The relentless obfuscation is getting ridiculous.

Trans inmates can visit women’s prisons to prepare them for outside

The Times doesn’t mean “trans inmates”; it means male inmates who are or claim to be trans. The Times specifies female prisons but doesn’t specify male trans inmates – thus creating pointless confusion in its own headline. The Times presumably is not even captive to the ideology, so why on earth does it do this?

Prison executives in Scotland have ruled that transgender criminals can serve time in female jails to allow them to prepare for life as women on release, according to a report.

Male transgender criminals.

Even trans inmates deemed too dangerous to serve their sentences in women’s prisons may be allowed to mingle with female inmates. Women’s campaigners have branded the decision “outrageous”.

Last week the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) published new policy on the management of transgender prisoners, due to come into effect in February.

Critics argue that the door has been left open for trans women, including people [men] self-identifying as female who have convictions for violence against women, to serve their sentences in the female estate if there is “compelling evidence that they do not present an unacceptable risk of harm to those in the women’s prison”.

What could such “compelling evidence” be? Other than quadruple amputation?

The report says: “Transgender people in custody should be provided the opportunity and supported to work towards being accommodated in an estate that aligns with their affirmed gender so that, on release to the community, they have had the opportunity to live with those who share their affirmed gender.”

Does the report go on to say “Helpless women in custody should not be protected from the potential violence and abuse of delusional narcissistic men moving in with them”?

Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative shadow justice secretary, said: “The new policy on transgender prisoners effectively permits male sex offenders access to women’s prisons.

“In line with the SNP’s dangerous gender self-ID law, the rights of male-bodied sex criminals who say they are female are deemed more important than vulnerable women in custody.”

Conservatives get this while “progressives” do everything they can to conceal it.

Smug creep condescends to women who don’t think he should be the keynote speaker at an event to commemorate the murder of fourteen women for the crime of being women.

The choice to invite him wasn’t controversial because he’s trans, it was because he’s not a woman. He should, obviously, have declined the invitation and told the people who invited them that it’s a horrible idea to invite a man instead of a woman for this particular commemoration.

I don’t care. I don’t care what he believes. I don’t care what he believes deeply. I don’t care about him in any way. The people who invited him are far more to blame than he is, but he did accept the invitation and he should have politely declined it. That’s all. He himself is not significant.

Bahahahahahahaha

PS For even more laughs, the “transbians” pictured are actually women.

There’s freedom of speech, and there’s also truth. There’s a tension there.

The press and the news media generally have a duty to tell the truth, but it’s not a duty codified in a slogan the way “freedom of speech” is. Some news media of course don’t tell the truth, and know they don’t, and make big bucks by not telling the truth.

So. Is it a glorious moment for freedom of speech that Musk has allowed Alex Jones back on Twitter? Or is it a triumph of The Big Lie? Or is it both?

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has had his account on X – formerly Twitter – reinstated by Elon Musk.

Musk asked users to vote in a poll whether or not to lift a Jones ban pre-dating his ownership of the platform, signalling he would honour the result. Around 70% of roughly two million respondents voted to lift the ban.

Jones is most notorious for falsely claiming the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting, in which 20 children and six adults died, was “staged”. He was ordered to pay $1.5bn (£1.32bn) in damages to family members of the victims, after courts found he had caused them to be subjected to harassment and death threats with his false claims.

Jones of course pales into insignificance compared to Trump, who lies constantly and brazenly, and gains power and money by doing so.

But on Saturday Musk asked users to vote on whether or not Jones should be allowed to return – a repeat of the move which saw former US President Donald Trump’s account reinstated a month after Musk took over the firm. After Musk posted the poll, Jones shared a video online in which he called on his supporters to vote in favour of his ban being overturned. Jones’s old account was reinstated hours after the poll ended.

Responding to one user on Saturday, Musk said he “vehemently” disagreed with Jones’s statements about Sandy Hook, adding: “but are we a platform that believes in freedom of speech or are we not?”

Freedom of speech including lies? Including systematic deliberate destructive lies? I for one can’t say I “believe in” a freedom of that kind, but then I’m not a platform.

