Spiked points out what you’d think would be obvious to anyone who thinks about it for three seconds.

Female athletes are fighting back against the trans takeover of their sports. In the past few months, sports as varied as cycling and angling have faced boycotts and protests from female athletes over their so-called trans inclusion policies. Across the sporting world, more and more women are arriving at the same conclusion – namely, that allowing men to compete in their sports is unfair at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

Or, women have known that all along but only now are starting to feel able to say so.

The latest sportswomen to revolt are professional pool players. The World Eightball Pool Federation and Ultimate Pool Group had previously promised to rewrite their rules on trans inclusion to prevent biological males from competing in women’s competitions. Then, last month, they performed a volte face. They revealed that ‘transgender and nonbinary players will be able to participate’ in future women’s series.

So women are walking away, which means the men still get to win (but their cheating is made that bit more obvious to onlookers).

Fourteen-times national champion Alexandra Cunha has outright refused to ever play against men in the women’s category.

In an interview with the Telegraph, Cunha says she is worried that many people don’t fully appreciate the advantages that biological males have over females, even in a precision sport like pool. ‘Players born male have longer arms and a longer range’, she says. ‘In 32 years, I have never witnessed any biological woman with anything like the power and velocity when it comes to the break shot.’

If the inclusion of biological males in precision sport is unfair, their inclusion in a contact sport is downright dangerous. Shockingly, Boxing Canada allows fighters to participate in whichever sex category they choose. It is little wonder that women have started to boycott its competitions.

It’s so interesting to watch entire sporting organizations cheerily allow men to batter women.

It’s good news that female athletes are taking a stand against men in women’s sports. Walking out of ‘trans inclusive’ competitions might well be the only way to force a response from sporting bodies. The tragedy here is that it still means women are losing out. Female athletes who have spent years training to reach the top of their game are now effectively being pushed into forfeiting their shot at winning titles. Women deserve better than to be forced to cede ground to mediocre men.

Quite so. It’s not really good news that women are walking away – it’s a horrible sacrifice they’re forced into making because the sports organizations have lost their fucking minds.

Why…………yes, we know. That’s our point. Didn’t they tell you you’re not supposed to say it in public?

Oh look, a trans emperor!

A Roman emperor has been deemed transgender by a British museum, The Telegraph can reveal.

The council-run North Hertfordshire Museum has decided to be “sensitive” to the purported pronoun preferences of the 3rd-century AD ruler Elagabalus.

Oh how kind. I don’t suppose Elagabulus cares all that much by now, but still, it’s fraffly kind of the museum.

The Roman Emperor will be treated as a transgender woman and referred to as “she”.

Elagabalus has been given female pronouns on the basis of classical texts that claim he asked to be called “lady” – but historians believe these accounts may simply have been a typical Roman attempt at character assassination.

Gaaaaaaaaaasp! How dare you!

Information on museum policy states that pronouns used in displays will be those “the individual in question might have used themselves” or whatever pronoun “in retrospect, is appropriate”.

You don’t use pronouns that other people say to refer to you. You use them when you refer to yourself or other people. Latin, like languages descended from Latin, doesn’t have female and male forms of the first person singular, so good old Ela G. wasn’t using any pronouns to declare his own sex.

The museum consults with the LGBT charity Stonewall and the LGBT wing of the trade union Unison on best practice for its displays, to ensure that “our displays, publicity and talks are as up-to-date and inclusive as possible”.

Let’s everybody consult with some different charities for a change. Ones that give a damn about women would be a good place to start.

Liberal Democrat councillor Keith Hoskins, executive member for arts at the Lib Dem and Labour coalition-run North Herts Council, claimed that: “Elagabalus most definitely preferred the ‘she’ pronoun and as such this is something we reflect when discussing her in contemporary times.”

“most definitely”?? How does he think he knows that?

Historians have said that feminine behaviour would have been a dishonour to men in Rome, and suggested that accounts of Elagabalus’ life are replete with the worst accusations that could be levelled at a Roman because they are character assassinations.

