Willoughby demonstrating what a stalwart feminist woman he is.

Pink News gloats:

Planet Fitness has stood by its decision to ban a member who took a picture of a trans woman using a gym’s female locker room and confronted them [him] about their [his] presence there.

You can see why they would have a ban on taking pictures in the locker rooms, but when the reason for doing so is documenting a man in the women’s locker room it’s another matter.

It comes after a complaint raised by US woman Patricia Silva, who allegedly saw a trans woman shaving in the locker room of her Alaska gym and took a picture of the individual in question.  

Allegedly saw a trans woman but definitely took a picture. We see you, PN.

Silva recounted that she approached the trans person and told them [him] they [he] should not be using the same changing room as herself. 

In a video shared to Facebook, Silva recounted the incident and persistently misgendered the person: “I just came out of Planet Fitness. There is a man shaving in the women’s bathroom. 

Yeah that’s the important thing. He invaded the women’s locker room but that’s ok; she documented his invasion and shock-horror she “misgendered” him!! The trivialization of what he did compared to the heavy breathing over what she did is one outrage, and the lying about what he did and what it means for his victims is another outrage. There are always so many outrages in these things that we lose track.

She said Planet Fitness proceeded to cancel her membership, which the gym company said was due to her taking photographs inside the locker room, which is prohibited.  

While men forcing themselves on women in the women’s locker room is not prohibited.

How is that fair?

In a statement, the gym brand – which has more than 2,500 locations – said whilst people might feel “uncomfortable” with trans folk using the same spaces as them, this “discomfort is not a reason to deny access”. 

That’s right: carefully trivialize the presence of a man in the women’s locker room and then pretend the fake triviality is relevant to keeping men out of women’s locker rooms. The issue isn’t “discomfort”; the issue is threat, shame, fear, risk, assault, rape.

The policy statement added staff should work with members and employees to “address this discomfort and to “foster a climate of understanding”. 

Meaning a climate of understanding for the men perving on women. Definitely not a climate of understanding for the women who don’t want men perving on them in the fucking locker room.

In a statement shared with the Daily Mail, Planet Fitness said: “As the home of the Judgement Free Zone, Planet Fitness is committed to creating an inclusive environment. 

“Our gender identity non-discrimination policy, states that members and guests may use the gym facilities that best align with their sincere, self-reported gender identity,’ it read.  

Oh, sincere. That changes everything. I have just one question – how the fuck do you know when it’s “sincere” and when it isn’t????

“Scientific” American goes out of its way to pretend women don’t exist.

You’d better be getting all your hating done now if you live in Scotland. Scottish Legal News:

The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act will be activated – on April 1.

The law creates new stirring up of hatred offences for protected characteristics including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.

But not, of course, sex. It’s fine to stir up hatred of women – by calling us “terfs” for instance – but don’t you dare say that man in the dress and catch-me fuck-me shoes is a man.

Victims minister Siobhian Brown said: “For those impacted by hatred and prejudice, the results can be traumatic and life changing. While we respect everyone’s right to freedom of expression, nobody in our society should live in fear or be made to feel like they don’t belong, and the Scottish Government is committed to building safer communities that live free from hatred and prejudice.”

Except women of course. Women just have to put up with it.

BBC Scotland elaborates:

First Minister Humza Yousaf was the justice secretary who shepherded the Hate Crime bill through the Scottish Parliament, declaring at the time that it “sent a strong and clear message to victims, perpetrators, communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated seriously and will not be tolerated.”

The law criminalises threatening or abusive behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred against someone who possesses, or appears to possess, certain characteristics.

They are age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics sometimes known as being intersex.

Why not sex? Why are women excluded from this protection?

Also, while we’re on the subject, why not class? If you’re going to do all this box-ticking, why not women and why not class? Is snobbery dead in Scotland?

The new law also provides for stiffer sentences for offenders convicted of crimes deemed to be “aggravated by prejudice,” — in other words if they demonstrate malice or ill-will towards their victim based on the protected characteristics listed above, with the addition of a category for race, colour, nationality or ethnicity.

But not sex.

Finally we get to that.

Controversially, the protected characteristics in the act do not include sex itself, an omission criticised by some feminist groups.

Well yes. I think the law itself is probably a bad idea, especially in Scotland, but if you’re going to have such a law, why tf are you leaving women out? Do you seriously think women are not subject to hatred and contempt? Not to mention violence?