There’s also the fact that rich people have a whole lot more freedom to broadcast their lies than their victims and stooges do, and they also have a lot more protection from the consequences of their lies. The purported freedom is unevenly available to people depending on how rich, famous, powerful they are.

It’s that famous saying again – the rich and the poor alike are free to sleep under bridges.

Meanwhile, in another part of the forest…

BBC Midlands shares his message.

Do push the play button. You will see at once how very womany he is.

The BBC, formerly an adult broadcasting organization, is now solemnly telling us lies and calling people names for not telling lies.

The Conservative Party’s deputy chair for women has been accused of making transphobic remarks about one of her general election rivals.

MP Rachel Maclean shared a post on X, formerly Twitter, that described transgender woman Melissa Poulton as “a man who wears a wig and calls himself a ‘proud lesbian’.”

Transgender women are, of course, men by definition. They’re men who call themselves or claim to be or pretend to be – however you want to phrase it – women. That’s what the “trans” bit means. The BBC, also of course, knows this perfectly well.

In sharing the post, Mrs Maclean commented: “While the Greens don’t know what a woman is, my Worcestershire neighbours the people of Bromsgrove certainly do.”

Even the BBC does, but the BBC pretends not to.

Mrs Maclean’s comments were described by Miss Poulton as “childish games from a government party who’s going to be out office”.

It’s Maclean who is playing childish games? Not Poulton in the dress and the wig, not the BBC pretending a wig and a dress make a man a woman?

“I’m here for representation as a queer woman, as a woman with transgender experience,” Miss Poulton said, explaining she had been born a biological man before beginning her transitioning last year.

This is the BBC telling us this absurd drivel.

The online criticism of Miss Poulton centred on a video, during which she gave her support to the 50:50 Parliament campaign, an initiative that aims to increase female representation in the House of Commons.

Ah yes; well it would, wouldn’t it. Adding a man in a dress to the House of Commons does nothing to increase female representation there. Women, oddly enough, get rather irritable when people try to cheat us out of equal representation with these stupid tricks.

But since announcing her own candidacy for Bromsgrove last week, Miss Poulton said she had received a lot of abuse online, including from Mrs Maclean.

“Oh without a shadow of a doubt, it is a transphobic comment,” she said. “It’s dog whistling of the finest. It’s gaslighting. It does have an impact on people.”

Dude, you’re the one gaslighting. We can see the gaslight flickering up and down; we can see you telling us you’re a woman.

West Mercia Police said the original post on X had been reported, but the force was not treating it as a crime.

How refreshing.

Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on Fanatic rants.

According to their Facebook page, the employees in question have been sacked.

Because this act was not aligned with our values, the employees involved in the incident are no longer employed by Farley’s.

This is part of the company’s second apology. I can sort of empathize with the owners on this one. According to the Jewish News of Northern California:

The coffee shop has also shown public support for the Civic Joy Fund, a local nonprofit founded by Jewish community activists Manny Yekutiel and Daniel Lurie. Yekutiel, who was referred to as “our good friend Manny” by Farley’s on Instagram, was with his family in Israel during the Oct. 7 attack.

So imagine you’re the owners of this coffee shop. You support a Jewish charity founded by a close friend who was in Israel on 7/10. And your employees make international news, doing this.

At first you want to find out what happened, so you put out your first apology that doesn’t explicitly say anybody is getting fired, because you’re furious and don’t want to make that decision in a blind rage.

This what the media picks up, your first apology. You calm down a bit, or find that you can’t, and make the decision that, no, these snotty little assholes need kicking out the door, so you put out your second statement saying that’s what’s happened.

The media hasn’t picked that one up because they’ve moved on in their reporting – meaning that Farley’s will probably have this stain on its reputation for about as long as it continues to exist.

This is what happens when you hire the sort of people who think Hamas can be excused by pointing to the imbalance in power. The classic power imbalance is between employer and employee – and this particular type thinks having a power imbalance means never having to consider your own behavior might have consequences.

The whole ideology of “don’t punch down” and trying to redefine racism to power+prejudice has led to this moment. The way the TRA movement operates, and how its allies excuse it, has led to this moment.

