Misogynist Jolyon Maugham continues his misogynist “activism.”

It’s actually a lesbian gay and bisexual rights group, so his venomous lie is also homophobic. What a charmer he is.

NARAL on Facebook:

We’re calling on President Biden to propose a budget that ensures every body can access abortion care—free from discriminatory restrictions and denial of care policies. That means dropping the Weldon Amendment, and the Hyde Amendment, once and for all. Budgets reflect our priorities, and we need a budget that prioritizes reproductive freedom.

What on earth does “GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” have to do with NARAL? What does NARAL have to do with it? And why, why, WHY is “GENDER AFFIRMING CARE” on a large banner spang in the middle where it catches the eye while “ABORTION CARE” is on a small sign off to the side where the eye misses it?

They haven’t retrofitted everything though, at least not yet. If you go to the abortion access page whoopsie women make a return appearance. I wonder how long that will last.

The right to choose abortion is essential to ensuring a woman can decide for herself if, when and with whom to start or grow a family. We’ll never stop fighting to protect and expand this fundamental human right.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that affirmed abortion as a constitutional right for all was supposed to be the beginning of the fight for women’s equality and autonomy, not the end. Since then, we’ve been forced to defend it over and over again as anti-choice politicians and organizations focus on undermining and chipping away at our rights until they can do away with legal abortion access completely. They’ve passed hundreds of laws to restrict a woman’s ability to access abortion care. These laws take many forms, including trying to outlaw abortion altogether, shutting down clinics, restricting access based on income level and dictating which medical procedures are available.

Anti-choice extremists will stop at nothing. They have opened thousands of fake health-care “clinics” that lie to and mislead women to prevent them from considering abortion as an option. And some anti-abortion zealots—emboldened by extreme rhetoric from anti-choice groups and politicians—have even murdered doctors and bombed clinics.

When the right to abortion is endangered, the fundamental equality of women is threatened. A woman can never be equal if she is denied the basic right to make decisions for herself and her family.

Bolding added.

They used to know. They used to know that of course it was about and for and to and at women. They used to know that pregnancy is why women are dominated and controlled and pushed around, and that it’s women who are dominated and controlled and pushed around, because of that whole pregnancy thing. Because duh. Of course they knew that; how would it be possible not to know that? It’s all the same knot: the reproductive role, the dimorphism, the domination/subordination. They used to know that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

They even still do know, once you leave the front page. But on the front page, and on Twitter, somehow they don’t know any more. They don’t know and they even push away women who do still know.

On NARAL’s front page:

“Reproductive rights are essential for achieving gender equality.” What do they mean by that? What does that sentence mean? What is gender equality?

Gender equality means an end to the social and cultural and mental arrangements by which women are seen as inferior to men in every way, and as subordinate to men as a law of nature (and nature’s “God” for the many people who believe in such a thing).

That’s what gender equality means, so that has to be what NARAL meant by it.

So then why are they trying to tell us that abortion rights are for everyone? Why are they talking about people needing abortions instead of women? Why are they Twitter-blocking feminist women who object to this erasure?

Why do they on the one hand cite the need for gender equality and on the other hand try to bully women into agreeing that men too get pregnant and need abortion rights? Why do they go from gender equality at the beginning of the paragraph to people who choose to work while pregnant?

What the hell is wrong with them?

Golly, it was less than a month ago that NARAL was telling us (“reminding” us) that it’s not only women who get abortions. I must have given them some lip, because I now see they’ve blocked me. The big national abortion rights organization is blocking feminists who tell them to stop erasing women – that’s useful.

Anyway, they’re really pushing the “exclude women from abortion rights” line.

No it’s absolutely not that simple. It’s also not true. It’s not “inclusive” to pretend that men need abortion rights. What it is, instead, is a move to erase women, the way various civilizations have done as far back as we can see. Women are the people who get pregnant, women are the people who need to be able to get an abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant, women are the people who are imprisoned and tortured by their own bodies if they can’t get an abortion. Women. Just women. Women only. Not men. Men get to be free of this particular trap.

It’s because women are the people who get pregnant that women are also the people who are treated as suspect, and needing constant supervision and control, and subject to harsh punishment for doing things like going outside or not wearing a tent over their heads. The fact that women are the source of human beings is the reason women are treated as second class, aka inferior.