“This new law leaves women unprotected from hate crime,” the Scottish National Party MP Joanna Cherry KC told me. It would, she predicted, “be weaponised by trans rights activists to try to silence, and worse still, criminalise women who do not share their beliefs.”

All but certain, in my view.

That disgusting rapey UN Women poster is from last October, but I think I missed it then. (I did a quick search of posts, and was surprised to see how many hits “trans lesbians” got.) Let’s give it the hostile attention it deserves.

Remember, says the UN, men are lesbians too.

Remember, laydeez, you are required to fuck men no matter what. You don’t get to opt out by saying you’re a lesbian because haha men can just say they are lesbians too and then you have to welcome their lesbian dicks.

That’s what “inclusion” means: women don’t get to say no. Ever.

I listened to this chat between Jon Ronson and Adam Buxton yesterday out of mild curiosity, but then my hair stood on end when they got to this bit:

“You absolute shits,” thought I. “You smug, indifferent to women, callous shits.”

The tweet a few hours before that one was to retweet the UN shouting “TRANS LESBIANS ARE LESBIANS”.

But remember, kids, being trans is nothing at all to do with wanting to be special or interesting or unusual or original, no no no no no no, not at all, whatever gave you that idea…

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on We should have more boring egomaniacs.

I had a closer look at the basket o’ buttons on the “Trans Day of Visibility” display at our library; they said “Protect Trans Kids.”

GRRRRRR. I’ve expressed my extreme dislike for the concept/diagnosis of “Trans Kids” here on B&W on a number of occasions. If I weren’t afraid of being reported and or banned from the library, I’d love to put up my own little sign infront of the basket saying “Protect Children from Trans Ideology,” but I’m too much of a coward to do so. I’m just not up to going against the grain in this instance.

Outside on the steps and sidewalk, a child was busy chalking hearts in “trans” colour s, as well as other pro-trans propaganda. “You are Loved! You belong here!” I don’t want or need my library to “love” me, I want it to have books. Offering some kind of dutiful, syrupy “love” and “belonging” to anyone is outside its remit.

“Diversity not Division.” “Radiate Positivity.” I couldn’t help but think “Physician, heal thyself” at these two. Trans activists would do well to take these slogans to heart, but they’re not expected to. Respect, and obedience to such exhortations is a one way street.

The child doing the chalking (My guess is she was in the 8-10 year old range) seemed to be working with a library staff member. I found it kinda creepy that this child was being recruited/deployed by the library (or offered up by her parents) to write out these slogans and demands that I believe would be beyond her young understanding. I’d have been equally uneasy if she’d been inscribing slogans for a political party, promoting the merits of particular tax or immigration policies. But essentially, that’s what she was doing: trans “rights” are a political campaign, not an actual “rights” movement, and tied up as they have become with sex and sexuality, “gender identity” and such contested, adult concepts, not really appropriate for foisting upon a young child. In other words, I believe someone else put her up to it; I don’t think she would have come up with the idea of doing this without an adult’s help. I don’t think a child would have come up with the slogans she was writing out without a grown up feeding them to her. “Radiate Positivity?” Please.

This is less extreme, but it reminded me of seeing footage of young children in the UK during the Thatcher era’s miners’ strikes of the 70’s and 80’s, joining their parents on the picket line screaming “SCAB!” at workers crossing it. They couldn’t possibly know or understand what was going on, or the meaning of what they were screaming. Call me naive and privileged, but I believe part of the responsibility of parenting involves shielding children from the burdens, pressures, and realities of the adult world until they are old enough and mature enough to understand them to some extent, at which time they can choose to to engage with them. Let kids be kids. I realize that sometimes that is not possible, as in the case of Black children in the US South trying to go to school in the days of segregation.

I am fortunate in that I live in circumstances that are less dire and immediate than many others, where there is no urgency to recruit children to join in adult issues and struggles. But then again, there is no need to recruit children in the name of trans “rights,” and the concept of “trans kids” is something that should not be foisted on children. How many would ever have considered themselves to be “trans” at all if they had not first been exposed to the idea by adults with an agenda? How many would have come up with this particular self-diagnosis and lifestyle without being lured and recruited by the promise of special attention and love bombing that even the state itself, through the schools, have heaped upon “transness”? They’re being enticed to sign up for the Rainbow Glitter Army, where every meal is cupcakes and ice cream, instead of the boring broccoli and boiled potatoes they get served at home by their boring moms and dads. They’re being offered the chance of a new, special, glamourous, brave and stunning secret existence, like a real-life superhero. Who wouldn’t join?

