This one spells it out – no you cannot have a single day to yourselves to talk about violence against women, yes you do have to include men who say they are women in your protests of violence against women.

Ash Sarkar shouldn’t be proud of that letter, she should be ashamed of it.

That Suzanne Moore essay:

It is March 2020. For several months now I have been trying to write something — anything — about the so-called “trans debate” in my Guardian column. But if I ever slip a line in about female experience belonging to people with female bodies, and the significance of this, it is always subbed out. It is disappeared. Somehow, this very idea is being blocked, not explicitly, but it certainly isn’t being published. My editors say things like: “It didn’t really add to the argument”, or it is a “distraction” from the argument.

I wouldn’t like to have editors like that. I like having editors who let me decide what my argument is, since I’m the one writing the column after all.

Even though I’d been writing for them for decades, editors consistently try to steer me towards “lifestyle” subjects for my column. One even suggests that I shouldn’t touch politics at all. And yet I won the Orwell Prize for political journalism the year before. This was for articles on Brexit and war remembrance, among other things.

Well ok but besides winning the Orwell Prize what makes you think you’re any good at writing political columns?

Of course, not every editor is nervous; but the anxiety around certain issues remains tangible. It has often been this way and none of this is new to me. Bad columns don’t come from bad opinions, they come from a lack of conviction. Readers know that instinctively, so to steer writers away from what they want to write about is a strange thing for an editor to do.

What she says is literally true, I think. Trying to write something you don’t want to write and don’t believe deadens your prose. Readers know dead writing when they see it, at least readers with the sense to read people like Moore do.

So, I finally get to write a piece on trans issues. And 338 “colleagues” write a letter of complaint to the editor, alluding to that column.

Now, six months on, I have resigned. And I am still trying to work out why I have been treated so appallingly.

Because too many people have oatmeal where their brains should be.

There were no such upset letters organised regarding the various hot Tory takes about difficult subjects that we sometimes publish. Seumas Milne even reprinted a sermon by Osama Bin Laden. What about that? Not a word. So what did I do that was so terrible? I stepped outside the orthodoxy.

And since the orthodoxy is deeply stupid…a lot of deeply stupid people got together to whine at her.

To be good — ie, modern — one didn’t interrogate the new trans orthodoxy. Sex was no longer binary, but a spectrum, and people didn’t need to change their bodies to claim a new identity. All this was none of your business, and had no effect on your life.

I disagreed. By 2018, the atmosphere was poisonous. A fellow columnist at The Guardian replied to a message I sent about being civil at the Christmas do with: “You’ve prompted the most sickening transphobia, for which you have never apologised, you called islamophobia a myth and you publicly abuse leftwingers.” This person went on to say that I felt insecure “because a new generation of younger leftists have caught the public mood”. 

And you know what Jolyon says – the younger generation is always right.

So there we have it. Here comes the “new generation”: the new Left, same as the old Left. Full of misogyny, utter pricks and those with the emotional intelligence of whelks. Misogyny in the name of socialism. Again.

Not so much socialism as Ideninny.

Eventually, I was allowed by a great editor to write about how gender critical women wanted to assert their basic rights. A professor of working-class history at Oxford, Selina Todd, was disinvited from an event. I noted, referring to this incident, that it is women again, never men, who were losing jobs, incomes and public platforms if they spoke up. Many of them were emailing me: not on one side or another, but generally worried. I wrote that I believed biological sex to be real and that it’s not transphobic to understand basic science. To my mind the column was fairly mild.

We all think that.

It was published. The next thing I know there are loads of people on social media thanking me for saying what needed to be said. And then another lot: the “die in a ditch terf” lot, amazingly telling me to die in a ditch. Again.

…

The censorship continues and I cannot abide it. Every day another woman loses her job and a witch-burning occurs on Twitter. My fear is not about trans people but an ideology that means the erasure of women — not just the word, but of our ability to name and describe our experience. We are now cervix-havers, birthing parents, people who menstruate. On Amnesty’s latest posters to support the women’s strike in Poland, the literal translation from Polish for the thousands of women who were protesting the awful tightening of abortion laws was: “I stand with people in Poland”. Which people? Women forced to give birth on a plastic sheet to a dead baby with foetal defects? Say it.

Nor do I buy the idea that all of this is a purely generational issue. In part it is, sure, but it can at times be an issue of unfettered misogyny and a failure to understand that many women’s rights are fairly recent and always contested.

