Butterflies and Wheels View RSS

Silencing the CDC 6:32 AM (last hour)

Trump to CDC: shut up.

To accomplish its mission of increasing the health security of the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that it “conducts critical science and provides health information” to protect the nation. But since President Trump’s administration assumed power in January, many of the platforms the CDC used to communicate with the public have gone silent, an NPR analysis found.

Many of the CDC’s newsletters have stopped being distributed, workers at the CDC say. Health alerts about disease outbreaks, previously sent to health professionals subscribed to the CDC’s Health Alert Network, haven’t been dispatched since March. The agency’s main social media channels have come under new ownership of the Department of Health and Human Services, emails reviewed by NPR show, and most have gone more than a month without posting their own new content.

Interesting. What’s the thinking here? The usual Trump-Musk substitute for thinking? “Government is bad, close it all down”? Is that it?

Health emergencies have not paused since January. Cases of measles, salmonella, listeria and hepatitis A and C have spread throughout the country. More than 100 million Americans continue to suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes and breast cancer. The decline in the agency’s communication could put people at risk, said four current and former CDC workers, three of whom NPR is allowing to remain anonymous because they are still employed by the CDC and believe they may be punished for speaking out.

But being put at risk is good for people. It toughens them up, makes them hardier, teaches them lessons about life. Besides, communication costs money. That’s money that could be in Trump’s pocket instead.

“Social media is one of the main ways the CDC communicates plain language, life-saving messages to America,” said one CDC employee.

But now, many of those messages have stopped being sent out. Changes to communication at the CDC began shortly after Trump was inaugurated in January, when HHS instructed the CDC and other health agencies to pause any sort of collaboration with people outside the agency.

“So at that point we stopped pretty much all communications,” said a CDC employee who works at the agency.

It’s efficiency. The less communication there is, the more efficiently things run. Everyone gets to go home early.

Two CDC employees who work in communications told NPR that fewer than half of the public health posts they’ve sent to HHS for approval have been cleared for publication on social media. Even posts that include basic information about recent disease outbreaks, like the number of people sickened or hospitalized, have not been posted as requested by employees, NPR confirmed after reviewing posts submitted for approval by an employee. Communications workers say they are also suggesting fewer health posts because they anticipate that their posts will be rejected.

“Everything is getting bottlenecked at the top,” said a worker. “It is extraordinarily time-consuming and backlogs us by weeks, if not months.”

The consequences could be deadly, experts said.

“When you have an outbreak of something like listeria, if you are a person who is pregnant and you consume food items that might have listeria in it that CDC should be warning you about, you run the risk of the baby that you are carrying dying,” said Guest. “And so that information needs to get out there.”

Oh well done, NPR, do be sure to distract us from this quite important disaster to make a big show of your enlightened refusal to say “pregnant woman.” We’re all massively impressed, and we no longer care about the Trump administrations war on medical information. Good luck in the future, Person Who Is Pregnant!

This soup of legal misinformation 21 May 4:11 PM (16 hours ago)

Sonia Sodha on the obstinate refusal to accept that men are not women:

A few weeks on, it’s becoming clear that despite the exceptional clarity of a judgment handed down by the highest court in the land, implementing it is a different matter. The rule of law, it seems, depends on most people choosing to follow it.

Some organisations, like Britain’s biggest union, are brazenly flouting it. Unison is allowing a male member who identifies as female to stand for election for its national council positions reserved for women. Last year its president accused a group of nurses from Darlington of “anti-trans bigotry” for standing up for their right to female-only changing rooms at work.

So what kind of unison is that? “All together now: women don’t get to have any rights!”

It’s not just Unison: the National Education Union has called on employers — presumably including schools — to support the rights of people to “use gendered facilities which match gender identities”, which would be unlawful. A train company, Southeastern, has wrongly told employees the ruling does not stop them using facilities designated for those of the opposite sex. Police forces still have policies allowing male officers who identify as female to carry out strip searches on female detainees. Even leading law firms have sent out analysis that badly misrepresents the law.

All this lying and refusing and bullying for the sake of men who call themselves women. Not men who give their all to ending racism or poverty or disease, but men who want to shove women aside and take their place. Why? Why are so many people so enthralled by this destructive counter-reality ideology?

What’s obvious from this soup of legal misinformation is that women are going to have to continue crowdfunding for expensive legal action to enforce their rights in the face of institutions hostile to the judgment. At least the more legal wins they clock up, the more likely it is that insurers will insist on organisations following the law or invalidating their liability policies.

Please also put the refuseniks on the naughty step for a minimum of ten years.

No Women’s Conference for you 21 May 3:36 PM (16 hours ago)

So Labour is canceling women. That will make everything better.

The Labour Party has postponed its annual Women’s Conference in the wake of advice following last month’s ruling on the legal definition of a woman.

You bitches don’t want men taking everything that belongs to you? Fine!! We’ll just cancel your damn conference then, so ha!