If we don’t “punch down” against bad ideas, then we allow those ideas to fester, and frankly the smell from those ideas has become off-putting.

So if people think your policy is bad and dangerous, what you do is you hide the stats. That’ll fix it.

Prison leaders in Scotland have been accused of secrecy after ruling they will no longer confirm the number of male-bodied transgender inmates serving sentences in women’s jails.

The decision comes after the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) unveiled its new policy on the management of trans women — men now identifying as women — who have been moved to the female estate.

The SPS confirmed that trans criminals with a history of violence against women may still be allowed to serve their sentences in female jails if they are deemed to not present an “unacceptable risk”.

By “unacceptable” they appear to mean unacceptable to them, not unacceptable to the women in those female jails. “As long as men in female jails don’t give us any headaches, there’s no reason to get them out of there.”

The move has sparked allegations of secrecy and of an attempt to avoid scrutiny over the controversial issue of how and where transgender prisoners are housed, following the outcry over double rapist Isla Bryson, formerly known as Adam Graham.

Bryson was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison and was initially taken to Cornton Vale women’s jail before a backlash forced the Scottish government to issue new guidance around the placing of violent trans prisoners.

And the Scottish government doesn’t want that happening again, so it will no longer house rapists with women publish the numbers.

Russell Findlay MSP, the Scottish Conservative shadow justice secretary, said: “The new policy on transgender prisoners effectively permits male sex offenders access to women’s prisons. But for it to also allow for the suppression of this crucial information is secretive and unacceptable.

“In line with the SNP’s dangerous gender self-ID law, the rights of male-bodied sex criminals who say they are female are deemed more important than vulnerable women in custody.”

Not even the rights of male-bodied sex criminals – the demands of male-bodied sex criminals.

Yes, anyone can fly.

Yes, anyone can leap tall buildings at a single bound.

Yes, anyone swim underwater without ever having to come up for air.

Yes, anyone can get their period, trans women included

Anyone can get “their” period, just as anyone can get a mosquito bite or a cold or a blister.

Menstruation, often referred to as a period, is a part of many people’s lives.

So many that there is no actual bodily reason for getting it, it just turns up, because anyone can get one.

Defined as the periodic discharge of blood and tissue from the uterus, menstruation is just one stage of the larger menstrual cycle, which typically takes place over 28 days. 

Now here we run into a difficulty, because it’s not the case that everyone has a uterus, so it can’t be the case that anyone (in the sense of everyone) can get a period. People who have testicles can’t. Our guides don’t let us in on that little secret though.

Can a transgender woman have a period? Absolutely. Many trans and gender-diverse people menstruate. Whether you’re a woman, a man, non-binary or agender, your body may menstruate too.

Who knew?! This is some really up-to-the-minute info here. I’m impressed.

Here they are, being all solidarity and shit.

Oakland, CA – 3 antisemitic employees at Farley’s East coffee house (33 Grand Ave.) are filmed denying a Jewish woman’s access to a bathroom after she complained that it was filled with antisemitic graffiti.

After FINALLY allowing her inside the restroom, the employees start on fanatic rants, including “it’s not 1948” and “you can’t steal private property like in Israel.”

Farley’s East has issued an apology on their Instagram page (turning off comments), stating they have taken “corrective action” – we hope that action includes terminating the three employees.

Their employment, that is. Not them. They might grow up to be less horrible.

The Times of Israel reports:

Employees at a cafe in Oakland, California, were filmed in recent days denying a customer said to be Jewish from using the bathroom at their shop.

The female patron of Farley’s East was said to have complained to the staff about anti-Israel messages graffitied inside the bathroom and then wanted to go inside again to film the messages but was blocked from doing so by a staff member with blue hair.

“We’ve given you all of your food… I know Israel loves taking private property and saying it’s their own, but we got ahead,” a second employee is heard telling the female patron filming the interaction on her phone. “We have a right to refuse service.”

“Currently, this is a private property,” says a third staff member. “You’re also misgendering them, so I need you to leave.”

Also your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries.

The customer insists on using the bathroom with graffiti inside. “I should not be excluded when other people are allowed,” she says.