…

All this is then just a little story about being given a warning to shut up. And refusing to. I have had a lifetime of such warnings. Class will out. This is just something I wanted to tell you about a woman saying no. And the ways we say no.

No in thunder.

Trump pardoned Flynn.

House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler issued a statement:

“This pardon is undeserved, unprincipled, and one more stain on President Trump’s rapidly diminishing legacy.

“Michael Flynn was fired from the White house for lying to senior officials.  He pleaded guilty—twice—to lying to federal investigators about his communications with a foreign adversary. Flynn’s agreement to cooperate with the government in exchange for those guilty pleas seemed light to some, given reports that Flynn and his son had engaged in far more disturbing criminal activity. 

“It is important to talk about why the President pardoned Flynn.  President Trump dangled this pardon to encourage Flynn to backtrack on his pledge to cooperate with federal investigators—cooperation that might have exposed the President’s own wrongdoing.  And it worked.  Flynn broke his deal, recanted his plea, received the backing of the Attorney General over the objections of career prosecutors, and now has secured a pardon from the President of the United States. 

“This pardon is part of a pattern.  We saw it before, in the Roger Stone case—where President Trump granted clemency to protect an individual who might have implicated the President in criminal misconduct.  We may see it again before President Trump finally leaves office.  These actions are an abuse of power and fundamentally undermine the rule of law.

“The President’s enablers have constructed an elaborate narrative in which Trump and Flynn are victims and the Constitution is subject to the whims of the President.  Americans soundly rejected this nonsense when they voted out President Trump.  President-Elect Biden will soon take office and restore a measure of honor to the Office of the President.  Between now and then, we must be vigilant to additional abuses of power, even as we look with hope to days to come.”

Another woman-hating creep who works for Pink News.

But what is this “relentless targeting”? The opening of Moore’s article:

It is March 2020. For several months now I have been trying to write something — anything — about the so-called “trans debate” in my Guardian column. But if I ever slip a line in about female experience belonging to people with female bodies, and the significance of this, it is always subbed out. It is disappeared. Somehow, this very idea is being blocked, not explicitly, but it certainly isn’t being published. My editors say things like: “It didn’t really add to the argument”, or it is a “distraction” from the argument.

Shock-horror she tried to talk about female experience belonging to people with female bodies, and the significance of this, but the Guardian wouldn’t let her.

(I have to say, I was shocked by the subbing out and the patronizing explanations. It’s her damn column, she gets to make her argument the way she wants to.)

So Ryan John Butcher is in a towering rage at Suzanne Moore because she wanted to talk about the significance of female experience. So much for solidarity eh? Intersection of Me and Me, and don’t you forget it, laydeez.

She didn’t lie, she didn’t bully anyone. The 338 colleagues who signed that open letter trashing her on the other hand…

CBS has details:

One day after Pennsylvania certified its election results, formalizing President-elect Joe Biden’s win over President Trump in the state’s presidential race, Mr. Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani is attending a public hearing in Gettysburg on election “issues” and alleged “irregularities.” President Trump, unable to attend in person, phoned in his false claims that he won swing states like Pennsylvania and the entire election. 

Mr. Trump stated his goal in no uncertain terms: “We have to turn the election over,” the president said as he called into the meeting on speakerphone. The outgoing president claimed that what happened was not the United States of America, insisting without evidence there are “many, many cases” of fraud. 

“This election was rigged and we can’t let that happen. We can’t let it happen for our country. And this election has to be turned around, because we won Pennsylvania by a lot and we won all these swing states by a lot,” the president said inaccurately and without stating proof. 

All of the president’s false and unfounded statements will not be repeated in this article.

That’s bad syntax, because the meaning is ambiguous. It should be either “Not all of the president’s false and unfounded statements will be repeated” or “This article will not repeat all of the president’s false and unfounded statements.” Anyway, the point is, CBS has reported only some of his lies, and we should understand that there were more. Trump is copious that way.

Mr. Trump was previously expected to join Giuliani at the hearing at 12:30 p.m. ET but the trip was canceled. The change in plans came after Boris Epshteyn, an adviser to the Trump campaign, revealed he tested positive for COVID-19. Epshteyn attended a press conference at the Republican National Committee last week alongside Giuliani, and participated in a radio interview with the former mayor Sunday.

Thus demonstrating that the whole thing is a communist anarchist BLM plot!