That man is threatening us again.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on The reality.

I think this is why so many men kill themselves after the operation. They’re told that by changing their genitals, they will “truly” change sex, but that’s not how the dating world works. For the vast majority of humans, their partner’s sex is his or her most vital characteristic, for obvious evolutionary reasons. Some gay men might date a feminine-presenting man, but none would date a masculine-presenting woman. For most humans, when it comes to sexdrive, sex trumps gender.

The gay men who tend to date feminine-presenting men are more likely to be fairly feminine-presenting themselves, however. The more stereotypically masculine gay men generally go for other stereotypically masculine gay men. This is the notorious “masc-for-masc” problem, and it generates a lot of resentment among feminine gay men who are primarily attracted to stereotypically masculine men. The tension between their own instinct to present femininely while at the same time finding excessive feminine presentation in others unattractive can lead to self-hatred. They sometimes feel marginalized in the gay dating market (though that feeling is often exaggerated and distorted by their own self-hatred: in reality, feminine gays get fewer dates than the beefcake dreamboats — duh! — but they still do ok). Adopting a transgender identity for them is a way to try their luck in a different dating market — a brand new me in a brand new town, kind of thing.

And to an extent, some of them do find short term luck, so long as they remain young and thin, shave themselves completely, get breast implants or stuff a bra, and most importantly, retain their genitals. Anyone who remembers the old alt-weeklies (NY Village Voice, Seattle Stranger, LA Weekly, NOW Toronto, etc.) knows that they were largely funded by the back page ads, a substantial number of which were for “shemales” — a fetishistic fantasy for ostensibly straight men who want to try… er, other positions… with women, or the closest simulacrum of a woman for sexual purposes they can find.

These connections rarely become solid, long-lasting, psychologically healthy relationships, though. There’s money involved; there’s shame and secrecy involved. (Money, shame, and secrecy go both ways in these pairings: when the “straight” men aren’t covertly buying sex from “shemales,” the “shemales” are covertly bribing young “straight” deadbeat freeloaders to stay with them as lovers.)

I myself was a feminine-presenting gay man attracted to much more masculine men than myself, and for a time I felt guilt, shame, and confusion about the mismatch, so I can somewhat understand what these men are feeling. But in the late ’90s I worked at a trans bar, and what I saw there was profoundly sad, in a deep, fundamental way not easily remedied with flags and parades and campaigns for better “representation.” I came to suspect that there was a fundamental dysfunction at the heart of the transgender subculture.

Lately I’ve come to see that this whole thing is mostly driven by straight men with fetishes. They’re the johns perusing the back pages for “shemales,” who exploit and give false hope to confused feminine gay men; they’re the pimps who hang around the community centres and the seedy bars to coax vulnerable gay men into transgender identities. They’re the ones who pressure the medical profession to look the other way at the fact that gay men seldom do well with transgender identities in the long term.

So, speaking of the likely gap between the rah-rah rhetoric around trans idenniny and the realities of trans daily life, and the likelihood that that gap is why the rhetoric and bullying are so intense – here’s one snapshot of that reality of trans daily life.

The whole dirge:

Where are all the trans allies? Why aren’t they rushing to date and fall in love with and marry and have children with their trans beloved?

We know why, and they know why, and that could be the very reason they get so busy raging at feminist women for continuing to defend women’s rights. Displacement activity; shifting the blame; distraction; changing the subject; self-soothing. It’s our fault. If we weren’t such bitches they would simply love to marry a trans person but we keep getting in their way.

Updating to add: yesterday Labour MPs blocked voting on a women’s rights bill by talking about ferrets, and giggled about it on social media afterwards. Haha. End of update.

They think it’s funny. They wink at us.

Has the wave crested? Are the cool kids rolling their eyes?

In December, the Government finally published its Gender Questioning Children guidance. Education Secretary Gillian Keegan claimed this guidance “puts the best interests of all children first, removing any confusion about the protections that must be in place for biological sex and single-sex spaces”.

The parents of kids who, out of the blue, had announced they were “trans” thought this response was wholly inadequate. The new guidance still gave schools wiggle room to allow a child to socially transition (changing his/her birth name, demanding pronouns different to his/her biological sex). And social transitioning is not a harmless act, as Dr Hilary Cass pointed out in her interim 2022 Review into Gender Identity Services.

Of course it’s not, because there is no locked door between social “transitioning” and the physical kind.

Most children grow out of gender dysphoria given time and it is often symptomatic of something else; not least that standard condition of adolescence: feeling really rubbish about yourself.

That plus the allure of feeling Special, Different, Interesting. Trans ideology has been ruthlessly marketed as all that.

So on Friday, a group of claimants will apply to the High Court for a Judicial Review which will claim that Mrs Keegan and the Department for Education are, in effect, sending a message to schools that they can break the law with their soft stance. “The unlawful political indoctrination of children in gender identity ideology is now commonplace in schools and colleges,” one of the witnesses claims. “Over the last few years, the country has witnessed a surge in children who express dissatisfaction with their birth sex and choose to identify as ‘trans’ (or ‘non binary’). Trans and non binary are taught in Relationship, Sex and Health Education (RSHE) as ‘cool’ identities which must be embraced and celebrated at any cost.”

And this is where “diversity” and “inclusion” can become such a trap. They stop being about not bullying kids who are different, and become advertisements for being different and special and utterly fascinating instead. It’s no longer about “don’t persecute kids who are different” and is now about “don’t you wish you were as different and fabulous as your trans classmates?”

At this rate in a year or two most people will be LGBTQ+.

Elliot Page has taken aim at the notion that queer films only have a small audience.

What are “queer films”? Of course NBC News doesn’t say.

Speaking at the BFI Flare, London’s LGBTQ film festival, the actor said that “30% of young people identify as LGBTQ,” referring to a survey released earlier this year about Gen Z adults in the U.S. “So I’m sorry, but this is not niche.”

Oh I see, that kind of “queer.” The kind that just means “more interesting than you.” 99% of that 30% are that kind of queer, as opposed to lesbian or gay or bisexual. LGBTQ is just a shortcut for people who want to be less boring.

Reflecting on his current status as a working actor and filmmaker through his own Page Boy Productions banner, Page said he felt fortunate.

“I hate that I have to say this because it should not be the case, and we should have lots of trans actors,” he said. “But I feel really lucky that I’ve gone through what I’ve gone through and still get to be here and make things.”

Why? Why should we have lots of trans actors? It’s a tiny tiny tiny niche after all, so why should we have more of it? You might as well say we should have more stamp-collector actors, more flea-trainer actors, more allergic to marmalade actors.

A remark by Harry’s Place snagged my attention.

The million held?? I hadn’t realized it was that many. So let’s hear from Human Rights Watch [despite their credulity about trans ideology].

Break their lineage, break their roots

The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, located in China’s northwest, is the only region in China with a majority Muslim population. The Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other communities in the region are ethnically Turkic. Unlike the majority Han Chinese, who are primarily Chinese speakers, the Turkic population is predominantly Muslim and have their own languages. According to the 2010 census, Uyghurs made up 46 percent and Kazakhs 7 percent of the Xinjiang population.

The Chinese government’s oppression of Turkic Muslims is not a new phenomenon, but in recent years has reached unprecedented levels. As many as a million people have been arbitrarily detained in 300 to 400 facilities,[3] which include “political education” camps, pretrial detention centers, and prisons.[4] Courts have handed down harsh prison sentences without due process, sentencing Turkic Muslims to years in prison merely for sending an Islamic religious recording to a family member or downloading e-books in Uyghur. Detainees and prisoners are subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, cultural and political indoctrination, and forced labor. The oppression continues outside the detention facilities: the Chinese authorities impose on Turkic Muslims a pervasive system of mass surveillance, controls on movement, arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearance, cultural and religious erasure, and family separation.

There’s a slight ambiguity in “As many as a million people have been detained” – it’s ambiguous in that it’s not clear whether that’s the total over time or at one time. Still, a million people is a million people. It’s interesting what a lot of ink gets spilled about the tragedy of trans people in London and New York, and how little gets spilled about Turkic people in northwest China.

The United States State Department and the parliaments of Canada and the Netherlands have determined that China’s conduct also constitutes genocide under international law. Human Rights Watch has not documented the existence of the necessary genocidal intent at this time. Nonetheless, nothing in this report precludes such a finding and, if such evidence were to emerge, the acts being committed against Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang—a group protected by the 1948 Genocide Convention—could also support a finding of genocide.