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex. Up until the ruling, Labour had allowed people [men] to self-identify as a woman, so trans women could attend the event and also take part in “positive action” measures such as all-women shortlists.

That is, Labour had allowed men to ruin everything for women and take everything that belonged to women.

A leaked advice paper to Labour’s governing body, the National Executive Committee (NEC), recommended delaying the conference because the “only legally defensible alternative” would be to restrict attendance to biological women.

And we can’t have that so we must take the conference away from women altogether. Have you noticed what relentless bullies women are?

A spokesperson told the LabourList website: “We are shocked that hundreds of women in the Labour Party might be prevented from meeting at conference because the NEC would prefer to disadvantage all women rather than to exclude the very small number of trans-identified men who may wish to attend the women’s conference.”

Yes but you see if they do anything else then they’re letting women get away with it, and that is just out of the question. Women must do as they’re told, or chaos will descend.

Lies travel halfway around the world 21 May 9:47 AM (22 hours ago)

Earlier today…

The deck is stacked. Always.

Even the Quakers hate women 21 May 8:55 AM (23 hours ago)

The Quakers are just as brain-dead as everyone else on this subject.

As a faith group, Quakers in Britain have a clear position statement, recorded in Minute 31 of Britain Yearly Meeting 2021. We wish to welcome and affirm trans and non-binary people in our communities. We have underlined this position in recent years through acts of witness, advocacy and solidarity. The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers [2025] has affected the interpretation of some parts of the Equality Act 2010. No provision in respect of protection from discrimination for trans people has been affected, nor has the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Following the ruling, the Equality & Human Rights Commission has issued interim non-statutory guidance, which goes beyond the scope and actual statements in the ruling. This is already contested and subject to legal challenge.

Notice anything missing?

Women. Trans people blah blah blah witness advocacy solidarity blah blah blah already contested blah blah. Nothing about women, just a flood of burble about trans trans trans. So progressive, so egalitarian, so compassionate.

Management Meeting and BYM Trustees have agreed the following principles which inform our decision-making about facilities at Friends House and Swarthmoor Hall:
1) Our position must uphold Yearly Meeting’s commitment to welcoming and affirming trans
and nonbinary people in Quaker spaces. Minute 31 of YM2021 is the overarching expression of our position and so governs our decisions.
2) Our testimonies of Equality, Truth and Integrity must guide the arrangements we make. No trans, non-binary or intersex Quaker, staff member, or service user will be asked to make
any disclosure or prove their status in a way that is not asked of cis people. We must
respect the dignity of each person to live with integrity, informed by the truth of their lived
experience.

Unless they’re women of course. Women have no right to live with integrity, informed by the truth of their lived experience. That privilege is only for trans people and men and trans people.

It is not possible or desirable to monitor who uses our facilities and therefore cannot
guarantee any shared space as exclusive for one group of people. We will not label
something as a single-sex space if we cannot truthfully guarantee that it will be single-sex.

Yes because that’s how that works and always has been. All toilets have armed guards at the door enforcing the “Women” sign. The Quakers are alone in not being able to employ the armed guards, so naturally it’s open season on women in Quaker spaces, and always has been. Right? Twenty years ago, thirty, fifty, all Quaker spaces had facilities open to both sexes and no other kind of facilities at all, yes?

We will take robust steps to ensure freedom from harassment or inappropriate behaviour.
We have no evidence of any harm having come to women using our facilities from trans
women or anybody else. We will investigate inappropriate behaviour (especially sexual or
other harassment and hate speech or discrimination) and follow this up, including with the
police if we believe a crime has been committed.

To put it just a little more bluntly, they will take robust steps to ensure freedom from harassment or inappropriate behaviour unless it’s trans people doing it. They will keep a very beady eye on women while letting men who pretend to be women do whatever they want all the time.

What a nasty crew, and obviously bursting with their own righteousness.

Guest post: They don’t get to use women as human shields 21 May 8:13 AM (yesterday, 8:13 am)

Originally a comment by maddog on Some memberz of the communniny.

While the full implications of the ruling are not yet clear, some members of the trans community feel threatened by it.

BBC, how can you even say that? Of course the implications are clear! Did you even read the opinion? Where the Act says “sex” or “women” or “men,” it means biological sex. What could they have said to make it any more clear?

The Supreme Court also held that discrimination against someone because of their gender identity is also prohibited, but the acts proscribed have to be actually attributable to the person’s transgender status. The two might overlap when a transgender person is actually perceived as the opposite sex, and the discriminatory act was done because of Animus against perceived sex. The transgender person would have to actually pass as the sex they are not for that to apply. Trans identified men don’t generally pass as women. Trans identified women might have a better chance of passing as a man, but then, men are rarely the targets of sex discrimination.