But seriously. The virus doesn’t agree to step back for five days, and I find the bargaining language people use about this decidedly odd. They seem to think that if they promise it’s just five days and they promise not to infect each other on purpose then the virus will do its part and all will be well. Like:

One of my daughters lives with her boyfriend in London, and the other lives in a flat share. The three-household rule means I can see them both. It’s a rubber-stamp, and it means that in your conscience you can know you’re doing the right thing, and abiding by what the government deems acceptable.

But none of that makes any difference to anything. It doesn’t become safe because “the government” says it is. There is no rubber stamp. The conscience isn’t relevant, and you really can’t know you’re doing the right thing until two weeks later.

A different person:

It seems a sensible compromise to allow some level of mixing at an important time of year for lots of people. I think there was a risk that the government would just say you could do anything, and mix as many households as you like, and that would certainly be really bad.

But there is no compromise. There is no sit-down with the virus where you agree to social distance most of the time and the virus agrees you can have five days off. It doesn’t work like that.

The way it works is, the virus understands that people really really want to get together with family over Christmas so it will declare a cease-fire for five days. The virus is strict, but fair.

Ministers are facing calls to publish scientific advice on the relaxing of Covid-19 rules over Christmas amid warnings that a single infectious guest could infect a third of those at a household gathering.

Under rules revealed by the prime minister on Tuesday, up to three households can form a “bubble” for five days over Christmas. It prompted a raft of scientists to speak out, warning that mixing will inevitably lead to an increase in infections come the new year, leading to deaths. Some said the government should have put greater emphasis on the dangers and potential control measures.

No but see it’s a “bubble,” which is the signal the virus agreed to respect.

Now experts have called for the government to release advice given by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage).

…

Dr Julian Tang, clinical virologist at the University of Leicester, said: “I do not think Sage will have evidence to show that enhanced mixing is going to be beneficial in terms of stopping the virus from spreading, if anything it will increase the virus spread … The reason that the government and Sage are … giving this amnesty of five days is more of a psychosocial, emotional side of what Christmas means to people.”

But the virus gets that, it understands, so it’s agreed to step back for those five days. It’s all arranged.

Can women have anything for ourselves now? Even just one day out of the 365 to call for an end to violence against us? Just ONE??

No, of course we fucking can’t.

Rewire is doing the same thing all over again today.

Hur hur. Throw food at them. We are very adults. Hur hur Aunt Karen, she’s such a bitch. Aren’t we good feminists?

“Ask any pregnant person,” because we don’t talk about women any more unless it’s to say throw turkeys at them.

They’re entirely right about Catholic hospitals, by the way, which is why this is so infuriating – they’re burying their own work with all this childish “throw food at women who don’t agree that man can be women” nonsense.

News flash: women get pregnant and men do not. Only women have bodies that can get pregnant; men have the other kind of bodies, the ones that can’t get pregnant. There’s no such thing as a “gender spectrum” that changes the facts. Women can wear flannel shirts and engineering boots and drive a big truck, men can wear dresses and high heels and drive a big SUV; none of that changes which sex gets pregnant and which sex doesn’t.

The Post has updates:

Pennsylvania and Nevada, two key battleground states, certified President-elect Joe Biden’s wins Tuesday, even as President Trump continued to fight results in court and insisted that he will “never concede.”

So he will never not be a childishly sore loser. Ok Spanky.

Trump’s “legal team” is shouting that there will be hearings, hearings I tell you, but Arizona says nope we don’t have any hearings scheduled.

The campaign said Arizona would hold a hearing on Nov. 30, but spokesmen for the Arizona GOP caucuses confirmed that neither the House speaker nor the Senate president had authorized any such hearing.

Who you gonna believe, them or…never mind.

But the lawyer who says we should throw turkeys at the Aunt Karens who fail to agree that men are women if they say they are can stop fretting: soon Aunt Karen’s failure to agree will be a crime, at least it will if she doesn’t keep her damn karen mouth shut.

Activists who promote the view that a trans woman is not a woman will be breaking the law if a court rules their campaign was intended to stir up hatred, the justice secretary has confirmed.

Humza Yousaf said it would not be a crime to express the opinion that sex is immutable unless it was accompanied by behaviour that was intended to stir up hatred, which could include aggressive campaigning.

And aggressive campaigning could include…what? Saying so on Facebook and Twitter maybe? Saying so in blog posts or opinion pieces? Saying so at dinner tables?

It’s just Scotland for now, but it could spread.

Some people love it:

Becky Kaufmann says she has been the target of hate crime in the past. She works as a policy officer for the Scottish Trans Alliance, one of several organisations that back the bill.

