Being a woman is an inner experience (a lived experience, of course, as opposed to the other kind), a feeling, a sense, a gnosis, a revelation. It’s nothing to do with genitalia or any other physical attribute.

Unless…

It’s “she,” he says, I’m “she,” he says, but to emphasize or illustrate or verify his claim he includes a photo of himself, as if to say “LOOK, you can see for yourself I’m she, in a tight dress, with long hair, and a sexy sexy pose, and a receding hairline a girly smirk.”

(He also, I’ve only just noticed, has those weird fake eyebrows drawn on his forehead well above where the real ones were. Do people who do that think we can’t see the place where the real eyebrows were? When it’s so obvious?)

This PrideMonth, the Audobon Society partnered with a man who pretends to be a woman to bring us a message of hope future planet climate change yadda yadda. God knows why a real woman talking sense wouldn’t have done just as well or in fact much better.

Your Name’s not Bruce? tells us they’ve blocked a lot of people as a precaution against hearing any impertinent questions on this brave mumblemumble.

My opinion of people has just shot up. I thought I’d be the only one to say “Ew he thinks he’s doing Fine Writing,” but on the contrary, most people out of a large number said so, and more wittily. I hate hate hate wannabe Fine Writing except from geniuses.

Along with the bogus Fine Writing of course there’s the Don’t you wish you could have a nice vaycay in Cyprus? along with the Get me I’m writing, I’m a writer, you thought I was just a QC but I’m also a writer.

Transgender Trend summarizes some of what is known about puberty blockers and brain development:

When a child’s natural puberty is blocked we can expect to see effects not only on the body but on the developing brain. It is the surge of sex hormones at puberty which triggers the important changes in the adolescent brain which only reach completion in the mid-twenties. Hormonal changes at puberty  are thought to influence the development of both brain structure and function.

Recent research indicates that there is a window of development for some cognitive functions, and if this window is missed, cognitive development does not resume later even if blockers are discontinued. A reduction in long-term spatial memory was found to persist after discontinuation of blockers in a recent study on sheep, which concluded:

This result suggests that the time at which puberty normally occurs may represent a critical period of hippocampal plasticity. Perturbing normal hippocampal formation in this peripubertal period may also have long lasting effects on other brain areas and aspects of cognitive function. 

You’ll notice the wording is far from absolutist. The result suggests, the time may represent, perturbing normal formation may have lasting effects. This isn’t the usual Guardian-style manipulation, this is normal caution with new and sparse research.

Two previous studies which analysed IQ performance in girls taking puberty blockers for central precocious puberty also suggest the possibility that GnRHa treatment may have an adverse impact on cognitive functioning in children. The first study of 25 children in 2001 found a drop of 7 IQ points after two years on blockers. The second study in 2016 found a drop of 8 IQ points in 15 girls compared to a matched control group. An analysis of these studies is here.

Oy. On the other hand is there a control group? Maybe everybody sheds IQ points during puberty?

A study in 2017 of men with late stage prostate cancer found that treatment with GnRH analogs affects cognitive functions such as language ability, short-term memory capacity, mental flexibility, and inhibitory control.

Oy. Not functions you want to reduce. Also – could help explain the childish unreasonable bad-tempered nature of the “activism.”

At any rate, the issue needs more attention, if you ask me.

We need more oil to get those prices down but don’t go producing more oil because climate.

Next up: fly us to the moon on gossamer wings.

The Post:

Battered politically by high gasoline prices and pressed to increase oil and gas production, Biden nonetheless attempted to convince countries to keep pursuing policies aimed at combating climate change.

“We cannot, we cannot afford to let the critical goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to slip out of our reach,” the president said to leaders at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. “The science tells us the window for action is rapidly narrowing.”

And the news media and vox pop tell us we have to get those gas prices down.

It’s not just a few wannabe-Hitlers, it’s the Republican party.

[T]he immediate danger to American democracy stems from the fact that the Republican party is justifying all this, remains united behind the man responsible, and, worst of all, actually wants to put him back in power. This is about Trump, but not just about Trump. This is what the Republican party is: the very few voices siding against Trumpism are being shunned and ostracized, and most Republicans are united in their quest to install authoritarian rule by a reactionary minority.