What is “threatening” about the ruling for trans identified males? The major “threat” is that they don’t get to violate women’s boundaries any more. Wow, what a threat! They might feel “threatened,” ie., fearful of how other men in men’s bathrooms or locker rooms might treat them. That’s an issue of male-on-male violence. That’s a worry that has concerned insufficiently “masculine” men forever; it’s not unique to trans identified males. It’s a problem for the men to solve among themselves. They don’t get to use women as human shields. As between men and women, men have a better chance of protecting themselves against male violence than women do of protecting themselves against male violence. It’s the men’s problem, not women’s problem to solve at the expense of their own rights and safety.

Beyond that, what are trans identified men “threatened” with? Oh no! “Misgendering”! Ie., correctly identifying their sex. Deadnaming! Oh no, can’t hide former misdeeds behind a new name. Being looked at! Oh noes! People might look at a man funny for wearing so-called women’s clothes. Guess what? Men can wear whatever they want. They do it TO BE looked at; but now they don’t want people to look, because they don’t get the privilege of sticking it to women.

Kate Lankester, a 25-year-old trans woman who works in trans healthcare, says life is “a living hell”.

“I’m walking out of the house scared every single day,” she says. “I worry about who’s looking. I worry if someone’s going to say something to me.”

A “living hell” ? Really? Because people might look at him? Because someone might “say something” to him? It’s like that old saw about:

What are men afraid of? That someone might laugh at them.

What are women afraid of? Being raped and/or killed.

See the difference?

What nonsense the BBC is peddling after this ruling.

Get out 21 May 5:41 AM (yesterday, 5:41 am)

Will Darlington Memorial Hospital ever just do what it’s told? It seems not.

Further pressure has been placed on Darlington Memorial Hospital to “comply” with same sex policies as nurses remain locked in a legal battle over a transgender woman using their changing room.

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation trust, alongside others across the country will be made to comply with a Supreme Court ruling moved forward last month that defines gender as “biological”.

When? And why won’t they just do it, without waiting to be “made” to do it?

I suppose it’s the usual answer: because women don’t matter, while a handful of men who pretend to be women do matter, matter infinitely, matter more than 5 or 10 or 100 times as many women.

Now, it has emerged that the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) previously stated the trust is “breaking the law by failing to provide single-sex changing rooms for its female staff”.

Well you see that’s because women don’t matter. Please make a note of it and don’t forget again.

“The RCN expects the Trust to comply with these statutory provisions and provide single sex changing rooms without delay. It would seem reasonable that that the alternative changing room provision that some women are currently using, would be the obvious choice for a gender neutral changing space.”

You remember that “alternative changing room provision” – a small closet-like room that opens directly onto a busy corridor. The women are supposed to use that so that the men can luxuriate in the actual changing room for women.

In response to the RCN’s letter, a spokesperson for County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust told The Northern Echo: “The Trust is engaged in open discussions with the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in response to their letter.”

The hell with “discussions” – there’s nothing to discuss. Obey the god damn law.

“This is a complex and sensitive matter involving not only our internal policies and procedures but also wider national guidance and legislation.”

No. it. isn’t. It’s not complex at all. It’s revoltingly simple. Men get whatever they can grab no matter what, and women must accept whatever leftover crumbs are thrown at them. That has to change. Simple.

The letter has not gone unnoticed by Darlington nurse and President of the Darlington Nursing Union, Bethany Hutchison, who says despite its efforts, there has been “no sign of action”.

“We appreciate the letter from the Royal College of Nursing, but it has been a month now and there has been no sign of any action, quite the opposite in fact.

“We recognise how captured the NHS has been by extreme Stonewall policies, but unfortunately the law is the law. There can be no excuses for any further dragging of feet.

“We are still having to use what we were told 10 months ago would be a ‘temporary’ converted office to change in. A man continues to use the female staff changing room with impunity.”

It doesn’t take ten months to tell an entitled bully of a man to gtf out of the women’s changing room and stay out.

Guest post: The armadillos were showing a lot of promise 21 May 5:18 AM (yesterday, 5:18 am)

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Catastrophic inland migration.

Meanwhile in South-Eastern Norway, where the bulk of the population lives, 2021 still stands as the last somewhat “normal” year so far. In what we used to think of as a “normal” year the water flow in our rivers would increase something like five-fold, and the levels in our reservoirs (i.e. lakes) would rise several meters above the “highest regulated water level” around the second half of May due to snowmelt in the mountains. This “spring flood” was considered so reliable that hydropower companies would lower their reservoirs towards the “lowest regulated water level” during the winter season (when the demand for power was high and prices were good), knowing that they would be filled up again in May [1].

Well, the old “normal” ended in 2022. That’s when the trusted spring flood remained completely absent due to record low levels of snow in the mountains. Along with the European energy crisis following the Russian attack on Ukraine this had the effect of pushing energy prices for the consumers up to economy-breaking levels, and if not for heavy rainfall in late September/early October we would almost certainly have faced energy rationing during the winter of 2022/2023.