“All laws are authoritarian, by definition,” she said.

“Laws that tell you what you have to do are constraining your behaviour. In a civil, decent society we have laws that truly recognise what is abusive and offensive behaviour and we don’t criminalise what is not.

She added: “Unfortunately, in this day and age, we have behaviour that climbs above that threshold, and when the behaviour climbs above that threshold, and any reasonable observer could look it and say ‘that’s not on’, then that should be criminalised.”

Ah yes, that clears things up beautifully. If any reasonable observer could look it and say “that’s not on” then there’s your case, open and shut, no room for doubt.

It’s not just a Twitter thread, it’s also an article at Rewire News.

At Rewire News Group, we hope you’re able to safely enjoy the holiday away from toxic relatives, but we also know that might not be possible. Toxic relatives come in many forms: the Trump supporter, the devil’s advocate, the COVID-19 denier.

There’s also the TERF: the trans-exclusionary radical feminist.

Let’s back up. Let’s think about this unargued assertion that Trump supporters and devil’s advocates and COVID-19 deniers are “toxic.” Let’s think about it and decide that it’s self-righteous adolescent garbage, and that it is, ironically, dehumanizing in just the way much of Trump’s rhetoric is. The views of the listed groups may or may not be toxic, figuratively speaking, but that doesn’t make the people who hold the views toxic. Calling people “toxic” is itself very trumpish.

The author of this venomous article and the venomous tweets is Caroline Reilly.

Caroline Reilly is a legal fellow with Rewire News Group. She is a writer and a reproductive justice advocate. She holds a JD from Boston College Law school. 

You’d think she’d be adult enough to eschew the flippant “throw a turkey at the woman” pseudo-jokes, but apparently not.

Back to her “throw a turkey” article:

TERFs are transphobes who wrongly believe transgender women are not women, and they think feminists shouldn’t include trans women in their advocacy. But the reality is that trans women are women, and you cannot separate feminism from advocacy for trans rights. Feminism that does not include trans people is just bigotry dressed up to look like something else.

No, the reality is that trans women are men who say they are women, men who identify as women, men who explain that they “feel like” women, men who claim that they have a woman’s brain in a male body. None of that changes the physical reality that they are men. That’s what “trans woman” means – a man who identifies as a woman.

So it’s not truthful or fair or reasonable to say that “TERFs are transphobes who wrongly believe transgender women are not women,” because they believe that rightly, not wrongly.

Sometimes TERFyness is loud and obnoxious in its bigotry, tweeting away about how trans women are dangerous and letting them privately pee in a stall next to a cis women is akin to letting Ted Bundy into a women’s locker room—truly unhinged stuff. You’ll often find TERFs on Twitter yelling about young people’s genitals or some other completely invasive and inappropriate thing that would have them banished from Earth if it was about young cis people.

Speaking of loud and obnoxious, and truly unhinged stuff – that’s not a very careful or fair description.

Sometimes, though, TERFs are a little more insidious in their approach, as they scaremonger about women’s rights and children’s safety—cloaking obviously bigoted viewpoints in false concerns about the welfare of women and children.

And why are the concerns false? What makes the viewpoints so obviously bigoted? Why is it insidious to talk about women’s rights? The lawyer doesn’t explain or elaborate, she just asserts.

But make no mistake. A TERF is a TERF is a TERF—whether they’re transparent about their motives and bigotry, or whether they’re stoking fears about violence and discrimination to make their overt hatred for trans people seem well intentioned. It is not.

Again – it’s just assertion. There’s not a trace of argument anywhere to be seen. All this is in aid of advocating violence against female relatives who have a political view the lawyer dislikes.

And then she gets to the remedies.

Throw the turkey at them. If you do not have the upper-body strength to throw the turkey, you can opt for something slightly easier to lift like a handful of mashed potatoes or some stuffing. A pie also works, and offers an added comedic effect.

If you do not want to turn your Thanksgiving dinner into a food fight, you can consider a more passive (or passive agressive) approach. Ignoring them works; so does repeating everything they say back to them in a mocking tone. Think: What would your most annoying little cousin do?

You need not feel obligated to entertain a bigot with reasoned debate, but if you want to, it helps to have some talking points handy. Like—the gender binary isn’t real. And violent men can actually just walk into women’s bathrooms whenever they want, irrespective of whether we allow trans women to pee in peace there. You can also talk about how gender-affirming care is necessary and lifesaving treatment, and trans people should be entitled to it the same way you’re entitled to your colonoscopy, Aunt Karen. And you can explain to your relatives that whether or not someone has medically transitioned, and regardless of how they look, their gender is still valid.