“All you’re going to get is a video of us saying that ‘Zionism is antisemitism’ because it is,” says the third employee.

“If you agree with [the graffiti], why are you afraid that I take a picture of it?” the customer responds.

The staff then acquiesce and allows the patron into the bathroom.

She films herself walking inside where the phrase “Zionism = fascism” is daubed on the mirror and “neutrality… is enabling genocide. Free Palestine” is graffitied on the baby changing station.

“History didn’t start in 1948, lady,” says the second employee, apparently referring to the year in which Israel was established.

“Free Palestine. Now please go,” the third staffer chimes in.

What lovely people.

The first commandment is: always punish the woman first.

The Texas Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a pregnant woman from obtaining an emergency abortion in a ruling issued late Friday.

The court froze a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed Kate Cox, who sued the state seeking a court-ordered abortion, to obtain the procedure. “Without regard to the merits, the Court administratively stays the district court’s December 7, 2023 order,” the order states.

The court noted the case would remain pending before them but did not include any timeline on when a full ruling might be issued. Cox is 20 weeks pregnant. Her unborn baby was diagnosed with a fatal genetic condition and she says complications in her pregnancy are putting her health at risk.

It’s sheer vindictive sadism to prevent a woman from aborting a doomed fetus. What is the point? The fetus is not going to grow up to donate to Republicans, so what is the point? Just abusing women, because they can. Her health doesn’t matter; only revenge against women matters.

The ruling came just hours after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton petitioned the high court to intervene in the case.

Paxton’s petition stemmed from a ruling on Thursday by a Texas judge who granted a 14-day temporary restraining order against the state’s abortion ban, so Cox could legally terminate her pregnancy.

…

In a letter to three hospitals in Houston where, according to the Texas Medical Board, Cox’s physician has privileges, Paxton wrote Cox has failed to demonstrate she has a “life-threatening” medical condition related to her pregnancy or that her symptoms place her “at risk of death” or major bodily harm.

The state attorney general also warned the hospitals Thursday’s ruling “will not insulate you, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability,” including first-degree felony prosecutions and civil penalties of at least $100,000 for each violation.

All for the sake of making women helpless victims of their own bodies.

Yes this is fine.

ICONS Evie Edwards, a participant in another race caught up with Small & a non-binary identifying activist at the race to get their reactions.

@usacycling has been committed to prioritizing the preferences of male cyclists over the accomplishments and well-being of its female riders. It’s time to take a stand.

The mocking pose is nice too.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Stunning transgender model.

However, Morgan knew in her heart that her true identity was female and at the age of 21 she made the life-changing decision to become a woman.

He might have “made the decision,” but it’s never going to happen. How can they print such twaddle with a straight face? It’s a fantasy that’s as likely to happen as him having made “life-changing decision” to become a tapir, a carburetor, or a bowl of oatmeal.

The problem is that these decisions are including everyone else. We’re supposed to play along with this impossible, universe changing decision, and trans activists have been working to make this enabling collusion of “validation” compulsory through the force of law. Amazingly enough they have succeeded to a startling degree within such an astoundingly short span of time.

In order to do this, they have had to bypass or subvert the normal, democratic process of informed debate, consent and consultation which would precede such drastic redefinitions of public and private spaces and facilities. Part of that process is exactly what we see above, in media reporting the impossible as normal and unremarkable.

If it is admitted that humans can’t change sex (which is a fact), and that men remain men for life (another fact), the rest of the above story becomes nonsense, and it becomes impossible to report this man’s alleged crimes as having been committed by a woman. Truth takes a back seat to compliance to “kindness” or…something.* Thanks captured media!

*Is there in fact any legal reason that media are required to use inaccurate, dishonest pronouns in reporting on trans identified individuals? Or is this entirely voluntary “politeness”?

By way of a change from abusing and insulting women, the BBC slobbers lovingly over a man who pretends to be a woman.

After her breakout role in Heartstopper, Yasmin Finney is back on our screens playing trans character Rose Noble in Doctor Who, as the show celebrates its 60th anniversary.

The 20-year-old trans actress tells BBC Newsbeat being part of the cast has given her “a kooky, amazing family”, an experience she feels she missed out on.