By contrast the next two years were practically the polar opposite, with the extreme weather event “Hans” totally dwarfing the spring flood in August of 2023 (usually the driest season of the year!), leading to widespread flooding damages and pushing energy prices for the power companies down to record-low levels [2]. 2024 may very well have been even wetter on average, with “flood-ish” condtions from early April to late October (!), but more manageable since we didn’t have a single concentrated deluge comparable to “Hans”.

Well, guess what. We’re back to the same situation as 2022, with hardly any snow in the mountains, no spring flood, and bone dry conditions. At least we were a little more prepared this time (I like to think I had a tiny hand in that by sounding the alarm bell already back in February) and began holding back water before the reservoirs managed to sink too low…

As I have previously pointed out, most people I talk to still seem to think of each new extreme as a temporary “freak anomaly” (occurring in a vacuum), or conclude that two record-dry and two record-wet years in a four-year period “cancel out”, leaving everything “normal” on average. And, to be fair, four data points is hardly a basis for making any strong inferences about the future. I’m pretty sure it won’t be good though. On a “brighter” note, one of the few many things the MAGA crowd and the woke crowd both have in common, apart from besides post-truth politics, identity politics, intolerance of opposing views, cancel culture, mob justice, arguments from sound volume/number of repetitions etc. etc. is the same commitment to make sure the world (or at least the man-made part of it) is not worth saving anyway. As I keep saying, I do feel bad about all those other species doomed to go down with us, though. I always thought the armadillos were showing a lot of promise…

[1] This didn’t just make sense from a purely economic point of view: Even back then there was a real danger of flooding populated areas if snowmelt coincided with heavy rain. You definitely don’t want all that water to go straight into the rivers at the same time with no buffer, and filling up a lake is a great buffer!

[2] Sunday the 16th of July between 2 PM and 3 PM spot prices reached an all time low of -61,84 € per Mega-Watt-hour. I.e. that’s how much power companies had to pay for every MWh of energy produced! (Due to changes in my workplace, I haven’t been paying close attention to the spot prices in the last two years, so for all I know this all-time low may very well have been surpassed since then).

This doc thinks she’s clever 20 May 5:24 PM (yesterday, 5:24 pm)

Helen Webberley is out of her depth.

Women live as women – simple – it is not about dresses, heels, pinks, or body parts. Gender identity and expression is not a costume and exclusion is not clever, it is a civil wrong.

Being a woman is not about body parts?

I think you’ll find it is, actually.

If it’s not about body parts, how do you explain all the children who keep getting born? Where do they come from? Is it a pill? An incantation? Something people smoke? A miracle?

Women don’t “live as women”; women just are women. How people live is a very large and complex subject, but talk of people “living as” women or men or goats or tulips or food processors is just that: talk. Empty talk, pretentious talk, silly talk.

This poor woman is in way over her head.

Poor Carla Denyer pulls the trap door closed on herself. She doesn’t really know how to answer the question, she says – well quite, and that’s the problem. What does it mean? What does it mean to live as a goat, a clock, a strawberry, a handful of dust?

Nothing. It doesn’t mean anything. There is pretending, which is pretty clear. There is living as if various things – as if one were healthy or ill, rich or poor, athletic or a couch potato – but living as something isn’t English idiom. It doesn’t make any sense. That’s why he asked. Her failure to think of an answer other than repeating exactly what he asked the question about is quite a pathetic display.

(We’ve seen and discussed this video before, I think, but it popped up again, and I found her irritable flailing both amusing and annoying. Plus Webberley.)

Catastrophic inland migration 20 May 9:38 AM (yesterday, 9:38 am)

Same old same old – it’s vastly worse than we thought and we’re doing nothing at all to slow it down.

Sea level rise will become unmanageable at just 1.5C of global heating and lead to “catastrophic inland migration”, the scientists behind a new study have warned. This scenario may unfold even if the average level of heating over the last decade of 1.2C continues into the future.

The loss of ice from the giant Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has quadrupled since the 1990s due to the climate crisis and is now the principal driver of sea level rise.

The international target to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C is already almost out of reach. But the new analysis found that even if fossil fuel emissions were rapidly slashed to meet it, sea levels would be rising by 1cm a year by the end of the century, faster than the speed at which nations could build coastal defences.

And, I’m guessing, faster than the speed at which nations could build new housing and transportation and other infrastructure for millions of refugees from coastal cities. Heyup city planners, you’ve got the populations of San Diego and Los Angeles and San Francisco and Seattle plus all the smaller cities and towns and suburbs near them, heading your way. Also Houston, New Orleans, Florida (yes all of it), DC, Baltimore, Newark, New York, Boston, plus all the smaller cities and towns and suburbs near them.

The world is on track for 2.5C-2.9C of global heating, which would almost certainly be beyond tipping points for the collapse of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets. The melting of those ice sheets would lead to a “really dire” 12 metres of sea level rise.

Today, about 230 million people live within 1 metre above current sea level, and 1 billion live within 10 metres above sea level. Even just 20cm of sea level rise by 2050 would lead to global flood damages of at least $1tn a year for the world’s 136 largest coastal cities and huge impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods.

But here’s the problem. That’s the future. This is now. Humans are hopelessly bad at doing difficult things now to avoid much worse things 20 or 30 or 50 years down the road. The giant cruise ships will continue to trundle in and out of Seattle and New York and Miami and the ice will continue to melt. People will continue to buy huge heavy SUVs and live 20 miles from where they work and the ice will continue to melt. The headlines will continue to warn us and the ice will continue to melt.

Inclusive exclusion 20 May 8:05 AM (2 days ago)

Houses of Parliament refuses to ban trans women from female lavatories

Bros before hos eh?

Stupid women. They should just stay home if they want lavatories without men in them. Women are so fucking demanding.

The Houses of Parliament have refused to ban trans women from female lavatories despite the Supreme Court’s gender ruling.

A spokesman told The Telegraph that the House of Commons would be waiting for guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission before changing its rules.

You mean reverting its rules. The House of Commons hasn’t always let men use the female lavatories. If it had, they wouldn’t be called “female lavatories.” There was a rule (however implicit) against men in the women’s toilets until Trans Ideology came along to make sure women never have any rights ever again.

He said they wanted to ensure that all are treated in an “inclusive manner”. The House of Lords said it would be adopting a similar approach.

Hm. Can anyone spot the flaw? It seems pretty obvious.

I’ll spell it out. What the fuck do they mean by “inclusive manner” when they’re talking about taking away female-only toilets? It’s the old Anatole France line, which being translated is:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” 

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids women as well as men to commit rape.

Women are not a threat to men. I assume most men don’t want us flocking into the men’s toilets, but we’re not a threat if we do. The converse is not the case. Five little words: men are stronger than women. Throwing all the toilets open to both sexes puts women at risk in a way it does not put men at risk. This means it is not “inclusive” to force women to give up safe toilets. “Inclusive” is very much the wrong word here.

The Supreme Court ruled in April that legally a trans woman does not count as a woman, and that the word “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not gender identity.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) then put out interim guidance to organisations to underline that in places such as hospitals, shops and restaurants, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities”.

A growing number of public bodies are changing their guidance in light of the judgment. The Football Association, for example, has said trans women would be banned from women’s sport. But other organisations, including the NHS, have said they are awaiting guidance from the EHRC.

But they already have the guidance from the EHRC; it says so right there.

Now the Telegraph can reveal that the House of Commons has also refused to change its guidance.

A spokesman said: “Like many organisations, we are awaiting full guidance from the EHRC on this issue. However, in advance of that we are reviewing the facilities that are available on the estate and providing support to colleagues where needed. We are committed to treating all those who work in or visit Parliament with respect, and in an inclusive manner.”

No you’re not. You’re committed to the opposite of that. You’re committed to continuing to force women to risk encountering men in the women’s toilets. You suck.

The Welsh Women’s football team 20 May 7:14 AM (2 days ago)

It’s a funny thing…much of the time, or most of the time, or nearly all of the time, BBC Woman’s Hour seems to know perfectly well what a woman is. It is, after all, in the title of their program. Their daily program that they put on every weekday.

The man. Her beloved sister. Ordinary words used in an ordinary way.

Women’s groups. No footnote to explain what “women’s groups” might be; no apology for talking about women; no mention of trans anything.

I wonder why they can do it most of the time but then go all skeptical and “You know many people would say” when they’re talking to women who know that men are not women. I wonder what’s going on in their heads. I wonder how they make the sums come out right.

BBC hates women 20 May 7:00 AM (2 days ago)

Same.

Just listened to this and found it quite uncomfortable listening.

Because it felt like @BBCNuala was challenging @KateBMwriting to justify the existence of lesbians. By pushing her to say men couldn’t be lesbians – then saying some people might find that view offensive.

So I re-listened to the recent Robin Moira White interview (trans identifying man + barrister) to compare. But there were no questions that offered a similar level of ‘challenge’. Like: –

What do you mean when you use the word woman?

– What would you say to people who say trans women are men – and that you can’t actually change sex?

– Some would argue that your beliefs are offensive to women – in fact many have – what would you say to that?

There was no challenge to Robin around identity versus biology at all. Yet Kate was subjected to the most idiotic questioning e.g. why she might want to exclude men from her dating pool as a lesbian.

In fact @BBCNuala even went on to clarify that Robin’s pronouns were she/her (after Kate had used ‘he’ and explained her reasoning).

And this is ‘Woman’s Hour’. Just extraordinary.

And enraging.

The Beeb should at the very least change the name to Trans Hour.

What do you mean by “men”? 19 May 4:14 PM (2 days ago)

Replies are scathing toward Nuala McGovern.

Do you EVER? 19 May 3:58 PM (2 days ago)

Ok by popular demand of at least one person I’ll go on with the “what even are women??” segment of today’s Woman’s Hour.