And even if conservatives aren’t necessarily on board with all the specifics of Trump’s conspiracy claims, the right in general is united behind the idea that progressives are out to destroy “real” America and must be stopped by whatever means. White conservatives consider themselves the sole proponents of “real America” and therefore entitled to rule, as is the party that focuses almost solely on their interests and sensibilities.

See for instance this tweet from the repellent Jim Jordan today:

What’s a fascist takeover compared to expensive gas?!

This is the basis on which 147 congressional Republicans voted to overturn the election results even after the assault on the Capitol. This is why the Republican party officially defended the violent attack of January 6 as “legitimate political discourse” and lashed out against the few Republicans who publicly dared to object. This is why Republicans are either explicitly running on the big lie or, at the very least, are lending legitimacy to the idea that there was something wrong with the 2020 election.

…

And how are the people the hearings present as Team Normal, as standing up to Trump’s coup attempt, dealing with all this? Take Bill Barr: he’s on record saying he would vote for Trump in 2024. In his testimony for the committee as well as in his book, Barr has left no doubt that he believes Trump is either willfully pushing treasonous conspiracy theories or is completely detached from reality – yet Barr is still willing to help put him back in the White House.

Barr’s ability to rationalize this astonishing balancing act is the main reason I am skeptical that the hearings, by focusing narrowly on Trump, could succeed at turning Republicans away from him. When confronted with how he could possibly still support another Trump presidency during his book promotion tour earlier this year, Barr replied: “Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic party.” There it is: after everything we have been through, conservatives still see the Democrats (or progressives, or liberals, or the left – they see them as interchangeable) as the biggest threat.

I suppose that’s because Barr is a religious fanatic and a theocrat, and the Dems with all their faults (gender ideology very much among them) are not Team Theocracy.

If they could at least manage to talk about it honestly that would be a start.

First sentence of Libby Brooks’s article on a survey of attitudes toward trans people:

The British public are not bitterly polarised over trans equality, according to new research, which found a majority agreed schools should talk to pupils about transgender issues and that one in four knows a trans person personally.

But “equality” has nothing to do with it. Nobody wants trans people to be “unequal” in some never-specified way. The well is poisoned in the title and the very first sentence, and of course goes on being poisoned throughout.

Thought to be the most in-depth UK study to date of public attitudes to what has become a notoriously toxic discourse in politics and on social media, the report from More in Common identifies a radically different attitude among ordinary people, who approach issues of gender identity from a position of compassion and fairness, often informed by their own relationships with trans people.

Radically different from what? Notoriously toxic in what way? She doesn’t say, but she does then imply that we – feminist women critical of trans ideology – oppose compassion and fairness. Poison poison poison that well.

More than 5,000 people surveyed for the thinktank did not see trans issues as a big divide in Britain today, with rows about JK Rowling or the Keira Bell case barely mentioned in focus group discussions held across Scotland, England and Wales. However, people did feel strongly that trans women should not compete against cis women in professional sporting events.

In other words they think what we think, but we stand accused of opposing equality, being toxic, and opposing compassion and fairness. Talk about manipulative…

Writing in the Guardian, More in Common’s UK director, Luke Tryl, said the research had uncovered little interest in “the latest ‘gotcha’ trend of posing questions to senior politicians about whether or not women can have penises”.

Aw yeah hahaha why would anyone ask a stupid gotcha question like that, apart from women who don’t want to be forced to pretend men are women in all circumstances and locations.

Polling showed wide support for openness in education. In contrast to the advice last month of the attorney general, Suella Braverman, that schools do not have to accommodate pupils who want to change gender, there is also broad agreement that schools should support young people exploring their identity.

There it is again. Libby Brooks apparently cannot help doing this manipulative translation everywhere. Changing gender is not the same thing as exploring identity. Disguising the first as the second is reckless and destructive. Of course young people should be free to “explore their identity”; trying to change your sex is a much more drastic endeavor. She said “change gender” but that’s another manipulation.