Aunt Karen. Cue Jolyon Maugham telling us how much wiser the younger generation is than all those millions of evil feminist Aunt Karens.

If you’ve got a TERF in your holiday midst, you have a couple options. You can engage; you can ignore; or you can, as we’ve stated, launch assorted foods across the table until they retreat. What you do not have to do is make yourself feel unsafe or uncomfortable in order to entertain their bigotry. You also bear no obligation to sit quietly and politely as someone spews hatred simply because it’s the holidays and you’re supposed to get along like family—whatever that means.

It’s funny because right under that (the end of the article) is the box with the explanation of why we should support Rewire News:

We’re glad you’re here! Our work is written for readers like you—folks who care about reproductive and sexual health, rights, and justice, and understand how critical independent media is to a democratic society.

Ah yes reproductive rights and justice…except for TERFs and Karens.

Golly. Last I knew Rewire News was focused on abortion rights. My mistake; it turns it it’s all about the violence-encouraging misogyny.

Yet again, I’m surprised. Yet again I blink and stare and wonder. How did it become hip and woke and right on and funny to stir up hatred of women, including violence against them?

Oh but it’s a joke, pies in the face are a joke, yadda yadda. Right. Do we see lefty white people tweeting “jokes” of this kind with black people as the targets? Or asylum seekers? Or people with disabilities?

Like hell we do.

Updating to add the rest of the sequence:

Oh hey, the grownups are back.

It’s a very minimal thing to rejoice at, but that’s where we are.

Avril Haines, who is set to be the new director of national intelligence, has taken the podium.

‘I will never shy away from speaking truth to power,” she said.

She promised to tell the president whatever is “inconvenient and difficult”. She said the intelligence community is indispensable to America to address threats that come not just from terrorism, cyber hacking or other traditional directions.

“Also the challenges that will define the next generation – climate change, pandemics and corruption,” she said.

Adults. Serious people. Not corrupt greedy clowns.

Antony Blinken has come to the podium to speak, just after Joe Biden said of his new team: “They will tell me what I need to know, not what I want to know” and added “they will make us proud to be American”.

Blinken, who if confirmed by the Senate will be Biden’s new secretary of state, is telling the public of the story of his family. He has relatives who variously escaped communism in Hungary and survived the Holocaust.

He just told of his late stepfather who survived the camps and fled a death march, hiding in the woods in Bavaria until he stumbled on an American tank and, when a Black GI popped out of the top, the man sank to his knees and said the only three words he knew in English, Blinken said: “God bless America”.

Makes a change from Pompeo.

Gee, he noticed?

Trump is sweating over his campaign lawyers’ dismal and often outlandish efforts to reverse President-elect Joe Biden’s projected electoral victory.

Trump is worried that his campaign’s legal team, which is being led by his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, is composed of “fools that are making him look bad,” NBC News reported Monday.

He can stop worrying. Of course they’re fools who are making him look even worse (which is not easy to do).

That group, which has unironically called itself an “elite strike force team,” to date has failed to win any legal victories that would invalidate votes for Biden, the former Democratic vice president, even as they tout wildly broad claims of fraud for which they have offered no convincing evidence.

But other than that, and the melting hair dye, they’re impressive.

Trump has complained to White House aides and outside allies about how Giuliani and Powell conducted themselves at that event, NBC reported.

Whaddya bet it was the hair dye.

Giuliani, who was once a top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, also presided over the press conference at RNC headquarters, where he stood and watched Powell promote the campaign’s most far-fetched vote fraud allegations to date.

At that event, Giuliani perspired so heavily that sweat apparently blackened from hair dye conspicuously ran down his cheeks as he made baseless allegations of electoral skullduggery.

Trump, who is obsessed with television and the personal appearances of people on it, was not happy with Giuliani’s look at the press conference, a person familiar with the president’s reaction told NBC News.

Toldja! Crimes and sedition are fine, but hair dye running down the face cannot be tolerated.

Emily Murphy’s letter is getting shredded for being petty, unprofessional, egotistical, and rude.

She wants him to feel her pain.

Trump of course is pretending it’s totally his doing.

Just to nitpick…it’s not dedication and loyalty to the country to help a lying cheating criminal steal the election. More the opposite.

It’s about fucking time.

ABOUT DAMN TIME I SAY.

Whiny letter though.

Embiggening:

That article by Tina Traster dropped by Psychology Today and picked up by Transgender Trend:

Tina Traster is a socially-conscious, award-winning journalist, author, and filmmaker. She is the director of the award-winning documentary Catnip Nation and author of the award-winning memoir Rescuing Julia Twice: A Mother’s Tale of Russian Adoption and Overcoming Reactive Attachment Disorder. She has written about the transgender trend for Psychology Today. We are happy to re-publish her post here.

Traster notes that a lot of LGBQT teenagers are in foster care.

Let’s talk about trans kids. The generally accepted narrative among activists, the therapeutic community, and the media is that many trans kids are living with parents who reject them based on morality or intolerance. However, there are legions of parents who themselves are being rejected because they have not picked up a pair of pom poms to cheer their tween or teen through cross-dressing, name-changing, hormone-treatment and life-altering surgeries.

Parents who detected signs of gender dysphoria in their very young or prepubescent children might feel more comfortable in accepting that their child really has been disordered for a long time. But a different cohort – those grappling with a sudden “coming out” as trans at 13, 14 or even through their 20s, remain skeptical. That skepticism guided a study done by researcher Dr. Lisa Littman, who looked at why a sudden spate of teen girls were announcing themselves as trans.

Remember being a teenager? The way I remember it it involved a lot of reacting to the examples of one’s peers – sometimes against, sometimes for.

Littman’s ground-breaking but controversial research focused on feedback from parents who largely said their daughter’s decision to become “trans” came out of nowhere or appeared to be related to social contagion within a friend group. Littman coined the term “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” which is threatening to those who believe any self-diagnosed trans-declared person deserves to be affirmed as such and should have access to any medical care to achieve transition.

And, more profoundly, that being trans is existential, is an absolute and incontrovertible truth, is as basic and true as being human, being alive, being conscious. (There are philosophical disputes over how true it is that we are conscious, but they don’t influence teenagers much.)

In today’s culture, children spend more time with Tik Tok, Reddit, and Instagram than they do with their parents. Children believe every question can be answered on Google. If they’re looking for role models, social media influencers are there to cheerfully guide any journey, particularly for children who are led to believe they may be trans. It’s a strong suction, the internet. One that parents can hardly compete with. Add to that the new normal – a world where the policies of schools, summer camps, therapists, doctors, and social communities – reinforce the notion that being trans is cool and normal and should be supported no matter what.

There’s a bit of a tension there, an interesting one. Being cool isn’t the same as being normal, and sometimes carefully deviates from it. Being cool is often a matter of rejecting the normal in favor of something more interesting or attention-getting. It’s true though that trans activism promotes both. This could help to explain some of the…peculiarity of the rhetoric.

Amid this pull, parents are experiencing parenting dysphoria, as they fight to preserve their relationships with children who are often taught to treat them as if they are the toxic ones. Parents tell their trans declared children that they are worried about them, that they don’t think they should make life-altering decisions, that they’re young and they should explore slowly. In return, trans children will recite what they’ve learned to parrot from internet influencers and activists. They will call these parents transphobes. They treat parents like the enemy. They will demand total buy-in or the gig is over.

And Jolyon Maugham QC, full-fledged adult, will come galloping over the horizon on his purple trans-horse to tell them they’re totally right and the oldies are wrong except for him, Jolyon Maugham QC.

JL at the Glinner Update reports on another successful “REMOVE THAT ARTICLE!!!” campaign.

On Friday, leading psychology journal, Psychology Today, published an article by one of its regular contributors, award-winning journalist and documentary maker, Tina Traster. It was called “Trans Kids May Reject Family, Not the Other Way Around”.

…

Parents responded to the article with gratitude and by sharing their own experiences, stories which reflect just what Traster has written about.

Until.

… the voices of concerned parents were drowned out by a barrage of abuse from trans rights activists in what looked like a co-ordinated campaign to get the article shut down. These comments all seemed to follow a particular pattern ie the article is irresponsible, the author is transphobic, parents are transphobic…

So, hours later, Psychology Today pulled the article, saying it was “more problematic than needed.” Oh really? Who decides such questions? Who measures the quantity of problematicality, and the amount of needed? Besides shouty incognito loons on Twitter?

Luckily, Transgender Trend have a far sturdier backbone and are happy to host this important piece on their site.

Because the safety and wellbeing of children depends on having this discussion.

Psychology Today has a much bigger audience though.

But never mind, the kids are fine with all this, and they must know better.