent aspirants give up and return to subsistence living, would lead to conflict and war. We – the rich nations – can afford to give up energy and resources. We can afford to develop and adopt new technology and change our lifestyle. We collectively don’t want to, and our politicians are too gutless to force us to.

It was frank and pretty brutal. Also hard to argue with. While we can see attitudes beginning to change, I reckon we’ve left it 50 years too late to allow the social conversation. I can’t see our Governments taking emergency action until the crash has already happened.

What were we just saying? When the climate report came out?

That. Climate, oh gosh, that’s terrible, we really have to do something at last, and by the way please up your production of oil.

Sackbut alerted us to Roy Speckhardt’s piece on signs you’re having unapproved thoughts. The piece is…flawed.

Even humanists, despite our commitment to critical thinking, are susceptible to disinformation campaigns, especially when we aren’t fully up-to-speed on the latest scholarship and are unaware of the campaigns calculated to use us to advance in-humanist agendas.

First sentence, and already…

This is style rather than substance, but style matters, dammit. It’s not “up-to-speed.” It’s just “up to speed.” There’s no rule that says all familiar phrases require hyphens. Decent writers avoid bonehead mistakes like that because they’re annoying. One of ten signs you’re an annoying writer: you insert meaningless hyphens where they don’t belong.

8) You think the word feminist excludes/antagonizes men.

Feminism is the advocacy for political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

No. That would make feminism just as much for and about men as it is for and about women. No, feminism is a movement to end the subordination of women. The clue is in the “fem” part.

The rest of item 8 makes clear why he started with that stupid wrong manipulative definition.

Modern feminists recognize the need to elevate marginalized gender identities and the intersectional impact of race and gender. If you think feminism implies anything else, that suggests you’ve accepted sources for your information that are not credible.

Fuck off. Feminism has nothing to do with “marginalized gender identities,” whatever those even are. Feminism is for and about women, period. Men don’t get to bounce up to us and tell us it’s for everyone. And as for sources that aren’t credible – where did he get his idea that feminism isn’t for and about women? Who told him that “modern” feminists think it’s about “marginalized gender identities”? Look to your own sources, chum.

4) You fail to see the harm in questioning the validity of transgender identity.

Again – two can play at that game. You fail to see the harm in telling feminist women to focus on “transgender identity” instead of our own concerns. You also fail to see the harm in repeating stupid jargon about “validity” and “gender identity.” Men are not women, and feminists should not be bullied into thinking we have to “validate” men’s claims to be women. You’re not the boss of us.

What’s the difference between a member of the Flat Earth Society and those who seek to continuously question transgender identity? Both question facts people have long accepted for years, but the latter are contributing to a deadly environment where transgender people are facing bullying, harassment, rape, and murder over their identities.

That’s just embarrassing. People – all people? – have “long accepted for years” that men are women if they say they are? No they haven’t. Some people have signed up to the ridiculous belief system, and some pretend they have because they’re afraid not to, but most people still understand that men are not women. And declining to believe or repeat that men are women if they say they are is not comparable to believing the world is flat. Just for one thing nobody can take a plane from New York to London (or wherever to wherever) and look out the window and see that men are women if they say they are.

Let’s accept people’s self-identification when it isn’t harming us or others.

Dude, it is harming women. Try paying attention to us for five minutes. In any case no, let’s not – not without a lot of further particulars. Let’s not just blindly “accept” other people’s fantasies, because hello, remind you of anything?

Julie Bindel on the bit where they say it and the bit where they take it back:

The University of Essex is fast becoming an example of what happens when institutions capitulate to extreme transgender ideology.

In May the university apologised to two female academics for preventing them from taking part in seminars following baseless accusations of transphobia. The university admitted that they had made “serious mistakes” to Professors Freedman and Phoenix, who are not employed by Essex, and in a damning report, barrister Akua Reindorf criticised the university’s actions. The Vice Chancellor assured both academics that recommendations in the report would be actioned.

But that was May, you see. This is August. You do the math.

Students and staff kicked up a fuss about the Reindorf report, citing a “significant negative impact on student and staff wellbeing” – which is pseudo-acadamese for “it will make us feel bad.”

Within six weeks, the VC apologised to staff and students for releasing the report — before exams and during pride month no less — and for “anyone having been made to feel unsafe as a result of the Review”.

In other words he shoved Freedman and Phoenix back under the bus.

In the latest episode of this shameful debacle, last week the university informed Freedman and Phoenix that it plans to publish their personal data that had previously been redacted. The two academics told me that, according to the university, they made transgender and nonbinary staff and students feel physically unsafe. Why? For simply holding the views that sex is immutable and that spaces like prisons should remain segregated according to biological sex. 

Prisons and perhaps rape crisis centers, hmmm? Anyway, under the bus with them. Karens.

Despite the initial apology, the University has done nothing to remedy the appalling treatment of Freedman and Phoenix. Essex told Phoenix that it was ruling out any possibility of investigating the violent, potentially illegal, threats made against her by a student.

Well you see she makes the violent threat-making student feel unsafe.

Speaking of climate…Lake Oroville, 130 miles northeast of San Francisco.

The first photo is from 3 years ago. The 2nd photo was taken April 27 2021. The 3rd was taken last week.

KQED July 23:

California has descended deep into one of the worst droughts in its recorded history. And perhaps no single location shows more starkly how deep that really is than Lake Oroville, the state’s second-largest reservoir and a crucial source of water supply for the state’s farm and city water users alike.

San Francisco-based Getty Images photographer Justin Sullivan has been visiting the lake off and on since the driest days of our last severe drought, in 2014.

“Lake Oroville provided the most stunning and visible evidence of loss of water” during that five-year drought, Sullivan said in an interview with KQED Friday.

It’s the same now, with much of the reservoir’s shockingly barren floor exposed. Adding to the effect around parts of the lake: the charred skeletons of trees burned during last summer’s North Complex fires.

Situation normal: all fucked up.

We can always just #AskRapeCrisisScotland.

So they’re actually telling untruths now?

It just gets worse and worse.

Seriously, why?