But the interviews also revealed some concerns about medical treatments for young people who were questioning their gender identity, with the majority believing physical interventions towards transition should not start before the age of 18. While almost half of the public are comfortable with the idea that someone should be able to take hormone blockers under the age of 18, they are much less likely to say the same about cross-sex hormones, and a significant minority believe that gender reassignment surgery should only be available to those aged 21 and over.

That of course is because “the public” has been told for years that hormone blockers are harmless and fully reversible, which is not true. Manipulation everywhere.

Sometimes NOW remembers who women are and what the National Organization for Women is.

Just women. Not men, not trans women, just women. It’s women who need to soak up menstrual blood without getting it all over the furniture, not men.

Other times they struggle a bit.

They mean male violence against women, but are apparently squeamish about saying so. “Gender-based violence” is more tactful.

Women’s lives. No men die in childbirth or risky illegal abortions.

I remember when the National Organization for Women was an organization for women. Seems like only yesterday.

When will this childish shit stop. Yes of course women are the only people who need access to abortion care. Men don’t need it because men don’t get pregnant. (There’s plenty to say about how abortion rights benefit men too, but that’s a different subject, and not what NOW means.) Women need access to abortion and women need a lot of other things too. The fight has not been won. It is not time to move on from feminism and give the men who want to pretend to be women a chance.

A Holyrood equalities committee is discussing reform of the Gender Recognition Act while refusing to talk to women. It’s talking about giving away women’s rights while barring women from their talk. How do they justify this to themselves?

A former Olympic athlete turned politician has slammed Holyrood’s equalities committee, describing its scrutiny of a bill to reform the Gender Recognition Act as a “sham” after it refused to hear from female atheletes concened about the impact of legislation on women’s sport.

Brian Whittle, a gold medallist in the 4x400m relay at the 1986 and 1994 European championships, and a competitor at the Seoul Olympics in 1988, said the committee was only inviting people “who give the answers they want to hear”.

He was speaking after a press conference held by Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies and marathon runner Mara Yamauchi. The pair hosted the conference along with Fair Play for Women and For Women Scotland, in an Edinburgh hotel after their requests to address the equalities committee directly were turned down.

So much for equalities. “Equalities, but not for you.”

Despite the contested nature of the bill, committee members have said they are satisfied with the evidence of two men, Malcolm Dingwall-Smith, Strategic Partnerships Manager at sportscotland, and Hugh Torrence, executive director of LEAP Sports Scotland, both of whom told the committee reforming the GRA does not impact significantly on sport.

Easy for them to say.

At last, the man says, finally, FINALLY, after all these years dragging ourselves through the sand, longing for water – finally a man steps in to bestow clarity on all this womany screeching.

Responses are somewhat acerbic.

Billy Bragg is happy about it though. Well he would be.

Imagine working in local government (as I have, working for the Zoo and the Aquarium and the Parks Department) and having your union make declarations of belief in obvious lies. The union’s position is clear: men are women. Brilliant.

Grim. Unison, the UK union for public service workers, has declared war on gender critical feminism.

UNISON local government conference unanimously passed a motion in support of trans rights this afternoon, recognising the importance of the union being loud and visible in support of its trans members.

Speaking in support of the motion, UNISON LGBT+ delegate Anu Prashar commented on the hostile media treatment of trans women in particular saying “this is the same tactic used against gay men in the section 28 era, when they were portrayed as sexual predators and a danger to children. We have seen it all before.”

No, it isn’t. It isn’t the same at all. Why is it “trans women in particular”? Because they push women aside and try to usurp everything that belongs to women – our rights, our sports, our refuges, our resistance, everything. Because trans women are men, and thus are the dominant half of the woman-man dyad. Because trans women are men and thus are used to being able to demand respect and obedience and anything else they want. Because trans women are men and thus a potential danger to women in some circumstances.

“This is why our union needs to be at the forefront of this debate, making sure our trans members are able to go to work free of fear, harassment and bullying.”

But what about their women members?

The motion also encouraged the negotiation of inclusive language in local government agreements and policies, urging branches to promote the fact sheet ‘why pronouns are important’ and ask employers to adopt a policy that allows all staff to have their pronouns on name badges, ID cards and email signatures.