Trans character, trans actress – so he identifies as a woman acting a character who identifies as a woman, yes? It’s easy to lose track of the meta in these situations.

Using TikTok, where she has almost two million followers, Yasmin has been open about her experience of being a transgender black woman as well as making it as an actress.

Look at all the points he gets! He’s black and a woman and trans! Yes you do too so get to count both being trans and being a woman at the same time – you do you do you DO.

But that added pressure of being aligned with such a beloved character, as well as her trans identity, meant that for Yasmin there has been a downside to being cast in a dream role: online trolls.

What is her trans idenniny though? Is that the same rule? He has a woman idenniny and a trans idenniny? I guess so; see above.

“I want people to laugh, I want people to smile, I want people to cry. And also I just want to be good representation for people that haven’t had it.”

Men who pretend to be women haven’t had good representation until now. It’s heartbreaking.

And in conclusion, just look at the venom with which the BBC pretends a male sexual abuser of a child is not a man at all but a whore bitch cunt woman.

A “predatory” woman who incited a man to sexually abuse a “vulnerable and innocent” young child has been jailed.

An investigation found Naomi O’Brien, of Tameside, had directed a man from Wales to abuse the four-year-old in March 2023.

Quotation marks on “predatory” and “vulnerable and innocent” but not on “woman”. But O’Brien is not a woman.

O’Brien, of Ashton-under-Lyne, knew Walker had “an interest in sexually abusing a young boy on the direction of her,” Det Insp Zoe Marsden, of GMP’s Online Child Abuse Investigation Team said.

She was convicted of three counts of intentionally encouraging and assisting another to commit a sexual assault against a child, and two counts of intentionally encouraging and assisting another to engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child and engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.

O’Brien was also given a sexual harm prevention order for four years and four months, and placed on the sex offenders register for life when she was sentenced.

Det Insp Marsden said it was a “significant result” for this case and also “other children in the community who could have been subject to similar offending by a predatory female who was inciting others to commit acts of sexual harm”.

But there is no “predatory female” in this story, you fucking misogynist liars.

How do we know “Naomi” O’Brien, sexual abuser of a child, is a man? This is how:

The Daily Mail in 2015:

With her blonde hair and enviable figure, Morgan Naomi Clarke is hoping to win a beauty pageant – even though she spent the first 22 years of her life as a man.

Morgan, 23, from Manchester, who says she was ‘born in the wrong body’ is hoping to take home the crown at Miss Transgender UK.

Born Nathan O’Brien, Morgan said she has spent her life feeling pressured to ‘butch up’ by her two older sporty brothers.

As a teenage boy, she was branded ‘gay’ by her family and friends who refused to believe she was born in the wrong body.

Probably because there’s no such thing as being born in the wrong body.

However, Morgan knew in her heart that her true identity was female and at the age of 21 she made the life-changing decision to become a woman.

And now she has landed regular work as a model and has now set her sights on becoming a beauty queen. 

And now he has been convicted of child sexual abuse, and the mainstream news media are pretending he’s a woman.

Greater Manchester Police lie to the public about a man who sexually abused a child.

Not a man and a woman; two men. “Naomi” there is a man. Greater Manchester Police knowingly lied about it; we know they know, because they turned off replies when they posted the lie.

Such childish door-slamming where journalism should be:

The court of session ruling upholding the UK government’s veto on Scotland’s gender recognition reforms contributed to a “sense of exhaustion” in the trans community, said Jennie Kermode, a writer, film-maker and adviser for Trans Media Watch, based near Glasgow.

After that we get five paragraphs of Kermode blathering as if trans people were the only people who have any stake in this issue. Hello? Guardian? Libby Brooks? Are you aware that women exist? That in fact there are a lot of us? That we have rights too?

Dylan Hamilton, a climate activist, said the ruling was “as much an issue about Scotland’s democracy as it is about the human rights of trans people”.

Gender recognition reform amounted to “a small administrative change that makes our lives slightly easier to lead”, he added. “I think the fact that this cannot even be passed is a dark symbol of how strong the opposition to our right to exist is.”

And yet no one is denying trans people’s right to exist.