Hahahahahahahahahahaha WHAT PART OF A WOMAN IN LOVE WITH A MAN DON’T YOU GET AS BEING TWO LESBIANS IN LOVE????????????

This is just some commercial promotion, but worth pointing at anyway.

That’s so sweet, but…

What “gender options”??? What gender options are there on commercial airlines? There aren’t any. They don’t bring you 10 miniature pretzels in a tiny bag that is either pink or blue, they don’t bring you anything that is either pink or blue, so what “gender options” are they talking about?

This shit gets stupider by the day.

Success! This is exactly the goal.

Yesssssssss – because if you endeavour to commit someone’s Special Pronouns to memory, that means you’re devoting extra time and attention and effort to that someone. Achievement unlocked! Getting people to pay extra attention to Self is the goal here and it’s working!

Sarah Ditum on Cleese and comedy and censorship:

What has John Cleese ever done for free speech? Absolutely nothing, according to the reaction to this week’s announcement that the 81-year-old comedian and actor would be fronting a documentary for Channel 4 about cancel culture. The show, which will “explore why a new ‘woke’ generation is trying to rewrite the rules on what can and can’t be said”, was met with derision before it had even been broadcast.

…

The sneering also came from fellow comics, the stand-up Robin Ince among them. Ince, 52, also seemed to think that Cleese’s age disqualified him from having an opinion: “Somewhere in middle age, the ‘young people nowadays’ gene is turned on,” he tweeted.

Which is hilarious because in fact no new idea introduced by young people is ever wrong or destructive. That’s a law of nature.

What does earn Cleese the right to an opinion is the fact that he’s spent his whole career bumping up against the limits of the sayable in comedy. That’s most obviously true in the case of Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which came out in 1979. Even though the Biblical satire was explicitly not about Jesus (it was about a man who gets mistaken for the Messiah), it succeeded in offending Protestants, Catholics and Jews with roughly equal force. The Rabbinical Alliance of America told Variety: “Never have we come across such a foul, disgusting, blasphemous film before.”

The various bans, protests and attacks that targeted the film didn’t stop it from being a success, but they did make things fairly unpleasant for the Pythons. Even before Cleese found himself at the centre of this furore, he had made a concrete commitment to liberal values by instigating The Secret Policeman’s Ball in 1976, a comedy benefit for Amnesty International, which was then focused on supporting prisoners of conscience.

…

After all this, it must be baffling to find yourself positioned as the enemy of all that’s right and good. Cleese has been consistent in his principles, right through to last year when he signed a letter in support of JK Rowling’s right to speak about gender. What’s changed is that free speech is no longer as valued as correct speech. A whole strand of cultural criticism today judges comedy first on whether it’s making jokes about the right things, and a distant second on whether those jokes are funny.

I think “correct speech” should be “correct” speech – I think there should be scare quotes on the “correct” bit, because the issue isn’t truth but approval. In a great many contexts incorrect speech is and should be less valued than free speech, because there are a great many contexts where truth does matter. (Such as? Pandemics. Journalism. Science. Medicine. History. Stuff like that.) The joke with the “gender” issue is that it’s riddled with lies and fantasies, along with bullying threat-laden demands for “respect” for those lies and fantasies.

Really?

I don’t believe it. “Women with penises” were not a topic, much less an entity, in the 80s. That insulting oxymoron is only a few years old. She can wink wink all she wants to but it’s still bullshit.

Trump the treasonous insurrectionist is claiming he’s immune from everything because “executive privilege” – which I don’t think that’s how it’s supposed to work, at all. I think its basic justification is so that a current president – a president actually in the job at this moment in time – can do the job without distractions or interference. There are problems with that too, as we saw for four years, but I think it is at least limited to that specific situation. It’s pragmatic, as opposed to the bestowal of a dukedom. I don’t think it makes Trump forever a Sacred Body.

Trump on Wednesday threatened to invoke executive privilege in an effort to block the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riot from obtaining a massive tranche of documents it’s demanding from several US government agencies, despite his successor having the ultimate say over whether the information can be shared.

“You can’t look at the evidence that I’m a treasonous insurrectionist, because I used to have the job for reals.” Nah, that’s not right.

At least I certainly hope it’s not.