Next year it will be requiring all staff to have “their” pronouns on everything.

The motion also included a commitment to provide members with materials to counter the ‘gender critical’ narrative and provide information on the links between the gender critical movement in the UK and the far right.

It’s not a narrative, it’s analysis and activism. Calling it a narrative is a sneaky way of calling it a lie.

Conference agreed that targeting a minority, and spreading false information to provoke hatred and distrust by preying on people’s fears, are ‘classic far right recruitment tactics’.

Conference agreed all that while targeting a minority and spreading false information to provoke hatred and distrust.

One more grovel added to the mountain.

What did he say?

You can call that “mean” all you want, but the reality is it’s true. Organizations for women obey this new rule that we must not mention women in connection with pregnancy or childbirth or nursing or mothers. The more people object the better. The more celebrities object the better. The fewer people and celebrities who apologize the next day THE MUCH MUCH BETTER.

Crap news out of Brazil:

Brazilian police say a suspect has confessed to burying the bodies of missing British journalist Dom Phillips and indigenous expert Bruno Pereira.

Detective Eduardo Fontes said the man, Amarildo da Costa de Oliveira, took investigators to a site where human remains were dug up.

He said police would work with Interpol to confirm the bodies’ identities.

…

Mr Phillips, 57, and Mr Pereira, 41, disappeared in a remote part of the Amazon rainforest that is rife with illegal poaching, mining and logging on 5 June.

…

Univaja, the region’s indigenous association, was the first to alert authorities when the pair went missing.

The group expressed its “deep sadness” following the news conference.

It said of the men’s deaths: “Univaja understands their murder is a political crime, they were both human rights defenders and died doing work to look after us indigenous people from Vale do Javari.”

Human rights defenders and, as I understand it, Amazon defenders. The two are entangled. Indigenous people are a hindrance to the destructive exploitation of the Amazon, so defending them is also defending the Amazon.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Happy clappy castration time.

Susan Buchanan, the director of National Specialist Services Division Scotland, apologised for the documents being uploaded in error and said her organisation would now commence a full investigation into the incident.

It shouldn’t be hard to find out who tried to insert these ideas into the document. Whoever it was should be fired. Perhaps this was somebody’s trial balloon, reeled in and walked back as soon as there was pushback. Had there not been, it would have stayed in place and become normalized as policy. I’m guessing that much of the genderist agenda that’s been introduced into various institutions and organizations has followed a similar path. Push, push, push, then wait to see what happens. Push: put TiMs in women’s prisons. Push: stop recording the sex of offenders. Push: let men who claim to be women compete against women. Push: erase the word “woman” from use in communications aimed specifically at women. If there are complaints, apologize and claim it was a “mistake.” If there is little or no resistance, (or resistance that can be dismissed and ignored), it stays put. Once established as the standard, resist reversals of policy once opposition arises (especially if it is only from women.) Rinse. Repeat.

None of these were “mistakes.” The only “mistake” was getting caught.Somebody, somewhere, thought these were all good policy ideas. Someone had to suggest them; others had to say “yes.” Then there’s implementation and enforcement. That’s not an accidental process. These things take time and effort and deliberation (even if the initial circle of decision makers is small.) They don’t happen by themselves, without guidance and planning. It’s as likely as “accidentally” building a cathedral.

If you’re around like-minded people, you might not know just how aberrant the ideas you’re batting around might look to the unwashed and unitiated masses. Not everyone is going to find the contents of your id as enternaining as you do. The usual tools of discussion, consultation, and debate are a necessary reality check that, ideally, should rein in stupid or dangerous ideas. The fact that these tools were not used in establishing the above noted “inclusive” policies that feminists are now trying to roll back, is all too obvious.

Scottish NHS hypes the joys of being a eunuch.

Eunuch should be recognised as a formal gender identity, according to documents published by the Scottish NHS.

The National Gender Identity Clinical Network for Scotland (NGICNS) shared the claims from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) that “eunuch-identified people” were the “least visible” trans group and would benefit from “gender affirming medical care”. 