I paused at the cliffhanger moment when Nuala McGovern asked Kate Barker

and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive – do you ever use the term “trans woman”?

Do you ever stop beating your children? Do you ever stop kicking dirt in the faces of the poor? Do you ever stop throwing men off high bridges?

Kate Barker, much too pleasantly in my opinion, says “Yes I would do” but then adds that she prefers to say “trans-identified male, and that’s not to insult or upset anyone but we’ve seen polls that show that 30 percent of people, the British population, don’t know what a trans woman is, they think that’s maybe a woman that’s transitioning to a man” – at which point McGovern cuts in to say “but within – with the people that this will affect they know what that word would mean, the people that disagree with your point of view for example.”

It’s not a point of view, it’s reality. And her point is just a snotty little gotcha: KB is saying that talking about “trans women” will confuse 30 percent of the population, and McGovern rudely brushes that off because apparently the only population that counts is the trans one.

McGovern goes on:

So you’re arguing that a biological male can never be a lesbian – eh there are some trans women as you know that say they are lesbians what would you say to them?

Will these buffoons never grow up? Gosh, I don’t know, what would I say? What would I say if someone told me he’s the reincarnation of Tsar Nicholas II? What would I say if Nuala McGovern said she can turn her own piss into Châteauneuf-du-Pape? What would I say if you said there’s a ghost in the cookie jar?

Barker, I’m pleased to say, answers with “‘Stop it.'” Then a laugh. Then “It’s just ridiculous.” Then a half-formed thought then a swerve to the fully formed “One of the things after the Supreme Court ruling, we were all happy and celebrating – [but] we were exchanging glances, and saying to each other: Can you believe, we’re at the Supreme Court, to find out whether a man is a lesbian or not.”

McGovern clarifies that the LGB Alliance and other lesbian groups were intervenors, and then somewhat belligerently says “But obviously your group, those groups, don’t represent all views of all lesbians, there will be lesbians listening to this program right now saying you do not speak for them, and that they don’t need the protection that you believe is necessary, or want to have a space defined in the way that you want it defined.”

In other words “some people don’t agree with you.” You don’t say!

There’s more but the energy had gone out of it by then so I can’t be bothered to type it up.

Conclusion: I’m really not a fan of Nuala McGovern.

Guest post: The BBC is still on the side of the gender ayatollahs 19 May 3:01 PM (2 days ago)

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Some memberz of the communniny.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Well, given that you probably think being called a man is abusive, pardon me if I don’t take your word for it. Given that you think the ruling is incorrect (for no reason other than its curtailment of your former “centred” and “validating” use of female spaces you shouldn’t have been entering in the first place), you’ll have to excuse my lack of sympathy. The scales of justice have finally weighed your desires and whims against the safety and dignity of women, and found in favour of the latter. It is frightening to think it might not have gone that way.

Maya Forstater’s first employment tribunal judge ruled against her, calling her (now protected) beliefs “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”. What if the second judge in her case had agreed? What if the judges of the Supreme Court had been as captured as her first tribunal judge? What if Stonewall Law had prevailed? For far too long it did, causing untold grief to how many thousands, or millions, of women in the UK. “Kate” Lancaster would have been fine with that, because he was fine under Stonewall Law. He’s upset now because his is no longer the whip hand, having lost much of the unearned and undeserved power and influence he and his fellow trans identified males have enjoyed for the better part of a decade. (Though it looks like the BBC is trying its best to drag the last bit of the struggle out, siding with the reactionary forces fighting the restoration of sanity and women’s rights. Which side of history are they on again?)

That your side never acknowledged the actual harms caused to women and girls by your fetish-driven gender adventurism, and the predatory advantage taken by other opportunistic males using Self ID as a cover (both of which were predicted, and then documented, by women as this horror show unfolded against their will), says all I need to know about how many tears I should shed on your behalf.

It’s a disgrace that the BBC is still seeking you out to commiserate with you on your fall from power, rather than talking to women and girls who are rightfully celebrating having been relieved of the burden and fear of having to accommodate your intrusion into their spaces. This great victory belongs to them, yet the BBC is making it out to be some kind of tragic loss because they’re looking at it from the wrong goddam side. It’s like they’re covering the fall of a tyrannical regime by trying to garner sympathy from the public on behalf of the fallen tyrants and their ruthless henchmen. “Spare a thought for the sacked secret policemen, and unemployed torturers. They’re having to go out amongst the people they tormented and go on living from day to day, out in the open, without the security apparatus of the state, and the anonymous, fickle, exercise of its retributive powers to protect and avenge them.” The BBC is still on the side of the gender ayatollahs, who pine for the days when their fatwas held sway.

This is not as much of an exaggeration as it might appear to be, (or one might have wished). Given what we were seeing here on B&W, for far too many women, (and for society as a whole), the UK under trans “rights” was turning into a police state, with the power of the government, police, courts, and corporations all moving to dismantle women’s rights, and stifling any protest against that movement. It’s easy to see the delusional lunacy of the views being proposed, enected, and enforced. We’ve been pointing out the insanity every day for years. But the craziness and incoherence did not keep these measures from being proposed, enacted, and enforced to begin with. It was a near run thing that might have gone either way. It is frightening to think too long on how much this outcome has depended on luck rather than reason and reality.

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia.

Yeah, no. I wouldn’t take your word for what you claim as “transphobia.” Reality is “transphobic” according to your lot, so, no. Try again.

She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

Nobody should be assaulted, or abused. No excuses. There are laws against that, laws that have been there for decades, which this ruling leaves intact. This ruling does not touch the human rights that you share with your fellow citzens. You have the same recourse to the law as everyone else. (Though if you consider being called “he” or “sir” “abuse”, you might find that your legal recourse might not cover having your feelings hurt, or being offended. Again my own sensitivity to cries of “abuse” or even “assault” from trans activists have been blunted by years of transperbole. But if you have a real case, call the police, press charges. Just make sure you’re not sending them after stickers, ribbons, and limericks. They may no longer be as quick to jump at these.) Try again.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Of course people shouldn’t yell vile things at random passersby. It’s rude and frightening. I know this from expereince. Yes, it’s upsetting, but it’s not illegal. Once it passes into illegality, from epithet to threat, I have recourse to the law. Until that line is crossed, I have to live with it. Hurting my feelings is not breaking the law. If the threshold were that low, courts and jails would be packed to a standstill. But for a while, in the UK, hurting your feelings was illegal. Remember? Stickers? Ribbons? Limericks? For some reason, transactivism’s speed-dial was always answered by the police, for the slightest of slights, and the mildests of criticisms, so long as they were labeled “transphobic”. Late night visits by the police, based on single, anonymous complainants. People lost their jobs for holding the “wrong” beliefs (beliefs which are now, thanks to the courage of women like Maya Forstater, Alison Bailey, and others, who faced down the hijacked, corrupted power of the state, protected). People were arrested for uttering statements of fact, or for trivial mockery, if it was something touching on the privileged, sacred status of Trans. Women could only marvel at the speed with which trans privilege was protected and enforced against the hard-won rights of women, which have never received anywhere near the degree of political, legal, and police support and protection that genderists were able to command overnight.

Women have had to put up with abuse, lower wages, employment ghettoization, under-representation in all walks of life, assault, rape, and murder for centuries. Transactivism exacerbated this situation by eroding women’s sex-based rights and protections. Erasing women in law (which is what would happen if transactivism successfully redefined “woman” to include “non-women”), would destroy the protections and resources that women do have, and prevent the implementation and monitoring of any measures designed to redress historical, systemic barrires to women’s safety and advancement. This is what the Supreme Court ruling was about. Women were forced to seek this ruling because there was so much at stake. Transactivism was fine with the sacrifice of women’s rights and women’s lives, so long as men-pretending-to-be-women got what they wanted. This was the point of the mantra of “TWAW”, of “NO DEBATE”, of “NO CONFLICT”. All of these thought-killing slogans were designed to allow the legalization of the male invasion and permanent occupation of women’s spaces without any examination of the price women would pay. Women must never be allowed to say “No”. It might have been called “Trans Rights”, but in reality it was an attempted coup by Rape Culture. This is the movement that the BBC is wringing its hands over in teary-eyed nostalgia. Disgusting.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

Women won. Society won. REALITY WON. Men are not women. You are men, and not women in the eyes of the law. That is as it should be, because that is how things are. You have not lost any rights in this decision, and women have retained and protected theirs. That’s not a tragedy, it’s a glorious vindication of the fucking obvious that should not have been necessary in the first place.

Woman’s Hour bites its own legs off 19 May 9:33 AM (2 days ago)

Godalmighty. Woman’s Hour today had Kate Barker, CEO of LGB Alliance, on to explain why lesbians are quite pleased about the Supreme Court ruling.

Nuala McGovern: Now you’ve described this ruling as a watershed moment for women and in particular for lesbians; why?

Barker describes the joy and relief of that day

I don’t think people understand just quite how tough it’s been for lesbians over the last ten-fifteen years – I really would characterize it as a kind of dark age for lesbians, and the reason for that is that the LGBTQ+ lobby groups have been encouraging men to self-identify as lesbians, and those men just haven’t taken no for an answer, in terms of trying to access women’s spaces, women’s support services, women’s social groups. So it’s been really really difficult, and an example I suppose that people might understand quite easily is dating apps. So we all use dating apps now don’t we, it’s a common part of everyday life. If you go onto a lesbian dating app you’ll find that 20% plus of the people on that app are men – I’m using the word “men” in the sense that you and I – they’re men-men –

McGovern breaks in –

Well let’s talk about that particular term “men” that you use.