But the North Hertfordshire Museum knows better.

The Telegraph has the skinny on “Francesa” versus women.

At least four teams in a Sheffield women’s football league are boycotting matches after a club fielded a transgender player accused of causing a season-ending injury to an opponent.

Mexborough Athletic refused to play Rossington Ladies on Sunday night in protest at the presence of Francesca Needham, 31, amid outrage throughout the league at the openly trans player’s alleged connection to an incident that has left a rival out of action for several months.

He’s huge. There are photos. He stands out.

The Needham case has potentially far-reaching implications, with at least 50 transgender players understood to be registered in women’s leagues across England. The Football Association’s policy is to decide gender eligibility for players over 16 on a case-by-case basis, with biological males wanting to play in women’s football required to show their blood testosterone levels are “within the natal female range” for an “appropriate length of time so as to minimise any potential advantage.” These levels are meant to be checked annually.

That nonsense drives me crazy. It’s not just the testosterone! His whole body is different: bigger, heavier, thicker. Would men like it if an adult male gorilla played on the other team?

“We had a Zoom call together and you could feel the emotion pouring out,” a source said. “We’ve been terrified of saying anything. We don’t want to be accused of being transphobic. We don’t want the names of our clubs dragged through the mud. It has been like walking on eggshells.”

In other words they were under enormous social pressure to risk their bodies and well-being for the sake of a man who wants to be able to smash them.

Fiona McAnena, director of sport for Fair Play for Women, emphasised the scale of the debate unleashed by the Needham controversy. “People say, ‘It’s only a few trans players, what difference does it make? Well, here’s one male player in one team, affecting every team in that league – that’s over 150 women. They don’t want to play if it’s so unfair, they’re worried about injury, and some are even talking about giving up football, if this is how it’s going to be.

“There are 50 male players approved by the FA to play women’s football in England – and those are the ones they know about. So this is affecting thousands of women and girls in football. This is happening all over the country. We have raised this with the Equality and Human Rights Commission as a matter of urgency. They need to point out that female-only sport is lawful.

“Many sports governing bodies receive funding from the national sports councils to promote female participation. Surely it is time for the sports councils to insist that sport governing bodies provide fair and safe sport for women and girls – or lose funding.”

How about now?

A guy called Francesca Needham makes a “statement” on why he’s not playing football any more:

Subject: Important Announcement Regarding My Role at Rossington Main Ladies FC

Dear club, league, and all Football Association officials

It is with a mix of disappointment and resolve that I find myself having to address a recent development impacting myself and my team.

As some of you may have heard, Rossington Main Ladies FC has faced challenges from teams unwilling to play against us while I am on the field. This unfortunate circumstance has prompted me to investigate pursuing a case of discrimination, as I believe it represents a breach of the code of conduct regarding diversity and inclusion, as well as safeguarding of adults in football established by both the Football Association and the Sheffield and Hallamshire Women and Girls League.

You notice he doesn’t say why the teams are unwilling to play against him. It is, of course, because he’s a man. He considers it illegitimate wrong bad “discrimination” for women to refuse to be battered by him when playing football.

Therefore, in the best interests of my club and my supportive teammates who stand beside me, I have made the decision to step down from playing football for the foreseeable future.

This decision is rooted in the desire to safeguard the team and the club’s trajectory. It’s disheartening to acknowledge that this situation contradicts everything in the diversity and inclusion policies, given that I have diligently met every single requirement set out by the Football Association to play.

“Diversity” and “inclusion” should not mean forcing women to play football against men.

I sincerely hope that this issue of perceived discrimination against me can be resolved peacefully and promptly, with the full support of the Football Association and the policies they have written and approved.

Of course he is the only person who matters in this scenario. The women are just cardboard dummies; he’s the only actual person involved.

Kyle Rittenhouse Launches Foundation Aimed At Fighting Gun Control

This is a sick sick sick country.