I’m pretty sure NARAL used to know this, but it seems that now all it knows is that “men can get pregnant too.”

Jesse Singal on Chase Strangio’s casual defamation of him and subsequent evasive maneuvers to avoid blame for the defamation:

Yesterday, GQ ran an interview between Saeed Jones and Chase Strangio, one of the highest-profile attorneys at the ACLU, about trans kids that contains the following passage: I think what we’re seeing now is this moment where there are these loud voices who feel so empowered and emboldened to speak out with just utter hatred for trans people. And a lot of it emerging from the UK anti-trans discourse in JK Rowling and then that sort of being an impetus for this Substack brigade, asI [sic] like to call them—that idea of the self-victimized, well-paid writer who wants nothing more than to be able to hate others without consequence. That sort of famed victimhood of censorship, which is really just self-censorship and complaining, whether it was JK Rowling, or Abigail Shrier, and Bari Weiss. And then it became sort of the cause of Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald and Jesse Singal and all these other people who are just somehow finding their moment to be like, “Oh yes, trans people are so disgusting. And I feel that way. And now I get to frame this around my right to speak without criticism.” I did not necessarily anticipate the magnitude of the public discursive escalation and the sense of empowerment that people feel attacking trans people, and doing so while fueling a very dangerous set of legal and policy objectives that I think even these people would claim to not be aligned with. [emphasis mine]

Well you see it all hinges on how you interpret “to be like.” If you take it to be a ubiquitous substitute for “say” then it seems defamatory, but if it’s an actual comparison then…it’s entirely unclear what Strangio meant.

I’m kidding. It’s the ubiquitous substitute for say thing.

The bolded passage is straightforwardly defamatory. I don’t know if it rises to the level of legal defamation, which is a high threshold in the United States, and I have no plans on suing anyone. But in the straightforward sense of “lying about people in public to attempt to harm their reputations,” it obviously qualifies.

So Chase Strangio, arguably the face of the ACLU at this point, decided to fabricate allegations about a number of journalists in the pages of GQ. Not the behavior you’d expect from someone in that sort of position. Strange times, I guess.

There’s a lot about Chase Strangio that you wouldn’t expect from someone in that sort of position.

That was yesterday. Today, Strangio backtracked a bit, seeming to blame this both on an absent period but also on us rubes who “are choosing to read [the passage] in a particular way.” (The “particular way” in question being “the exact plain meaning of the text, as per basic linguistic conventions regarding the use of conjunctions,” I guess. God, we’re idiots!)

Strangio four hours ago:

Yes people “chose to read it” the way it was written. How foolish and uninclusive.

Then a staff attorney popped up to do some more parsing of the meaning so that Strangio would look like an innocent bystander.

Singal sums up:

I just find this sequence bizarre:

1. High-profile ACLU staffer defames a bunch of people.

2. Said staffer blames the defamation on a missing period and/or people reading the sentence the way a human would rather than the way a lawyer would.

3. ACLU staff attorney chimes in publicly to say, in effect, “Well, it isn’t technically libel because of this nerdy legal rule.”

I don’t understand how anyone at the ACLU could possibly find this acceptable. I’m not wrong in thinking the organization used to be better-functioning and more professional than this, right?

He’s not wrong but that was before Twitter.

Hahahaha Loser Trump is trying to get around the Twitter ban, and failing.

Twitter has suspended an account replicating posts from former President Donald Trump’s new blog, saying it violated the company’s rules against ban evasion.

…

The account profile for @DJTDesk — an abbreviation for the former president’s new “From The Desk of Donald J. Trump” web page — was taken down after tweeting posts identical to his messages on the blog, according to screenshots tweeted by NBC News and other users. The account featured branding identical to Trump’s website, including the same profile picture and banner, according to the images.

Pure coincidence. Nothing to do with Trump.

It was not immediately clear if the account was officially linked to the former president’s team or his Save America coalition, which funds the blog. Twitter declined comment on the matter.

…

Not their first go-around: After Trump’s prolific personal Twitter account @realDonaldTrump was permanently suspended by Twitter on Jan. 8, his aides sought to circumvent the ban by posting messages identical to his tweets on his campaign account and the official White House account. Twitter responded by permanently suspending the Trump campaign account and removing the White House tweets.

Well that’s what happens when you try to insurrect.

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug at Miscellany 6.

I recently finished reading A Lot of People Are Saying – The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy by Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum. In it the authors make a distinction between “classical conspiracy theories” and what they call the “new conspiracism” which they describe as “conspiracy without the theory”. Where the former were at the very least attempts to explain real events and appealed to supposedly “scientific” data and “rational” arguments (e.g. the obsession of 9-11 truthers with the temperature of burning jet fuel and the melting point of steel), the new conspiracisms don’t attempt to explain anything (more often than not, there isn’t even anything to explain), are based on nothing but assertion (“the election was rigged!”), insinuation, or innuendo (“there’s something there”, “a lot of people are saying”), and substitutes endless repetition, as well as “liking”, sharing, retweeting, forwarding etc. for evidence and argument. I do think the authors tend to give the classical conspiracy theorists more credit than they deserve, but that’s an argument for another day.

The new conspiracism doesn’t even require belief in the literal truth of the conspiratorial claims as stated, only the notion that they are “true enough” (“it’s entirely plausible”, “it wouldn’t surprise me”), which seems to jibe well with the logic of the post-truth era: “It might not be literally true that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex trafficking ring from the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington DC, but I’m going to go with it anyway. It’s exactly the kind of thing she would be capable of after all. Just look at the thing with the emails! I hate her, so anything I can use against her is fine by me. Who cares if its technically ‘true’ or not?! Everybody is always lying anyway, so I might as well go with the lies that favor my own tribe.”. There is also what I have called the “Superman Fallacy” because it’s almost the perfect flip-side of a straw man: As we all know, a straw man is a dishonest portrayal of the views of your opponents specifically designed to be easily refuted or even self-evidently absurd. A Superman by contrast is a dishonest portrayal of your own views specifically designed to be easily defended, e.g. claiming for a fact that Obama tapped Donnie’s phone, and then, when challenged, moving the goalpost to “it’s possible”, “it could be true” etc. Or if you want to have it both ways: use insinuation and innuendo to get the the idea of a conspiracy out there, and then abdicate any responsibility by claiming to be “just asking questions”, requesting more information (“somebody should look into that”, “what I already know is disturbing enough”) etc.

As people like Timothy Snyder and Peter Pomerantsev have pointed out, the new authoritarians are different from the tyrannies of the past in that they don’t actually require you to believe anything, only to distrust everyone enough to dismiss any criticism of authoritarianism as well as any appeal to “democracy”, “rights”, the “rule of law” etc. as part of somebody else’s nefarious plot or hidden agenda: In other words conspiracism! Even people who know perfectly well that there’s no truth to the claims often end up either actively endorsing them or passively failing to correct them, whether out of cynical opportunism, tribalism, or cowardice.

The result is delegitimation, beginning with the political opposition. Delegitimation goes deeper than any normal disagreement or conflict over policy. I.e. the opposition is not just portrayed as wrong, or misguided, or even dishonest, but outright criminal, treasonous, or even totally evil. There is no room for argument, negotiation or compromise with pedophiles, murderers, and traitors determined to destroy everything you hold dear in this world. You just do whatever it takes to stop them, and if that means playing dirty, cheating, throwing out democratic rules of the game, then so be it. Besides the political opposition the other main target of deligitimation are knowledge-producing institutions and expertise in general, from climate scientists to the FBI, and from Anthony Fauci to the free press. Again the explicit or implicit claim is that these institutions are not just flawed, or wrong, or even biased, but actively engaged in a criminal plot against the nation and its leader. The delegitimation of independent institutions obviously has the potential to become a self-fulfillimg prophecy: The initial accusations become a pretext for defunding the institution, filling it with loyalists, or ignoring it altogether. As a result the institution does indeed begin to look increasingly corrupt, dysfunctional, and illegitimate, thus providing further justification for getting rid of it entirely.

This goes beyond mere political polarization into what the authors call “epistemic polarization”, i.e. people are not just divided over what is in fact true, but what it even means to “know” something and ultimately who “owns reality”. The new conspiracism, based as it is on mere assertion, is very much like divine revelation in that it claims special insight into layers of reality that are hidden to everyone else, cannot be independently tested or verified, and must therefore be taken on faith. Ultimately this whole situation is incompatible with democracy. Without a shared set of facts, or even a common understanding of what it would take to get to an agreement, it becomes impossible to make informed decisions, have reasoned, intelligent arguments or even disagree in any meaningful sense. When that happens, there is nothing left to appeal to but brute force.

Queen’s University promotes Gegi the leering unicorn, which is perhaps less surprising when you see that one of the “researchers” behind Gegi is at Queen’s University, and that the author of the promo is Julie Brown, Queen’s University Media Relations Officer. In other words it’s a literal promo.

Queen’s researcher Lee Airton has created Gegi.ca, an online resource that helps students advocate for their gender expression and gender identity human rights.

But why do students need to “advocate for their gender expression and gender identity human rights”? God only knows what that even means, but in any case why do they need to advocate for whatever it is?

I don’t think there’s any such thing as “gender expression human rights” and “gender identity human rights.” I think those are pseudo-rights, invented by these two fools.

Queen’s researcher Lee Airton, Assistant Professor of Gender and Sexuality Studies in Education, and Kyle Kirkup, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law (Common Law Section) at the University of Ottawa, have launched an online resource that targets elementary and high school students and educators seeking more information about gender identity and gender expression human rights protections.

Where does the leering unicorn come in?

With “Gegi” – a beautiful/handsome nonbinary unicorn – as their guide, K-12 students across Ontario can acquire information and tools to self-advocate within their school and school board.

You have got to be joking.

Just for a start do they seriously think kids past 2d grade or so are going to sit still for that patronizing cartoon horse-clown? But more to the point what is this “advocacy” the weirdo grownups are trying to nudge them to do? Notify the media when little Joey comes to school wearing a ribbon in his hair?

Gegi.ca was created following a study by Dr. Airton and Dr. Kirkup of how Ontario school boards were responding to their new legal responsibilities to offer an environment free from two separate forms of discrimination: for who you are gender-wise (your gender identity), and how you let others know through things like your clothing, grooming, and behaviour (your gender expression). 

Shorter, blunter version: boys shouldn’t be bullied for being girly and girls shouldn’t be bullied for not being girly enough. Can’t that just be folded into whatever the schools are doing to prevent bullying? Which is usually not enough, so why not focus on that instead of chopping ever finer the talking points of The Sacred Trans Idenniny?

Each Ontario school board (public and Catholic) will have two dedicated student and staff web pages on gegi.ca. These pages connect students and their loved ones or staff directly to relevant board policies and suggest what a Gegi visitor can do or whom to contact if their board has not yet updated its policies. Students are also invited to download and share information about their gender identity or gender expression human rights in relation to athletics, field trips, and washroom or changing room access directly with school staff or administration.

There are the teachers and administrators trying to educate a few hundred children and there’s this constant parade of students shoving “information” about their “gender expression” in their faces. It sounds like hell on earth.

It’s almost funny how in circles it goes, saying the same thing over and over because there’s so little to say.

“Gegi.ca is a powerful resource for Ontario students and their families to ensure their gender identity and gender expression is protected and that students can thrive and grow in our schools,” says Rebecca Luce-Kapler, Dean, Faculty of Education.

Yeah thanks we got that but we still don’t know what you’re babbling about.

Never mind. Just pat the Gegi.

Hmm.

That looks…kind of creepy. Also K-12? The content looks too old for the younger ones and the style looks too young for the older ones.

But also…

What?! That’s a new one to me, but if true…well, one wonders what the thinking is. (It doesn’t come up on the top results on Google.)

Scrolling through its tweets it seems to be about pushing “gender expression” in schools, because it’s so urgent to teach children to “express” their bespoke “gender.”

Never mind all that frivolous academic stuff about history and science and math, just focus on the important business of Gender Expression with the help of a creepy lewd horse cartoon.

“Gender expression rights protection” – say what? I guess that’s if a boy decides to come to school in a bra and a thong that’s his protected gender expression right.

What does that mean? How do you teach math or history “as if there is always gender diversity in the room”?

It seems to be the work of these two guys:

The goal seems to be to raise a generation of the most self-obsessed people in the history of the world.

Won’t someone spare a thought for the exiled and silenced Josh Hawley?

Since Jan. 6, when the Missouri Republican was photographed fist-pumping his support for some of the very fine people who would later storm the United States Capitol, Hawley has been all but banished from the media. Other than his frequent appearances on some of the most popular cable news shows in the country, his biting Twitter account, the Instagram account where he posts family snapshots and clips from cable hits, and his YouTube page collecting his nearly every utterance on the Senate floor, Hawley has suffered the worst fate known to a modern American politician: cancellation.

But as Nelson Mandela wrote while imprisoned on Robben Island, “Difficulties break some men but make others.” Hawley, in that spirit, has only been stiffened by his battle with what he calls “the titans of woke capital.”

Simon & Schuster dropped plans to publish a book of Hawley’s and it took a whole two weeks for Regnery to step into the breach. (Now, granted, Regnery is a great many steps down the respectability ladder from Simon & Schuster, but Hawley isn’t all that into respectability anyway.)

He’s so canceled that he’s reduced to flogging his book on…uh…Twitter.

Sex Matters live-tweeted another judicial hearing on whether or not men can force themselves on women. R is respondent, J is judge.

R: it may be justified to exclude trans people, but that question would have to be asked 

The proportionality test will always depend on the particular facts. How could you possibly decide that every women’s refuge and every women’s changing room must always exclude transwomen? 

Well that’s easy. You could decide it the way you decide that every women’s refuge and every women’s changing room must always exclude men, because that’s what calling them women’s refuges and changing rooms means. If you don’t exclude men then they’re not women’s any more. We already know that women need their own changing rooms (and toilets) for their own safety as well as privacy, and that they need their own refuges for the same reason.

It cannot be the case that you must exclude transwomen from women’s changing rooms. 

The Commission states that there must be strong reasons not to treat someone according to their acquired gender.

J: this means fully physically indistinguishable?

R: yes. Post-operative transexuals are indistinguishable from women, hence there should be strong reasons to treat them differently. 

No, they’re not.

Anyway “indistinguishable from” isn’t the issue. Men don’t rape or spy on women because they “appear” male, they do it because they want to rape or spy on women, for reasons to do with sex and aggression and their unfortunate entanglement with each other. Disguising men as women doesn’t change that in the slightest. Fiddling with hormones maybe does change it some, but women have no way to know the hormone histories of men in their shelters and changing rooms.

J: would that also entail that refusing admission to a woman’s hostel would also need to be exceptional? Or does it mean that the situation itself is exceptional?

R: that the situation itself is exceptional. You have to balance detriment to one group against the other. 

No you don’t. You don’t have to slice and dice all rights so that all groups get to have some of them. Women’s rights are women’s rights, and no we don’t have to share some of them with men until we achieve “balance.” The “group” in question is an invented group that’s based on a lot of absurd counter-factual claims, and no they don’t get to help themselves to half of our rights.

More fawning coverage of “Laurel” Hubbard’s successful cheating:

Weightlifting has been at the centre of the debate over the fairness of transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, and Hubbard’s presence in Tokyo is set to attract huge media attention as well as criticism from fellow lifters and coaches.

Her gold medal wins at the 2019 Pacific Games in Samoa, where she topped the podium ahead of Samoa’s Commonwealth Games champion Feagaiga Stowers, triggered outrage in the island nation.

Australia’s weightlifting federation sought to block Hubbard from competing at the 2018 Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast but organisers rejected the move.

In other words organisers said a big “fuck you” to women in weightlifting.

Stark raving mad.

A 25-year-old from Huddersfield has implored people to help them become comfortable in their own skin by donating money for life-changing gender reassignment surgery.

Pan Hollingworth, who was born in Leeds and moved to the West Yorkshire town in 2010, came out as non-binary 10 years ago after previously identifying as genderqueer.

They realised during childhood there was a “disconnection” with either gender as they did not conform to being male or female. After researching online, they then found a term which they could relate to.

“I was online quite a lot as a 16-year-old and I just came across this phrase,” Pan said. “I came out as genderqueer first as I knew I wasn’t a girl but also that I wasn’t a boy.

So then what surgery is required? If you’re neither then what surgery can you possibly “need” in order to match your chosen Gender Idenniny?

Maybe the idea is just to chop off everything that protrudes, and seal up everything that opens? So a non-binary assigned male gets his bits chopped off and a non-binary assigned female gets her bits sewn up (much as in FGM) and her tits chopped off? The aim is the doll under the clothes look? That smooth immaculate band of plastic between the legs?

Assessments with clinicians cost up to £300 each time, with surgery costs set to be as much as £9,000. To help with the costs, Pan is asking people for help in their fight to raise enough money for “top surgery” which will entail a double mastectomy or chest reconstruction surgery.

So Pan can’t get the annoying tits chopped off on the NHS?

“It would be unbelievable if people could help and it would mean the absolute world,” Pan said.

“It is so important and there are tons of people that are creating GoFundMe pages and I’m just one of them.

“It’s massively important for people to get the health care they need, especially with the NHS underfunded and understaffed.”

Well yes, it is important for people to get the health care they need, but cutting off healthy breasts because the breasts-haver claims to be “non-binary” is not actually health care.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre – the one that just made a trans woman its CEO – offers no women-only services.

We respect the courage and strength it takes to speak out about your experience whether it has been a recent assault or it happened a long time ago. When you contact us we will offer you a face-to-face support session. You can use this time in any way you choose, and we can talk through what support we offer. 

Our specialist trauma-informed support services are open to women, all members of the trans community, non-binary people and young people aged 12 – 18 who have experienced any form of sexual violence at any time in their lives, by abusers of any gender. This includes rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse and commercial sexual exploitation.

So, open to women and some men – which is unfortunate for women raped by men, which will be nearly all raped women.

We will listen, believe and support young people (aged 12 -18) and women and all members of the trans community of any age, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity (and non-binary people), religious and cultural background.

But they won’t listen to, believe, and support women who need women-only services.

Women only spaces

We offer women only spaces (which are inclusive of trans women) in our centre on Tuesdays 4pm – 7pm, Wednesdays 12.30pm – 4pm and Fridays 9am – 12.30pm. The rest of the week we offer appointments to people of all genders.

No women only spaces at all then. Zero.

I wonder if Edinburgh has an actual rape crisis center or two.

The new Jesus and Mo –

“You’re either non-binary or you’re not”

No room for radical feminists in the feminist movement. Interesting. I wonder what they think feminism is, exactly.

(I don’t really wonder. I don’t think they think much at all, I think they just parrot the slogans they’re told to parrot.)

Supporting the rights of trans people really isn’t essential to protecting all women. It’s beside the point. The rights of trans people appear to be 1. the right to force everyone to agree that you are the sex you aren’t and 2. the right to punish and ostracize and vilify anyone who declines to do that. Those “rights” are inimical to women’s rights, and respecting them is certainly not essential to feminism. Rather the opposite.

Well, “make history” is one way to put it. The Guardian gushes:

Trans weightlifter Laurel Hubbard set to make history at Tokyo Olympics

Laurel Hubbard is a man, and what he’s set to do at the Tokyo Olympics is steal a medal from a woman. The Guardian doesn’t admit that.

History and controversy is expected to be made at the Tokyo Olympics this summer after the transgender weightlifter Laurel Hubbard was effectively guaranteed a place in the women’s super heavyweight category.

Why controversy? Because he’s a man, so it’s cheating. Blatant, shameless, piggy cheating.

It means Hubbard, who won silver at the 2017 world championships and was sixth after a severe injury in 2019, is almost certain to become the first transgender athlete to compete at an Olympics. And while she will be the oldest weightlifter at the Games, she will also have a genuine chance of a medal given her qualifying lifts rank her fourth out of the 14 qualifiers in the 87kg-plus super heavyweight category for Tokyo.

But saying “she” every time you mention him doesn’t make Hubbard a woman. He’s not a woman.

However, her selection will sharply divide opinion between those who see it as an enormous step forward for trans athletes and others who insist she benefits from an unfair advantage.

Ah yes, they “see it” but we insist. Of course we do; we’re Karens.