Yes, sure, the Nazis, the actual Nazis, with the concentration camps, the persecution and slaughter of leftists, labor unions, the disabled, the old, the sick, the mentally ill, the Romani (“gypsies”), lesbians and gays, and of course nearly all the Jews in Europe.

India Willoughby is not going to be sent to a concentration camp, much less an extermination camp. Nothing is going to happen to India Willoughby at all, except that fewer people will accept his claim to be a woman. That’s all. It’s not lethal, it’s not torture, it’s not confinement, it’s not forced labor, it’s just knowing a man is a man.

Why are we told we should exhibit more “kindness” toward people who are so deluded about their own importance that they claim to be victims of Nazism because a Lesbian Gay charity doesn’t endorse their fantasies?

As Anatole France remarked, the rich and the poor alike are free forbidden to sleep under bridges.

With two girls in elementary school and a mother who is a teacher, the Dringenburg household in a Milwaukee suburb had been joyous and excited about back-to-school season — until this year, when the Waukesha School District board decided to opt out of a federally funded program that would give free meals to all students regardless of family income.

Ah yes, let’s not have free meals in schools, because then poor children would have the energy to do well in school just as rich children do, and we can’t have that.

The board voted June 9 to go back to the pre-pandemic National School Lunch Program, which offers free and reduced-price lunches to students who apply and receive federal money for them. Waukesha is the only eligible school district in the state to eschew the funding.

Never underestimate the joys of spite.

In June, the board voted to forgo the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service’s extension of the Seamless Summer Option, a program to provide free meals to all students through June 30, 2022, because the pandemic was expected to burden some children’s nutrition.

Of course it was and is. People are losing jobs because of the pandemic, or having to leave jobs because the kids aren’t in school, or having other pandemic-related money-drains that pinch their ability to buy good nutrition.

Chrissy Sebald, a soccer coach and foster parent, was overjoyed last year with the district’s decision to give a free meal to all students. It meant her foster children could avoid some awkward conversations.

“Kids called them out for getting the different meals and asked them, ‘Why do you get lunch every day?’ ” she said. “When it was free for everyone, you never had to have that conversation because everyone had access to it. So I really appreciated that it evened out the playing field in a way.”

The reversal, she said, was unfair — especially to those families who live paycheck-to-paycheck but do not qualify for the aid.

But sadism is so much fun.

Julie Bindel agrees that the UK and US are not Afghanistan, but disagrees that that means feminism has finished its work and can go away now.

For example, of the tiny minority of rapes that are actually reported to police, only 1.4 per cent are charged by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). In 2018/2019, charges, prosecutions and convictions for rape in cases brought by the CPS fell to their lowest levels in more than a decade.

That’s a really astounding statistic. I keep seeing it and keep clutching my head and wondering how the fuck. Rape is in effect legal.

The past decade has seen a shift towards what I call “feminism for men” or “fun feminism”. Currently, what passes for feminism in universities and other elite settings is anything but. Prostitution and pornography have been rebranded as “choice” and “empowerment”, and harmful and degrading sexual practices have been rebranded as “kink” and liberating for women.

I think of it as Greta Christina feminism, aka not feminism at all.

I decided to write my latest book, Feminism for Women, in order to explore how and why things seem to be going backwards for women, and make suggestions to get back on the road to liberation in the context of a vicious, misogynistic backlash against our hard-won rights.

I love the title.

So easy for them to say.

No danger to women, across the board – well, he should know.

Victoria Smith starts by thanking the men who tell women what we’re allowed to be afraid of for wading in to correct our perceptions of reality when they must be so busy.

To be fair, it is not our fault. We are not authoritative; we are not you. We are taught from an early age to doubt ourselves, to see our own versions of reality as suspect, requiring external confirmation from the experts, the men. When you are not considered a reliable witness to your own experiences, things become very confusing. This, I guess, is where you step in.

And, of course, this very stepping in is part of the process of teaching female people from an early age that we don’t know our ass from our elbow.

What do we fear most of all? Hard to say. That is, the answer is obvious, but it’s very hard to say it without having one’s sanity or one’s morality — one’s capacity for kindness — questioned. It’s easier to defer to you. We can do this for years. We can even start to believe it.

I think the mention of kindness is a nod to Robin Ince’s generous help yesterday.