And by “genocide” HRW here clearly does not mean twanzfobeea, it means mass murder.

As part of regional authorities’ intrusive “Becoming Families” surveillance, development, and indoctrination campaign, officials impose themselves for overnight stays at the homes of Turkic Muslims, a practice that authorities say “promote[s] ethnic unity.” In another particularly chilling practice, some Turkic Muslim children whose parents have been arbitrarily detained are placed in state institutions such as orphanages and boarding schools, including boarding preschools.

That sounds familiar. Indigenous people in the US and Canada also had their children torn away from them and imprisoned in boarding schools.

Anyway, never mind all that, just focus on Roger here who really needs you to call him Florence.

Parents who give their children guns may find themselves in hot water if those children use the guns to shoot their classmates.

The father of a Michigan school shooter who killed four students has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The trial heard James Crumbley, 47, ignored his 15-year-old son Ethan’s mental health needs, buying him the gun he used in the November 2021 attack. He and his wife – who was convicted on the same charges – now both face a maximum of 15 years in prison.

Here’s a thought – don’t give guns to children.

Earlier this week in her closing arguments to the jury of six men and six women, prosecutor Karen McDonald called the attack “preventable and foreseeable”. She added that James Crumbley’s actions had been “rare and egregious”.

He did not take even the slightest measures to ensure his son was not a threat after giving him a semi-automatic pistol as a gift just days before the shooting, said the prosecutor.

Why do that? Why give a kid a semi-automatic pistol? Why not a bike or a leather jacket or even – dare I say it? – a book?

Sex Matters informed us about the bill a few days ago.

This Friday a private member’s bill in the House of Commons presents MPs with a chance to discuss changing the law to clarify the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act, stop the social transitioning of children in schools, and ban healthcare providers from prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to anyone under 18 years old. 

Most laws that are enacted start as bills that are put to the Houses of Parliament by the government. But backbench MPs can also introduce legislation through private members’ bills (PMBs) such as this one. 

While it’s not as common for a private member’s bill to make it through all the stages in Parliament required for a bill to become a law, it does happen. And even where a bill doesn’t progress to an Act of Parliament, it can still have a role to play – putting forward a potential legislative solution to important issues for Parliamentary scrutiny and raising awareness among both Parliamentarians and the public.

The Health & Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill put forward by Liz Truss MP is on the House of Commons agenda on Friday morning for what’s officially called a “second reading”, but is actually the first opportunity MPs will have to debate the proposals in the bill. 

But instead they listed the names of their pets and had a jolly good laugh.

This week, the government’s consultation on its draft guidance for schools and colleges on gender-questioning children closes, and the WPATH files have exposed serious issues with the guidance that underpins NHS provision of so-called gender affirmative care. This timely bill sets out a series of sensible measures to protect women’s rights, and to protect children from being socially and medically transitioned. 

Oh who cares about women’s rights and children’s health and wellbeing? What could be less important?

Apparently Labour MPs think women’s rights are a big joke.

Liz Truss has accused Labour MPs of “filibustering” to stop her proposed transgender law reforms from being debated in the House of Commons.  Ms Truss tabled the Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill which aims to bar transgender women from female-only spaces such as changing rooms and toilets, along with preventing them from competing in women’s sport. 

It shouldn’t even need a law, really. Of course men should be barred from female-only spaces like changing rooms and toilets. That’s the point of the “female-only” bit. And of course they shouldn’t be competing in women’s sport, because it’s women’s sport.

It was third on the list of Private Members’ Bills to be debated today but time ran out before it could be discussed prompting Tory claims of Labour MPs trying to “talk out” and block the legislation. 

Oh gee, why would Tories claim that?

Omigod the shame and horror – I’ve only just realized.

You’re not going to believe this but all my blankets are binary. Every single one.

And now I think of it so are the chairs. So are the walls. So is the toaster.

I’m in it up to my eyeballs, aren’t I. Complicity. I might as well just turn myself in at the nearest police station.

Bless those Salisbury Beach people, they plaster photos of their damaged expensive houses that are a few feet from the ocean all over their Facebook group so that the whole world can see how entitled they are. Check it out:

The fucking ocean is right fucking there you fucking fools what did you think would happen?