The paper was deleted on Wednesday night and the Scottish Government issued an apology, claiming it had been published by mistake. 

Gender-affirming medical care for eunuchs is castration, so that’s what they’re suggesting.

Eunuchs “generally desire to have their testicles surgically removed or rendered non-functional”, the document states. 

It adds that eunuchs should be offered “surgical intervention” if there is a risk that withholding treatment could lead to them attempting to carry out a medical procedure themselves. 

The paper also provided a direct link to a website which includes graphic and sexually explicit fictional descriptions of child eunuchs. 

All very healthy and useful I’m sure.

Other organisations to endorse eunuch as a gender identity are the Royal College of Nursing, which cited it as an “alternative” alongside terms such as “boygirl”, “girlboy” or “gender queer”. 

…

David Parker, lead clinician at the NGICNS and a WPATH member, this week called on MSPs to back proposed SNP reforms which would make it far easier for trans people to change their legal sex to male or female. 

He told a Holyrood committee scrutinising the plans that trans and non-binary people were “the experts in their own experience” and should be “recognised as their authentic selves”.

That’s a shockingly ignorant and stupid thing for a medical person to say. People are not [necessarily or invariably] experts in their own experience. On the contrary: we’re subject to all kinds of distortions when trying to understand ourselves. There are shelves and shelves of books on the subject. A fantasy self is not an “authentic” self just because someone claims it – it remains a fantasy. It may be useful or consoling in some way if kept in bounds, but it’s not “authentic” in the sense of being the truth and something other people are required to endorse.

Susan Buchanan, the director of National Specialist Services Division Scotland, apologised for the documents being uploaded in error and said her organisation would now commence a full investigation into the incident. 

Well, make sure not to castrate it.

What I’ve always said about skirts – they’re designed to confine and hobble women and girls.

A North Carolina school violated the constitutional rights of its female pupils by requiring them to wear skirts, a US federal court has ruled.

The Charter Day School, in the city of Leland, had said its uniform promoted girls as “fragile vessels” deserving of courteous and gentle treatment.

But a group of parents who challenged the policy said it put their daughters at a disadvantage compared to males.

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed on Wednesday by a 10-6 vote.

How do skirts “promote girls [and women] as fragile vessels”? By inhibiting them. By hobbling them and reducing their freedom of movement. The think about skirts is the ever present danger of humiliation.

Writing the majority opinion, Senior Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said Charter Day had “imposed the skirts requirement with the express purpose of telegraphing to children that girls are ‘fragile,’ require protection by boys, and warrant different treatment than male students, stereotypes with potentially devastating consequences for young girls”.

In skirts they can’t run around as freely, they can’t wrestle, they can’t play so energetically they might fall. They can’t hang from the trapeze by their ankles or knees. I was quite proud of myself as a little kid when I mastered both skills, but I could only do them at home, not at school.

Plaintiffs in the North Carolina case were parents whose female students attend kindergarten through eighth grade at Charter Day, and were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union non-profit.

They argued the dress code had led their daughters to receive unequal treatment and limited their ability to participate in activities like recess or emergency drills.

“I’m glad the girls at Charter Day School will now be able to learn, move, and play on equal terms as the boys in school,” lead plaintiff Bonnie Peltier said in a statement following the ruling.

Exactly.

It’s here chapter 872:

Recent climate twists have helped propel California into a third straight year of drought. Seven of the past 10 years have been dry. Some scientists say the state is in a megadrought not seen in 1,200 years.

People are starting to move away from California.

The 2020 and 2021 fire seasons were the biggest in modern California history. Last year, more than 2.5 million acres burned, an extraordinary run of flames that included destruction of the Gold Rush-era town of Greenville in the northern Sierra and the gutting of the community of Grizzly Flats west of Lake Tahoe.

And it’s not going to get better this year.

Don’t take a sociology course at the University of Auckland.

No doubt Bible colleges operate like that (and thus probably render their degrees useless for most secular career purposes), but you wouldn’t expect a real university to.

I wonder if administrators are squirming in their chairs as we speak.

Updating to add: