The BBC reports that phones teach boys to be aggressive misogynist little piggies.

Sexism is on the rise in schools because of harmful content on children’s phones, according to the National Education Union’s (NEU) general secretary. Daniel Kebede said boys watched “aggressive and violent pornography” and influencer content that “completely distorts their view of women”.

…

Mr Kebede’s comments come as teachers at the NEU conference, in Bournemouth, prepare to debate a motion about the rise of online misogyny and its impact in the classroom.

Kaspar Zeta-Skeet said there was an “assumption” among some teenagers he taught “that women are things just to be observed” and he had heard words such as “slut” and “whore” being used about female pupils and staff. “We know where this is coming from in terms of the social-media content surrounding… what it is to be a ‘real man’,” he said.

Yes yes yes but the important question is how does this harm our trans siblings?

Um. I don’t much want to promote Jonathan Choe, who is a Discovery Institute honcho of some kind, but I can’t just ignore this…eccentric public defender.

I don’t understand why it’s allowed. Courts wouldn’t allow a guy in a fuzzy bear costume to do the public defender thing would they? Or, more parallel to this guy’s prank, courts wouldn’t allow someone dressed up like Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer to play public defender would they?

I’m baffled.

The Taliban promises to torture women to death:

The Taliban’s Supreme Leader has vowed to start stoning women to death in public as he declared the fight against Western democracy will continue.

“You say it’s a violation of women’s rights when we stone them to death,” said Mullah Hibatullah Akhundzada in a voice message, aired on state television over the weekend, addressing Western officials. “But we will soon implement the punishment for adultery. We will flog women in public. We will stone them to death in public,” he declared in his harshest comments since taking over Kabul in August 2021.

“Harshest”? Careful, Telegraph, you don’t want to be too…er…harsh.

Also “comments”? I don’t call a promise to torture women to death in public a “comment.”

The news media seem not to have the language to talk about items like murderous hatred of women.

This isn’t a “harsh comment”; this is a vow to torture women to death for the pleasure of an audience of men. This is peak genocidal loathing of women, but the news media are too busy trying to soothe the tantrums of men in lipstick to report on it properly.

His remarks have incited outrage among Afghans, with some calling on the international community to increase pressure on the Taliban. “The money that they receive from the international community as humanitarian aid is just feeding them against women,” Tala, a former civil servant, told The Telegraph from the capital Kabul. “As a woman, I don’t feel safe and secure in Afghanistan. Each morning starts with a barrage of notices and orders imposing restrictions and stringent rules on women, stripping away even the smallest joys and extinguishing hope for a brighter future,” she added. “We, the women, are living in prison,” Tala said, “And the Taliban are making it smaller for us every passing day.”

Smaller and more deadly.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on Well knock me down with a feather.

How have so many of them managed to convince themselves that children who “have doubts about their gender identity” are in touch with a great truth as opposed to just being uncomfortable in an ordinary way that dissipates over time? How have so many managed to convince themselves that it’s better to tamper with children’s sexes rather than watch and wait?

Nobody likes Nazi Germany analogies, but the phenomenon where everybody remains complicit even in the face of the worst atrocities under certain circumstances when the social system is arranged just-so… I suspect this has to be some kind of vestigial behavioural trait from our bygone tribal apehood. (As so much of human irrational behaviour is.)

The tell that there’s something deeply primitive going on, to me, is that over and over again I hear the same thing: those of us with our eyes open make a good-faith effort to try and show our friends what’s going on, and they flat-out refuse to see or hear it, often on the verge of panic while doing so. Repeatedly, from different people on different continents, I’ve heard about lifelong friends or relatives literally putting their fingers in their ears rather than hearing us, usually right at the point when the listeners seem to know that they’re about to hear something they can’t disprove or ignore. Same with the strange phenomenon of people being less likely to read articles about transgender if they’re presented as more likely to change their minds about it.

A Hannah Arendt-ian view might say that on the matter of transgender, these people prefer to be nobodies rather than somebodies. They place the locus of responsibility outside themselves and they refuse to be persons. Their moral framework rests fundamentally on their sense of obligation to fit into the social groups they’re in. This is in contrast to the “upstanders” (as therapist Stella O’Malley calls them) for whom their moral framework rests on an inner dialogue about right and wrong, who will naturally deviate from the group if their inner moral compasses direct them to. The first group can’t bear the idea that they might have to build up a moral framework about transgenderism out of a sense of right and wrong that comes from inside their own minds — this is completely alien to them. For the second group, the locus of right and wrong already resides inside their own inner dialogue with themselves, so it comes naturally.

…they did not feel an obligation but acted according to something which was self-evident to them even though it was no longer self-evident to those around them. Hence their conscience, if that is what it was, had no obligatory character, it said, ‘This I can’t do,’ rather than, ‘This I ought not to do.’

It’s strange; there are parallels between Arendt’s philosophical ideas about individuals’ morality and ideas from anthopology and sociology about how societies are organized overall. They both come into play around the subject of gender. Arendt says that people seem to naturally gravitate towards one of two internal moral frameworks: most people rely on obligations to their in-group collective, but a minority rely on their individual, internally-constructed sense of right and wrong instead. Anthropologists say that societies tend to be organized around collectivist values or individualist ones. And furthermore, collectivistic cultures teach people to fit into the gender roles prescribed by the culture they’re in, and individualistic cultures teach people to follow their individual sense of self, which comes from within. See the parallel? People with collectivistic moral frameworks don’t see the problem with transgender, and people with individualistic moral frameworks do, just as societies with collectivistic frameworks foster gender norms and rigid gender roles, and individualistic ones don’t.

If the age of enlightenment was ushered in when individualistic thinkers with individualistic internal moral frameworks took leadership over societies — I’m thinking of the Founding Fathers, specifically — and established that the values of individualism would dominate in society, perhaps our current age, which has suddenly lurched regressively back to old collectivist gender roles, reflects a fundamental shift back to a dominance of collectivistic values over individualistic ones.

You could probably argue that we as a society have rapidly become more influenced by our social interactions with social media apps than we are by social interactions within our local communities. Social media is a collectivist as it gets: an endless popularity contest of likes, on literally a global scale.

Maybe the drug of social media is rewiring everyone’s brains to be less capable of formulating their own sense of right from wrong anymore.

Upstanders just don’t get enough likes.

Originally a comment by Sastra on Well knock me down with a feather.

I think adults have accepted Great Truth Gender Pediatrics in part because of the popularity of child-centered parenting (which may also involve child-centered schooling, child-centered therapy, and, ultimately, child-centered spirituality.) Though we need an antidote to the authoritarian “obey me without question” boogeyman-man method of parental control, the belief that children are fragile, unique flowers needing mostly love and acceptance to bloom can deteriorate rapidly into nonsense. In our rush to validate their feelings, we treat kids like miniature adults— which, as you point out, they aren’t.

Our own recollections of what it was like to be a child might actually be part of the problem here, since it’s not uncommon for us to read our adult emotions and knowledge back into our memories. That we “always knew” or “deeply felt” such-and-such is often influenced by hindsight. Our recollections aren’t pure records from the time, but reconstructions. Child-centered parenting seems to me to be centered on “what I would have wanted/needed when I was a child” and the Mini-Me result of that isn’t necessarily accurate.

Enter the cultural narrative. Just as Lady Catherine De Bourgh confidently knew that “if I had ever learnt, I should have been a great proficient” on the piano, we might confidently predict that “if I had ever identified as transgender, I would have been the real thing.” By centering the innate wisdom of the child in our view of the world, we subtly place our wise and all-knowing selves in their place. It feels like other-directed sensitivity and kindness — and it’s very tempting.

Five men on a women’s team. Not one not two not three not four but five.

Reduxx can confirm that a trans activist YouTuber is among five trans-identified males currently participating on a women’s football team in North West Sydney, Australia. Riley Dennis, who was previously accused of severely injuring women while participating on another women’s team, is now playing for The Flying Bats, which has been dominating women’s football in the region.

Gee, I wonder why.

The Flying Bats Football Club secured a 4-0 victory against the Macquarie Dragons on March 24, and of their five trans-identified players, the highest goal-scorer is a male trans activist who injured two female players during a match last year.

The team was awarded a $1,000 prize after winning the North West Sydney League pre-season Beryl Ackroyd Cup, following a season of winning every game they played in the Women’s Premier League matches, 10-0.

They would, wouldn’t they.

Reduxx has now learned the identities of the five trans-identified male athletes, and among them is a former YouTuber who drew criticism last year after injuring at least two female players. Riley Dennis, born Justin, 31, currently plays for The Flying Bats, but last year was a member of the Inter Lions team in New South Wales.

On May 21, 2023, during a game between the Inter Lions and the St. George football clubs at the Majors Bay Reserve, Dennis launched his smaller female opponent towards a metal fence using an aggressive tackle as the two chased down the ball.

Reduxx was provided footage of the match, which showed the female player lying on her side, unmoving, as the transgender player casually walked away.

The month prior, Dennis was said to have injured another female player, who reportedly had to seek hospital attention as a result of her injury. A letter-writing campaign was launched by Kirralie Smith, a spokeswoman with Binary Australia, encouraging concerned individuals to contact Football New South Wales, which reportedly then received over 12,000 submissions.

For her role in bringing awareness to the injuries sustained by female athletes, Smith was visited by New South Wales Police and handed an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) on March 30 that year requiring that she neither discuss nor approach Dennis.

Riley Dennis’s actual violence is fine. Women who object to Riley Dennis’s violence are visited by the police.

The Times on the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre hearing:

A rape crisis centre run by a trans woman has been “illegitimately” hiding the biological sex of its counsellors from victims of sexual assault, an employment tribunal has heard.

Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, whose chief executive is Mridul Wadhwa, a trans woman and activist, was said to have used “disciplinary processes to enforce its extreme and uncompromising version of gender identity theory”.

Isn’t that what rape crisis centres are for, though?

No, it damn well is not.

The dispute began when [support worker Roz Adams] consulted colleagues about a rape victim who had asked if her counsellor would be a “man or a woman” because she would feel “uncomfortable talking to a man”. It intensified when a non-binary member of the centre’s staff copied Wadhwa into an email chain and an investigation was launched into Adams’s conduct.

Her “conduct” – the conduct of asking what sex her counsellor at a rape crisis centre would be.

The tribunal had previously been told that Wadhwa told an audience that the “best way” to get staff to support trans inclusion policies was to “fire them”. Nicole Jones, a former student, told the hearing that the word “transphobes” was used in a “disparaging way”, adding: “She was asked what’s the best way to get staff on board with inclusion policies and she responded bluntly, ‘Fire them.’”

Exclude women who are not on board with “inclusion policies” that include men as bosses of rape crisis centers. Inclusion of perps at the expense of victims. Mad as a box of frogs.

A study finds what we pretty much knew already:

Most gender-confused children grow out of it.

The majority of gender-confused children grow out of that feeling by the time they are fully grown adults, according to a long-term study. Researchers in the Netherlands tracked more than 2,700 children from age 11 to their mid-twenties, asking them every three years of feelings about their gender.

Results showed at the start of the research, around one-in-10 children (11 percent) expressed ‘gender non-contentedness‘ to varying degrees. But by age 25, just one-in-25 (4 percent) said they ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ were discontent with their gender.

The researchers concluded: ‘The results of the current study might help adolescents to realize that it is normal to have some doubts about one’s identity and one’s gender identity during this age period and that this is also relatively common.’

Because duh. Children are children; they’re still getting used to being human. Lots of changes seem weird or repellent or both when you’re a child, and then over time you get used to them. Some you may still want to fix or reject, but others you don’t. Trying to change your sex is actually worse than getting used to it and figuring out that you can, to a considerable extent, decide for yourself how to live in your sex [gender].

It’s pretty horrifying that a lot of adult people forgot all that in the stampede to be allies to our trans siblings. Many of those adults have children themselves, many more of them know children via friends and relatives and jobs such as teaching, and all of them, without exception, were once children themselves. How have so many of them managed to convince themselves that children who “have doubts about their gender identity” are in touch with a great truth as opposed to just being uncomfortable in an ordinary way that dissipates over time? How have so many managed to convince themselves that it’s better to tamper with children’s sexes rather than watch and wait?

I have no idea how.

The Guardian taking care to insult women right in the headline:

‘I’m as baffled as the next ovary-owner’: navigating the science of treating menopause

The subhead:

Conversations about menopause have matured but the question of when and how to treat perimenopausal symptoms remains confusing – even to a science journalist

Conversations about menopause have matured but we’re calling women “ovary-owners”? How do you square those two items?

I wonder how often The Guardian calls men “testicle-owners.”

They ran out of time.

You see it’s like this. When a guy like India Willoughby publicly fantasizes about kidnapping Joanna Cherry, Maya Forstater, and JK Rowling, it’s social justice. When we talk about guys like India Willoughby fantasizing about kidnapping women who make him angry, it’s transphobia, and deserving of harsh punishment, like kidnapping for example. Head Willoughby wins, tails women lose.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on And finally move on.

The corollary of the argument that only trans people should be allowed to play trans characters is that trans isn’t a neutral attribute that can be ignored.

Speaking to GQ magazine, Schafer said being known simply as a “trans actress” was “ultimately demeaning to me and what I want to do”. She continued: “I’ve been offered tons of trans roles, and I just don’t want to do it. I don’t want to talk about it.”

In a sense I get what he means, or what he thinks he means: something like how, say, Black actors were tired of playing “Black” characters, instead of just regular characters who happened to be Black. When Nichelle Nichols played Uhura on Star Trek, for example: here was a capable officer whose Blackness wasn’t front-and-centre in her character, and this earned praise from MLK and made Nichols a role model to many future Black actors.

Or perhaps it’s like how actors who were born with achondroplastic dwarfism might get tired of playing “dwarf characters” instead of just regular characters who happen to be dwarves. Peter Dinklage has broken that barrier somewhat, beginning to take on roles that aren’t explicitly written for dwarves, following his star turn in Game of Thrones.

But here we run into a bit of a problem: because dwarfism is kind of a major life changer, so it’s not easy to have characters who just happen to be dwarves leading films meant to have wide appeal, where their dwarfism never comes up in the story, or if it does, it’s mostly peripheral to the story.

I would argue trans is more analagous to the second than the first: a major life-changer that can’t easily be ignored in a story. This is in part because the transgender movement can’t decide whether transness is the most special thing in the world and must be advertised at all times, or if the movement’s goal is for trans-identifying people to integrate and settle into the population at large. Within the “transgender umbrella” there are members of both camps, the ones who are at least trying to move past their dysphoria via medical “transition” (however misguided they might be about the efficacy of that line of treatment), and the ones who live for their oh-so-special trans status and won’t shut up about it.

I think that tension, the inability to agree on whether trans should be highly visible or not so visible, is a result of the fact that the theory behind transgender doesn’t really work — that humans don’t really change sex, and trans people can never fully transcend their sex. Sex plays a huge part in their lives, in a fundamental, material way that isn’t analagous to having a minority racial or ethnic background that’s only an issue because people haven’t familiarized themselves enough with it.

But even the dwarf analogy isn’t perfect, and I would argue it doesn’t go far enough, because there’s another factor that makes “transness” different from ethicinity or disability or congenital abnormality: audiences cannot really see beyond sex, and most people are tired of being told they have to pretend that they can, and they’re only getting more tired of it. Choosing not to discriminate against women or men (or any other attribute) in, say, roles where their sex (or other attribute) isn’t typically represented, isn’t the same thing as pretending not to see what sex they are.

It’s not the same thing to appreciate Sigourney Weaver playing a strong, confident woman holding her own alongside a group of Marines in Aliens as it would be if we were instructed to pretend she was really a man all along. Her femaleness is integral to the character.

Likewise, when Jaye Davidson played the transgender character in The Crying Game, it wouldn’t have been the same if we were insructed to pretend he was a woman all along. His maleness is integral to the character.

When Hunter Schafer says he feels transgender roles are “demeaning to me”, he means he wants roles that don’t merely downplay his transgenderism, he means he wants roles that pretend he isn’t male with a transgender identity and a history of cosmetic surgeries, at all.

I feel bad for him, though. I looked at his Wikipedia entry, and he is among the cohort of gay boys who got infected with gender dysphoria after he immersed himself in teen trans social media culture.

If Hunter truly wants his trans status not to matter in the roles he plays, he has to acknowledge that he’s not an “actress” at all, and it’s not going to be easy to find lead roles for males who’ve undergone medical transition therapies, in which that isn’t a major part of their character.

Sounds like it’s going to be a while before he learns this.

Wait what century is this?

Woman removed from flight for not wearing a bra

Lisa Archbold was due to fly from Salt Lake City to San Francisco when airline staff, she said, took issue with her clothing — a loose white T-shirt.

The incident was in January and received some media attention, but Archbold now has legal representation. Her attorney is Gloria Allred, who has been involved in several high-profile women’s rights cases — including representing women who accused Donald Trump and R. Kelly of sexual misconduct.

In a recent letter to the airline’s president, Allred said Archbold wasn’t questioned when she boarded the plane but was later escorted off the flight by a Delta gate agent.

For wearing a T shirt while in possession of breasts?

Maybe Delta should keep a supply of binders on hand.

Good luck with that, pal.

Euphoria actress Hunter Schafer has said she no longer wants to play transgender roles. The 25-year-old transgender star shot to fame playing a trans character, Jules Vaughn, in HBO’s hit teen drama.

But Schafer said she felt she could go further as an actress by “not making it the centrepiece to what I’m doing”. She said: “I worked so hard to get to where I am, past these really hard points in my transition, and now I just want to be a girl and finally move on.”

That’s not going to happen. The entertainment industry is about making money, it’s not about showing off one’s trans-allyship. The people who make movies and tv dramas aren’t going to choose a man instead of the thousands of eager women available to them.

Speaking to GQ magazine, Schafer said being known simply as a “trans actress” was “ultimately demeaning to me and what I want to do”. She continued: “I’ve been offered tons of trans roles, and I just don’t want to do it. I don’t want to talk about it.”

Then don’t. Find a different line of work.

Willoughby longs for a trans woman to be murdered so that he can claim they are Uniquely Vulnerable.

Meanwhile in March 2023:

Labour MP Jess Phillips took more than five minutes to read a list of women killed over the past 12 months where the perpetrator or suspect was a man.

Before entering the Commons chamber on Thursday, she had to add another name to the list in pen – that of Helen Harrison, who was found dead in Yorkshire on Sunday.

Bereaved families, including the newly formed group Killed Women, reacted angrily to the fact that just three male MPs were present for the reading of the names a day after International Women’s Day.

Well, you know how it is: they’re just women. The boring kind, not the glamorous exciting trans kind that we can all be so thrillingly ProGressive about.

Uppity women are Karens, or if they’re not Karens then they’re whiny hysterical babies.

Describing a pregnant woman as “very emotional and tearful” in the workplace amounted to discrimination, a tribunal has ruled. The ruling relates to an email sent by the boss of an account manager after she raised concerns about her workload.

…

Roger Tynan, an employment judge, said Hinds’s boss, Nav Kalley, had stereotyped her as “an emotional, hormonal pregnant woman and that in the particular circumstances his description of her as emotional and tearful was dismissive and belittling”.

That’s one version of The Art of Making Women Shut Up and Go Away. Another is this flower:

The full tweet reads:

Beautifully nuanced & punches pulled to devastating effect . I suspect the vulva atrophied some years ago, following mucho self congratulation & over consumption of vino collapseau? Any connotation of sexual congress since, has brought a tear to her eye rather than any joy jelly leaks to the knickers…..is my guess as to why she tastes soo bitter?

I suppose it’s too much to hope that he’s in Scotland…

Now isn’t she crafty.

Social media comments made by JK Rowling challenging Scotland’s new hate crime law are not being treated as criminal, Police Scotland has said. The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

The new law creates a new crime of “stirring up hatred” relating to protected characteristics. The force said complaints had been received but no action would be taken.

Reacting to the news, Ms Rowling posted on X: “I hope every woman in Scotland who wishes to speak up for the reality and importance of biological sex will be reassured by this announcement, and I trust that all women – irrespective of profile or financial means – will be treated equally under the law.

HaHA. See what she did? If they had taken action, there would have been an eruption. Since they didn’t take action, she’s set a precedent.

Nice.lee.done.

Katie Neeves, a trans woman who was appointed a UN Women UK delegate, was mentioned by Ms Rowling in a previous thread on X. The author claimed Ms Neeves “switched from straight man to lesbian at the age of 48”.

Ms Neeves told BBC News she was “very disappointed” with Police Scotland. She said: “JK Rowling is a bully and this act was designed to stop bullying, and if they’re not going to enforce it then that’s very disappointing.”

Yeeeah you’d like that, wouldn’t you, Martin. Who is the bully here? Is it really JK Rowling, who doesn’t want to see people thrown in prison for saying men are not women? Really?

King Lear without the peripeteia.

It took Donald Trump less than 24 hours to test the boundaries of Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order in his New York criminal trial.

In two posts on his Truth Social account, the former president attacked Merchan for issuing the gag order – and he went after the judge’s daughter for her liberal political work, exploiting the ambiguous language in the order that didn’t explicitly forbid discussion of Merchan’s family.

On Monday, Merchan pushed back, expanding the gag order to cover his family – though the judge remains fair game for Trump – and attempting to limit Trump’s vitriol two weeks before the trial is set to begin.

Merchan’s need to issue a second gag order highlights the significant and unique challenge that Trump poses for the judge overseeing the unprecedented first criminal trial in US history of a former president and current presidential candidate.

It’s unprecedented because Trump is an unprecedentedly awful human being. Your average self-dealing sleaze would go to quite a lot of trouble to avoid all this courtroom stuff and the disgrace that goes with it, but not Trump. He loves being the worst human on the planet, and he keeps breaking new ground in order to hang onto the title.

In the past six months, Trump has sat in a half-dozen different courtrooms before judges overseeing his four criminal and two of his civil cases, along with a federal appellate court. A CNN review of Trump’s appearances shows how the former president has taken repeated steps both inside and outside the courtroom to test the limits of judges – and the judicial system – trying to rein him in.

Who does that? A childish vain bully, that’s who.

The Beeb reports a scandal:

The prime minister has said people should not be criminalised “for stating simple facts on biology” in response to JK Rowling’s criticism of Scotland’s new hate crime law.

Cue global gasps. What can he mean?? People should be beheaded for such an outrage.

The author took to social media to hit out at criticize the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act which came into effect on Monday.

Seriously, Beeb – stop that. Stop calling dissent you dislike “hitting out at.” It’s childish at best. Some metaphors are best left on the cutting room floor.

In a series of social media posts, Ms Rowling described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.

What do you mean “described as”? Of course they’re men. That’s what “transgender” means in that sentence.

The prime minister would not be drawn on whether he supported her approach, saying that it was “not right for me to comment on police matters, individual matters”. But he added: “We should not be criminalising people saying common sense things about biological sex, clearly that isn’t right.”

Well, apologies for agreeing with a Tory, but it can’t be helped.

Furthermore, there’s the scandalous situation where gynecologists don’t know how to take care of a “neo-vagina”:

…the aftercare, becuzz a lot of times these women have a neovagina, and then the gynecologists aren’t trained to do the routine gyn care – and that’s a real problem, becuzz you go back to yer home state, and you wanna get yer well woman exam and the gynecologist tells you, like, “I don’t know how to take care of you.” That’s really not acceptable.

But gynecologists specialize in women’s reproductive health. Women’s. Not men’s, not men’s who call themselves women, not men’s who have “neovaginas.” Just women’s; women’s only.

BBC dutifully repeats that JK Rowling is bad awful horrible outrageous and above all of course transphobic.

The presenter tells us, in full BBC RP smug confident style:

…and now with a series of pretty explosive social media posts campaigner and provocateur on free speech. In response to the Hate Crime and Public Order Act coming into force in Scotland yesterday Ms Rowling posted critical and sarcastic comments about ten transgender women, rounding off her series with the remark “The people aren’t women at all but men every last one of them.” She ended by saying “Arrest me, Hate Crime Act Scotland.” As culture war interventions go, this was no holds barred.

Easy for him, isn’t it, just as it’s easy for Jolyon Maugham and Owen Jones and all the rest of them. Not their problem. No threat to their rights. How dare all these stupid bitches try to hang on to their hard-won rights! Gather ’round to sneer and frown at the bad woman with her culture war intervention. Meanwhile let’s ask a man what he thinks about it. Let’s ask the very cool Katie Neeves.

Male voice:

I thought ‘Oh I’m gunna get a ton of hate now,’ and sure enough that’s exactly what happened, and that’s exactly what she wanted to happen –

And it’s exactly what “Katie” wanted to happen too. It’s what they live for, this fake martyrdom.

Presenter asks him if he thinks Rowling committed hate crime.

Yes, I do actually, and she’s definitely inciting it – she knows she’s pushing the boundaries, and that’s why she made it very clear that she wasn’t in the country when she did it.

Yes, she is pushing the boundaries: the boundaries that men like “Katie” Neeves have set up to prevent women from talking about women’s rights as opposed to the rights of men in skirts.

She doesn’t do it for the hell of it, or to shock prissy BBC presenters, or to annoy guys like “Katie” Neeves. She does it because the brainless ideology that says men are women if they say they are is a locomotive running over women’s rights.