Do you know how many abusive men are considered lovely men, gentle men, kind men, by those who don’t witness what happens behind closed doors? To be fair, you probably have heard this; that’s another cliché. But also, how many abused women defend these men, doubt their own perceptions, have been beaten down so many times they’re not sure if it isn’t their fault? Do you know it’s possible to be ashamed of your own fears? To think, well, maybe this does mean I’m a bad person? You reinforce that shame each time you lecture women on fears you deem to be misplaced. Still, you’re the expert.

…

That you — male people — are complicit in the creation of our fear, that you benefit from it, that it’s your dominance that enables you to breeze in, puffed up with pride at your own magnanimity, to tell us we’re allowed to feel threatened by this, but not that … I imagine you don’t really think about this.

The Robin Inces certainly show no sign of ever thinking about it. If they did they wouldn’t pat themselves on the back for being motivated by kindness while we are motivated by sheer evil.

You think it an act of generosity to allow us to be fearful of some male people, but not others. As though fear itself is a luxury. We mustn’t be greedy; mustn’t take too much. That you should be offering safety — that a kind, empathetic response to female fear would be to look at the violence from which you benefit, question the class to which you belong — does not cross your mind. You think you float above the worst things men do.

Naturally – because they are all about the kindness.

Yet another man telling feminist women how to feminism.

It is shocking. I used to like Robin Ince.

But, you know – it’s all about kindness. We’re not kind enough. It’s only men who know how to be kind.

Women are such bitches, such Karens, such terfs.

Jawad Iqbal asks an important question.

Why is the BBC, which takes pride in lecturing everyone else on its commitment to impartiality, determined to keep working with Stonewall, the LGBT charity that’s pushing an agenda on trans issues that is anything but impartial? Other public sector bodies, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Cabinet Office, have withdrawn from Stonewall’s diversity programme. But not the BBC, which thinks it knows better.

I have another question to go along with that one. Is there any feminist charity that has that kind of hold on the BBC and the police and other public bodies? In other words is there any feminist equivalent of Stonewall? Is there any anti-racist equivalent? You could say the Muslim Council of Britain has in the past been the Stonewall equivalent for whatever you take the MCB’s mission to be – promotion of Islam, promotion of tolerance for Muslims, promotion of a particularly theocratic and conservative Islam, anti-xenophobia. Are there Stonewall-equivalents for all the categories of persecuted or neglected people?

Stonewall has wrapped its tentacles around so many of Britain’s workplaces despite being at the centre of an increasingly vicious and intolerant debate about trans rights. The Stonewall scheme has been signed up to by about 850 organisations, including many public bodies, which pay the charity to accredit their diversity policies. Stonewall advises on equalities law, even though it has faced accusations of misinterpreting or misrepresenting the legislation — something it denies.

Do all these public bodies have a whole list of charities that do (or claim to do) that kind of advising? One for women, one for disabled people, one for people with no money, one for immigrants, one for BME people, one for Jews, one for Muslims, one for Sikhs, one for Catholics?

Stonewall believes people should be able to self-identify with the gender they choose and has been frequently accused of labelling anyone who disagrees with this position — for example, people concerned about allowing trans women to use women-only facilities — as transphobic.

We can skip the “has been frequently accused” bit. Of course that’s what they do – they do it all the time, as a matter of firm, indeed absolute, policy. Men are women if they say they are and women are cunts if they don’t agree.

I find I haven’t said enough about that response from Police Scotland.

Who and what Murray Blackburn Mackenzie are in case you’ve forgotten (which I had, embarrassingly):

Established in late 2018, MurrayBlackburnMackenzie is an independent policy analysis collective, made up of Dr Kath Murray, Lucy Hunter Blackburn and Lisa Mackenzie. Between us, we have extensive experience in policy-making, research and communications.

How the police responded to their question about why they ask people about their gender identity but not their sex:

So they know that the gender [identity] of a person is a key factor which shapes people’s experiences of local policing…but they apparently don’t know that the sex of a person is a key factor which shapes people’s experiences of local policing? That’s definitely implied, since they’re saying why they do ask about the first and don’t ask about the second. They also think gender [identity] is relevant while sex is not. How could they possibly believe that? What is going on here? When was it decided that the fact of being a woman doesn’t matter much and doesn’t make much difference to one’s experience of various things? Why weren’t we consulted?