Kyle Rittenhouse has launched an anti-gun control nonprofit in Texas, according to a filing with the Texas Secretary of State’s office, which was first reported on by the Texas Tribune—a sign the young man who became a conservative star after being acquitted of killing two Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, is ramping up his political activity in Texas.

A star is born! Dude who kills lefties promotes guns!

Rittenhouse filed with the Secretary of State on July 23 to create the Rittenhouse Foundation, a nonprofit based in Fort Worth, Texas, which aims to protect “an individual’s inalienable right to bear arms” through “education and legal assistance,” according to the filing.

Rittenhouse is listed as a director alongside Chris McNutt, president of the gun advocacy group Texas Gun Rights and Shelby Griesinger, treasurer of the Defend Texas Liberty PAC, which has financed the campaigns of right-wing candidates across the state.

Who is Rittenhouse again? Oh yes, the kid who went to a BLM protest and shot two people dead and one not-dead. Excellent example for us all.

The incident was widely condemned by liberals, but many conservatives came to his defense. U.S. Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) and Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) both offered the then-teenager internships, and then-President Donald Trump hosted him at his Mar-a-Lago estate. 

Because what is more admirable and worthy of reward than shooting people dead at anti-racism protests?

Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on Does the left hate women?

Considering we’re talking radical left, I think a lot of it has to do with Antifa, or the philosophy behind Antifa.

Antifa is fundamentally, as an idea, a validation of violence as a form of political expression, as a tactic in political debate.

Now this strain of thought predates Antifa as a formalized idea on the radical left, but it was with Antifa that it formed enough coherency to be properly identified.

So when Islamists launch terror attacks in Western nations – think the Charlie Hebdo massacre for example – that is seen as not just a political statement, but a valid one. The conversation is always shifted to historic “context” with an emphasis on demonizing the victims. There is always the excuse of justified grievances.

In less radical spheres, in civil discussion we tend to consider violence an invalidating factor. If you punch somebody because they disagree with you, you’ve ceded the argument, because my ability to thump you doesn’t translate into me being right.

But with this ideology where violence is considered a legitimate means of making a point, those who are more willing to use violence are afforded greater credibility than those who are not. If we allow violence as a response to non-violence, we descend into rule by thuggery.

LGB and women are generally less willing to use violence than the trans community. I think the problem with saying LGBTQ will always lose, is T are prized over the rest of the alphabet soup, because lets face it a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire isn’t a lesbian symbol.

Atheists and women tend to land at the bottom of the list, women because physiology means that women are at a disadvantage in a fight. The same reasons for the sex divide in sports, means that women trying to defend that divide are at a physical disadvantage. Atheists because of the meme about how religious militants kill, atheist militants write books.

I think a part of this is the psychology that comes from phrasing radical leftwing identity politics as “allyship”. I think the concept of “allies” is fundamentally toxic – men who identify as “feminist allies” aren’t feminists. By definition they are men who see feminism as something that can be exploited to further their own political goals, that is the nature of an alliance.

You don’t have to agree with an ally, you just need to see them as a useful tool.

So who is more useful as an ally if you accept the idea that violence is an appropriate means of arguing political points? A 60-year-old woman, or a 30-year-old male pervert in a dress? Women who are simply stating biological fact, or men who will spend the better part of a decade smearing and sending death threats to a much beloved female author because she said something they didn’t like?

Of course, one needs to bear in mind that the only really successful movement in the left since the rise of Antifa, has been atheists. We’re so wildly successful that when a religious conservative doesn’t like an idea, they proclaim that idea to be a “religion”. Even the people who are pro-religion, phrase being a religion as a problem.

An increased willingness to use violence might help you with the radical left, but I’m not sure it would help you with literally anyone else.

In other words a very small number.

We’re supposed to think “all the”=a very large number.

It doesn’t.

Popehat on Musk and free speech and how confused people are about what free speech even is:

Elon Musk genuinely feels that advertisers are a threat to free speech. Why? Because many advertisers fled X after Musk eagerly endorsed a bigot’s articulation of anti-Semitic theories, including that Jews promote hatred of whites and that Jews are importing “hordes of minorities.” Unsurprisingly, many companies aren’t cool with that. That’s a mix of corporate leadership thinking that such bigotry is bad business and thinking that it’s immoral.