Under IOC guidelines, issued in November 2015, athletes who transition from male to female can compete in the women’s category without requiring surgery to remove their testes provided their total testosterone level in serum is kept below 10 nanomoles per litre for at least 12 months – a rule followed by the IWF.

However, a number of scientific papers have recently shown people who have undergone male puberty retain significant advantages in power and strength even after taking medication to suppress their testosterone levels. Hubbard lived as a male for 35 years, and did not compete in international weightlifting. But since transitioning in 2012 she has won several elite titles.

At least they admit the significant advantages…finally. That should have been at the top, not buried many paragraphs down.

But having admitted it they then rush on as if nothing were amiss. Prepare for Hubbard’s cheat to pay off.

Last July Stonewall posted some advice on “how you can better support non-binary people.”

Is this a reciprocal type thing? Is there advice to non-binary people on how they can better support binary people?

And what is it to “support” people anyway? When it’s parents of minors, for instance, it means paying their expenses. When it’s non-binary people…?

So let’s see what Stonewall tells us.

There are many ways to be inclusive of everyone, regardless of their gender identity. Our language and the way we speak is often embedded with hidden gendered cues.

So to support non-binary people we should get rid of all those embedded hidden gendered cues, yes? Only, then, won’t trans people wonder what happened to our support of them? If we can’t say “she” any more how can we Validate the Idenniny of our trans laydee friends?

Once we start to notice them, we can move towards using language that’s inclusive for all. Here are 10 tips you can start using right away!

1. Introduce yourself with your name and pronoun. Stating your pronouns reminds people that it might not always be immediately obvious what pronoun someone uses

My pronoun is “I” – and so is everyone else’s. I don’t see where that gets anyone.

3. Instead of addressing groups of people with binary language such as ‘ladies and gentlemen’, try more inclusive alternatives such as ‘folks’, ‘pals’ or ‘everyone’

But see this is what’s worrying: won’t trans women resent this disappearance of “ladies”?

4. Use words that define the relationship instead of the relationship and gender. For example, use ‘parents’, ‘partner’, ‘children’ or ‘siblings’

But what if we’re talking about our brother or sister? We have to call them “my sibling” instead? Also see the part about trans women not wanting to see the lady words disappear.

5. Not everyone is comfortable with gendered titles such as ‘Ms’ or ‘Mr’. Titles are not always necessary, but if they must be used it’s good to provide alternative ones such as ‘Mx’ (pronounced mix or mux)

Not everyone is comfortable being called Mux, either.

6. Use the singular ‘their’ instead of ‘his/her’ in letters and other forms of writing, i.e. ‘when a colleague finishes their work’ as opposed to ‘when a colleague finishes his/her work’

Why would we say his/her? We would say her or else we would say his, because we would know who the colleague is. Are we supposed to say “their” even though we know it’s her or his? Can we refuse?

9. Make sure that your workplace, school and college policies and documents use inclusive language, i.e. using ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’ and avoiding sentences that imply two genders. Where specifically talking about gender identity, make sure it is inclusive of non-binary gender identities and not just trans men and trans women

In other words make everyone at your workplace, school, and college hate you. I don’t think so. I’m refusing whether you say I can or not.

Another item from the annals of “kink” –

A man was today found guilty over the death of his partner after a bondage game went wrong at a North Wales holiday resort.

That is, a man killed a woman during sex.

Warren Martin Coulton, 52, tied-up Claire Wright, 38, during a drug and drink fuelled session at a luxury lodge.

However, he fell asleep while she was still restrained and she suffocated to death.

Coulton found her dead when he woke up but fled the scene.

During his seven day trial, the court heard Coulton had put a sock in her mouth and may have taped it up.

In other words he killed her.

Ms Wright’s body was found in a bed by staff at the Herons Lake Retreat near Caerwys in Flintshire on July 16, 2018.

So that’s a cleaner traumatized. Very nice.

Prosecutor Caroline Rees QC said the couple brought what Coulton called “toys” – including ties, red tape, white tape and gloves – along to the resort for bondage sessions.

She said Coulton, who was 12 years older, was the “dominant” partner.

Duh. He’s the man. A pornsick reckless man who killed a woman for the sake of “kink.”

We’re told not to “kink-shame” but I say shame that crap into oblivion.