It’s just bonkers. Bonkers bonkers bonkers. And not in a good way.

Or, better, instead of “gender identity.” Who cares what people’s fanciful “gender identity” is? Besides marketers of Gender Accessories, who are many and greedy.

Oh my god the police in Scotland think they don’t need to know that a suspect is a man or a victim is a woman!

That needs fifty or so exclamation points but…you know…sometimes one just doesn’t have the strength to hold the key down.

And we second that suggestion.

Fucking lunatics.

Just for thoroughness, the Wall Street Journal take on Judge Parker’s ruling:

“This case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so,” U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in Detroit said in a 110-page ruling on Wednesday.

…

“Despite the haze of confusion, commotion, and chaos counsel intentionally attempted to create by filing this lawsuit, one thing is perfectly clear: Plaintiffs’ attorneys have scorned their oath, flouted the rules, and attempted to undermine the integrity of the judiciary along the way,” Judge Parker wrote.

…

Judge Parker said that the attorneys must pay the costs incurred by state officials and the city of Detroit related to the lawsuit. The judge also said that the attorneys must each complete at least 12 hours of continuing legal education on pleading standards and election law within six months. She also referred her findings to the attorney licensing authorities in the lawyers’ respective states “for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment.”

Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet, a specialist in legal ethics said, “Sanction orders against lawyers are not uncommon, but this lambasting is quite unusual for its length, level of detail, and sheer intensity.”

Deservedly so.

Saying it before doesn’t make it true.

No it doesn’t work the same way with trans issues. At all. Especially if by “date” he means “fuck,” which I think it’s safe to assume. People are allowed to have a preference for one sex or the other. If they’re not allowed to have that, then sex becomes indistinguishable from rape. Straight people are allowed to prefer the opposite sex and gay people are allowed to prefer the same sex. That means no one is required to have Affirmation Sex with a trans person whose sex is not the preferred one. No one. Not even women!

The move to delete women continues.

Federal health chiefs [in Australia] have rewritten a Covid-19 vaccination pregnancy guide that bizarrely erases all mention of ‘women’ and replaces it with ‘pregnant people’.

The guide was originally published in February as ‘COVID-19 vaccination – Shared decision making guide for women who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning pregnancy’.

But it was republished last week under its new subtly-tweaked title: ‘COVID-19 vaccination decision guide for people who are pregnant, breastfeeding or planning pregnancy’.

Which is not only insulting to women, but also significantly less useful as an actual COVID-19 vaccination decision guide. You want such things to be as clear and easy to follow as possible, and deleting the word “women” doesn’t do that.

The document does not mention woman or women anywhere except in links to other websites or in the title of footnote references to other publications. 

The word ‘mother’ is used just twice in the entire eight page booklet. In all, more than 50 different mentions of women have been deleted from the original version and replaced by ‘people’ or ‘those who are pregnant’, sparking fury among some women.

Included in the changes are non-specific sentences like: ‘Pregnant people are a priority group for Covid-19 vaccination’ and ‘Those who are pregnant have a higher risk of severe illness from Covid-19’. 

No debate, understand?

Kathleen Stock and Peter Tatchell were going to discuss, but now they’re not.

Tatchell tweeted a statement that simply reiterates the fanatical dogmatism and hostility to women of the trans movement.

But what are “trans rights”? What does Tatchell take them to be? Putting it that way makes it sound as if skeptics of the dogma want to take human rights away from trans people, which is complete nonsense. The whole problem is that “trans rights” are such non-existent rights as erasing the word “women” from the language, as men forcing themselves into women’s spaces, as men taking jobs and prizes that were meant for women, as men competing against women in sport, including at the Olympics. Those aren’t rights – they’re violations of women’s rights.

He may think he doesn’t support misogyny, but unfortunately he’s dead wrong.

Updating to add: Kathleen of course zeroed in on the contradiction.

Well…he meant…there should be no debate there should just be Peter Tatchell challenging Her Views. It’s what they all mean.

And another one.

We can say what men are in 5 words but women are a whole different story, so different that they can be women while also being men, i.e. the sex that produces spermatozoa.

Updating to add: it’s still there.

The other one.