Private companies have a First Amendment right to make such a decision. They have the right to express their values — and choose their marketing strategy — by deciding what kind of media content to promote. They have freedom of association to refrain from advertising on platforms that repulse their customers. Those rights are held both by the corporate advertisers and by the individuals making decisions for them. Elon Musk’s sullen yawp amounts to a claim that he has a right for companies to sponsor his speech, no matter what he says. That’s nonsense, both legally and philosophically.

It doesn’t stop there. Musk is also a fan of the theory that when he speaks, your criticism of him violates his rights. His latest articulation of this theory came after Media Matters published an article claiming that X is running ads for prominent companies next to bigoted content on X. Musk responded with an extravagant, mostly incoherent threat to file a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against Media Matters and its board and donors “to protect free speech,” whose criticism “seeks to undermine freedom of expression on our platform.”

Irregular verb again. When we do it it’s freedom of speech, when they do it it’s an attack on our freedom of speech. Heads we win tails they lose.

Popehat shows us a little chat among Musk, Stephen Miller, and a Federalist Society lawyer agreeing on how to shut other people up.

Just as the tree of liberty must occasionally be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants, freedom of speech must occasionally be protected by an unemployed ghoul and a personality disordered Boer persuading a bland FedSoc apparatchik to pester journalists for questioning billionaires.

I didn’t know Musk is a Boer!* How very interesting. (Personality disordered, yes, that I knew. Everyone knows.)

It would be easy to blame this contemptible nonsense on Elon Musk being socially inept, proudly ignorant, and grotesquely petulant. But when it comes to thinking that the right to free speech includes the right to silence others, Elon learned it by watching us, okay? He learned it by watching us.

Popehat goes on to say pretty much everybody thinks and says that criticism of X violates X’s free speech, with many examples.

H/t Rob

*See Bruce Gorton @ 19

Pliny on the persecuted:

Holy shit.

And so we learn that men who claim to be trans are…uh…no threat at all to women in any way.

H/t Steven

Jerry Coyne notes that blind spot on the putative left:

The decision of LGBTQ people and feminists to support Muslim societies—societies where they’d never want to live, for many of them would be killed because of their sexual orientation—is an example of MacPherson’s Law, confected by one of our readers. According to Diana, if progressives must choose between conflicting causes to support, and one of them is women’s rights, the women’s rights lose. (By “causes”, I mean “supporting a group deemed to be oppressed.”) I’ll add a corollary: if progressives have to choose between two conflicting causes, and one of them is LGBTQ rights, those rights also lose.

Diana is not wrong. Another label for it could be The Karen Principle. Whenever there’s a conflict, shazam, women become Karens.

For this reason I don’t agree with Jerry’s corollary. Purported “LGBTQ” rights are constantly canceling women’s rights, especially, of course, the T (and whatever the Q may be). Women’s rights never cancel any T rights but T rights always cancel women’s rights.

The Karen Principle features prominently in Does God Hate Women? Many on the left see Islam and [male] Muslims as in every way and every sense the downtrodden persecuted minority, and foam at the mouth if anyone points out that Islam treats women like shit.

How progressive.

Man preens about ruining another sport for women.

Harriet Haynes has broken her silence after winning a national pool tournament by default after her opponent walked out in protest against having to face transgender players, with the champion claiming ‘bigotry is alive and well’.

Lynne Pinches conceded the final of the Ladies Champion of Champions national pool tournament at the weekend without playing a single frame, refusing to face her transgender opponent Haynes.

Her male opponent.

Pinches revealed after the match – her fourth final in her pool career – that her decision to walk out was made in the aid of ‘fairness’ in the sport, protesting against the fact that natal females can be drawn against transgender players. 

Skip the “natal females” crap. Women. The word is women.

Of course there was a “statement” saying how evil it is for women to say no to this systematic abuse.

‘This past weekend, player Lynn Pinches (sister of established snooker star Barry Pinches) made a protest in front of a packed playing hall by refusing to play the final of the National Champion of Champions Ladies’ Singles Competition,’ the statement drafted by Haynes’ lawyer with her endorsement begins.

‘The reason? Her co-finalist, Harriet Haynes, was a transgender woman. The “protest” has led to significant online discussion and a lot of regretful bigotry.’

Wtf is “regretful bigotry”? The lawyer meant “regrettable.” Maybe they is a trans lawyer.

Haynes argues that given pool’s status as a ‘precision sport’ there is no grounds for a discrimination to be made, asserting that there is no proof of transgender players holding an advantage. 

‘For all the comments that people hold that being trans is an advantage in cue sports, there is no scientific evidence to prove that,’ the statement continues. 

Always this sneaky deceit – always this lie that the issue is “being trans” when it’s being male.

‘The WEPF, UPG and EBPF have been asked to provide the scientific evidence that it was assumed that they must have had before they decided to issue such a controversial and unlawful policy. No such evidence has ever been provided to show how there is an apparent advantage to transwomen as compared to naturally born women.’

But it was a women’s tournament. For women. Not for men. Haynes is a man.

Time to ditch the TQ (way past time in fact).

As rising numbers of old-fashioned LGBs see it, the “T” — for transgender — and “Q” for queer, don’t necessarily have much in common with gays and lesbians. 

Not so much “old-fashioned” as still able to tell the differences between things that are not the same.

For these ideological reformists, the LGBTQ mash-up and community-wide obsession with trans issues is sowing confusion and chaos within politics and popular culture — eroding much of the progress sexual minorities have fought to achieve.

Well, that, but also it’s a pack of lies enforced by relentless bullying.

“We feel shackled into this ‘umbrella term’ by organizations that are supposed to serve us but have actually turned against us,” explained Kate Barker, CEO of the London-based LGB Alliance, which was established in late 2019 to ​​“advance the interests of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.” “It has come to a point where many of us find ourselves forced into a relationship we never consented to and feel we cannot leave.” 

Like forced marriage, but with stripes.

…a survey conducted last year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that Americans are widely in favor of general nondiscrimination laws protecting LGBTs — eight in 10 back policies securing jobs, public accommodation, and housing — but that support erodes when special privileges for trans people, framed as “rights” by the researchers, enter the picture.

All the more so because those special privileges framed as “rights” are so glaringly incompatible with women’s and girls’ rights. The “right” to use women’s toilets and locker rooms=a threat to women. The “right” to win prizes for women=women not winning their own prizes. And so on. It’s not minor or subtle stuff.

The purification continues.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The spectre.

Affirmation is a powerful psychological tool, but like all tools (nuclear power or nuclear bombs) it needs to be applied with rigour and care for the outcome.

Interesting insight. Thank you for sharing this.

We seem to be dealing with the “nuclear bomb” version of this psychological tool. These desperate people are being told that affirmation needs to be paired with drastic body modification. The self-defeating, self destructive internal voice is being catered to and appeased, not talked off the ledge. The social contagion aspect turns the phenomenon into a patient driven one, with sufferers demanding the “true path” to what they’ve been told will make them better. At the same time, the watchfull waiting approach which would leave them intact and, if successful, happier in their own, uncut skin, is condemned by activists as “conversion therapy.” The activist path is encouraging sufferers to listen to the inner voice telling them to jump into the lifelong, medicalized “journey” to a place they can never reach.

A major twist on this weaponized “affirmation” approach is that the entire rest of the world is supposed to join in with the “affirmation.” It is no longer an internal dialogue, but a play in which we’re all expected to read our scripted lines and follow the blocking that the reified, empowered and enthroned “gender identity” demands. Everyone else is supposed to go along with the fiction that yes, these people have actually changed sex. We are unwittingly and unwillingly pressed into being a part of their “therapy.” Failure to comply results in our punishment as cruel monters out to cause “harm” and “suffering” to these people who have become, at the same time, our wards and our masters. We are to dance to the tune chosen by these marginalized, vulnerable dictators, whose zealous supporters can have us cancelled and fired for using the “wrong” words.

And whatever is happening with, or done to genuinely dysphoric individuals, the “affirmation approach” has in turn been appropriated by fetishistic AGP males in order to demand access to female only spaces. And this appropriation goes farther still. The therapeutic language, along with Self-ID, become tools to be used by predators and cheats who might not even be dysphoric or AGP at all, but who see and seize an opportunity they can exploit. Trans activists, having failed to acknowledge the threat that Self-ID represents to women’s spaces perforce defend predators when they defend the “right” of TiMs to access those spaces. Because there is no way for women to distinguish between “harmless” TiMs and run-of-the-mill male predators, trans activists have effectively taken the predators under their wing so as not to weaken their own supposed claim to women’s spaces. If a few women suffer as collateral damage from predators who take advantage of the opening that TiMs have made, oh well. It’s all a part of “validation” and “affirmation.” We all have our parts to play, though we don’t all have a choice in the matter. Some of us are stars, some of us are only extras.

That all of these different, conflicting groups get lumped together under the “trans umbrella” within the even broader, forced-teamed LGBTQetc. “community” makes responding difficult, as opposing the boundary-breaking behaviour of males who claim to be trans is trumpeted as an “attack” on the “entire LGBTQ community,” even when it’s really just an attempt to protect women from creepy males. In the ultimate reductio ad absurdum, we have the bizarre, unexpected spectacle of lesbians defending their same-sex attraction and association against genderist “lady dick lesbians” being turned outcast for “attacking” the very community of which they are ostensibly charter members. To paraphrase the promulgators and aplogists of “TWAW,” The L is right there in the name! But like some sort of activist auto-immune disorder, the “community” turns on part of its own body, giving the lie to the loudly asserted claim that there is “No Conflict” between women’s rights and trans “rights.” A little “affirmation” goes a long way.

Take your diversity assessment and shove it up whatever gender-questionng orifice you have handy.

A maternity hospital received a low grade on a diversity assessment because staff only use the term “mother” when discussing maternity leave, The Telegraph can disclose.

The Cambridge University Hospital Trust, which manages a maternity hospital called the Rosie, lost points because staff use the term “mother” when referring to the policies it had in place regarding paid leave, instead of broadening it to include gender-neutral alternatives.

Are they still calling it a maternity hospital? Shouldn’t that be parental hospital? Or perhaps uterus-haver hospital? Eggy-patient hospital?

The report was carried out by the NHS’ “Rainbow Badge” scheme, which assesses hospitals based on how they treat LGBT patients.

Let’s rename it the Richter Scale 8 Badge scheme.

The trust also lost points for not providing staff with guidance on what trans and non-binary employees should wear, pointing out how the trust’s “trans inclusion policy” did not provide “guidance on the dress code for trans employees, including non-binary employees.”

Wut? Why do they need guidance? Is the hospital supposed to invent some “non-binary” scrubs?

The report also flagged a “cause for concern” about a deluge of comments from staff criticising the trust’s inclusivity efforts for “virtue signaling” instead of providing care, including one comment which said: “We cannot waste taxpayers’ money on tokenism.”

Well done staff! Pay attention NHS rainbow schemers! This nonsense absolutely is virtue-signaling instead of doing anything useful.

The report said: “0 points were awarded for the Maternity Leave Policy. The policy does not have an inclusion statement to make clear that it applies to all irrespective of gender/gender of partner etc. 

But it doesn’t apply to “all” surely. Men don’t lactate. Men don’t give birth so they have no need to regain their strength after giving birth. New mothers need maternity leave in ways that new fathers simply don’t. It’s great if men share as much of the work as they can, and ideally they should get leave, but even so their need is not the same.

One member of staff who said he was gay is cited calling the Rainbow Badge “insulting.”

They wrote: “I feel it is excessive – I just want to live my life; I don’t want to be asked; I don’t want my identity reduced to a label. I am tired of it – I just want to live my life like everyone else.”

Another said: “Rainbow badges are just performative; I would prefer all staff be properly trained and supportive to all needs, not singling out one or two.”

Good. More of that please. Everyone push back.

In 2021, the “Rainbow Badge” went from a physical symbol to a nationwide scheme that assesses hospitals based on how they treated LGBT staff by placing them on a scale between gold, silver, and bronze.

…

The scheme is commissioned by NHS England but run by trans rights groups, including Stonewall and the LGBT Foundation, who carry out the grading.

Oh no no no no no. Don’t do that. Get Stonewall right out of there.

Seems bizarre.

 A Colorado judge on Friday allowed Donald Trump to remain on the ballot in the state’s election next year, but found that he “engaged in insurrection” by sparking the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

He did the thing that should disqualify him but he gets to stay anyway.

The ruling from Judge Sarah Wallace, which is almost certain to be appealed, rejects a bid by a group of Colorado voters to disqualify Trump under a rarely used amendment to the U.S. Constitution that bars officials who have engaged in “insurrection” from holding federal office.

I’m betting the reason the amendment is rarely used is that insurrection doesn’t happen all that often. I don’t think it’s rarely used because hey really when you think about it who cares about insurrection anyway.

Still, the judge concluded Trump’s “conduct and words were the factual cause of, and a substantial contributing factor” to the attack on the Capitol. She found that Trump “engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021 through incitement.”

Which is why he should never be allowed anywhere near the levers of power ever again.

At the Critic an anonymous psychiatrist writes:

When a child identifies as trans, the spectre of suicide is frequently raised by campaigners — sometimes in a highly manipulative and unethical form. A talk by philosopher Kathleen Stock at the Oxford Union in May was interrupted by an activist glueing her hands to the floor. She wore a T-shirt stating, “No more dead trans kids”. Parents are told that unless they immediately “socially transition” their child — i.e., refer to them as members of the opposite sex, and present them as such to everyone else — their child is highly likely to self-harm.

Perhaps the most egregious form this claim takes is that unless a child is swiftly medicalised, first with puberty-blockers and then cross-sex hormones to cause their body to develop towards the “right” sex, the risk of suicide is hugely elevated. This emotional blackmail is expressed in the activist catchphrase, “Better a live daughter than a dead son”. Susie Green, former chief executive of the trans lobby group Mermaids, has described medicalisation of gender-distressed young people as “literally lifesaving”.

Thus many parents hasten to say yes to hormones and surgery.

This hurried, medicalised approach is entirely at odds with what mental-health practitioners know about assessing and managing suicide risk. The majority of patients who are suicidal are depressed, anxious, psychotic or experiencing ongoing trauma such as bullying, domestic violence or abuse. They feel hopeless and ashamed. Patients try to “carry on as normal” and hide their despair from those around them. Frequently they avoid acknowledging, even to themselves, that they are having serious mental health problems.

It’s complicated difficult stuff, so the best people to deal with it are not ideology-addled nitwits on social media.

There is, thankfully, no evidence to support the idea that having a trans identification in itself leads to a higher risk of suicide. Being gender non-conforming can cause so-called “minority stress”, and people who identify as trans often suffer from mental-health conditions that are related to self-harm and suicidality. The website of the main NHS child gender clinic, GIDS, says that “suicidality in young people attending the GIDS is similar to that of young people referred to child and adolescent mental health services”.

However, a young person who hears repeatedly that they are at risk, if they are denied social transition, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, may come to believe this claim. 

But if the result is that they get to ruin their bodies in order to pretend to be the other sex then that’s a win, right?

Every child who experiences gender distress deserves high-quality, evidence-based care. They do not deserve to be treated as rhetorical devices by campaigners and politicians who wish to forward a political agenda. They seem to have lost sight of the harm they are doing to this very vulnerable group.

It’s for the greater good, which is creating more and more and more trans people.