Yes she actually says that – apparently with a straight face. A woman who presents Woman’s Hour on the BBC says to the lesbian guest “Well let’s talk about that particular term ‘men’ that you use.” As if it’s some weird specialized jargon, some tendentious peculiar pejorative thing to say. What are we supposed to call them? What’s the permissible word now? Do we need to warn the audience before we say it? What does “Woman’s Hour” even mean???

Deep breaths. Push the play button again. McGovern, slowly and distinctly: “Who are you referring to?”

Fucking hell. Can you imagine being KB in that moment? It would be so tempting to shout: “This is Woman’s Hour; who are you referring to you brainless subservient buffoon?!!”

KB was admirably disciplined.

I’m referring to all male people.

McGovern asks, slowly and ponderously, “Are you also referring to those who identify as trans women?”

KB: I am.

NM: Why.

KB: Well I think a dating app is a good example of why. So – consider the dating app, the lesbian dating app – the sort of people, however you want to describe them, they’re male, born male in male bodies – now I’m a lesbian and I go onto that dating app – my criterion is – well I would prefer to meet somebody without a penis – because I’m a lesbian. If I go onto the app and try to set up my profile and say “I’d like to meet somebody, oh I don’t know, female, or somebody who’s a biological woman – a real woman, in my mind, I’d be booted off the app and the man would be allowed to stay. And the reason for that is my position would be considered bigoted and unkind and transphobic, but most importantly, it would be considered to be Not Inclusive. And I think that’s worth looking at, for a second. So, me – and other women, as lesbians, we’ll assert our boundaries, and that boundary will exclude male people from our dating pool. But that position, in and of itself, is deemed to be a transphobic position…The same thing is happening for gay men as well, that if you assert your exclusive same-sex orientation – homosexuality – that is considered to be something which is “not inclusive” and which is bigoted and transphobic so that’s why we as an organization were celebrating and cracking open the champagne. You know because it allows us to – we can’t do our work as an organization unless we can clarify so what does sex mean –

McGovern breaks in there:

Well let’s talk about these aspects, and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive

Hey guess what Nuala McGovern, I find what you’re saying very offensive. I find the fact that you’re saying it very offensive. I find this sick joke of a program called Woman’s Hour contorting itself to bully women for saying that men are men VERY OFFENSIVE.

and some of course that are listening may find what you’re saying very offensive – do you ever use the term “trans woman”?

What kind of question is that? Are we required to use it? Socially, morally, be kindly? Why is BBC Woman’s Hour scolding a lesbian for calling men men instead of calling men trans women? I would really like to know!

The rest later, if I have the stomach for it.

No thanks 19 May 7:57 AM (3 days ago)

I can’t wait to rush out and not read this book, let alone not buy it. ($55 for the paperback!)

Transgender and Non-Binary People in Everyday Sport – A Trans Feminist Approach to Improving Inclusion

Ok first what is “everyday” sport? If you mean amateur say that; if you mean something else, make it clear.

Second what is a “trans feminist” approach? Is that a sly euphemism for “fake feminist” approach?

Description:

This formative work discusses transgender people’s inclusion in everyday sport in the United Kingdom. It adopts a trans feminist approach to explore pivotal issues regarding the barriers to participation faced by transgender and non-binary people.

What is a “formative” work? Is “transgender people’s inclusion in everyday sport” a euphemism for letting men invade women’s sport? What, again, is a “trans feminist approach”? Does it mean an approach taken by male people who are not feminists and enjoy seeing male people take over female sport?

Offering a critical perspective on the current landscape surrounding this topic, the book draws from insightful interviews conducted by the author with 18 transgender and non-binary individuals. The author uses a critical social science approach to explore the heteropatriarchal construction of sport in the modern industrialised West, and how this has formed the backdrop to the continuing discrimination towards many athletes, not just those who are transgender. Using first-hand perspectives, it focuses on the three themes of the sporting body, sporting spaces and sporting communities. It investigates why conversations about fairness and safety regarding transgender athletes have become so polarised within the media, and the significance of taking a trans feminist approach to reducing barriers in sport.

Mmkay I think we get the drift. It’s a book about the urgent need for men to take over women’s sport.

The hardback is only $200.

Some memberz of the communniny 19 May 3:27 AM (3 days ago)

The BBC is distraught over claims that women have rights.

It’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, “woman” means a biological woman. The decision was welcomed by some women’s rights groups but condemned in the transgender community. How are they and others affected by the ruling feeling now?

Or to put it another way, it’s been a month since the UK Supreme Court ruled that women have rights. How do people who think women should not have rights feel about this ruling now?

While the full implications of the ruling are not yet clear, some members of the trans community feel threatened by it.

Hey Beeb, you know what? Some members of the female communniny feel threatened by your passion for attacking women’s rights.

Kate Lankester, a 25-year-old trans woman who works in trans healthcare, says life is “a living hell”.

“I’m walking out of the house scared every single day,” she says. “I worry about who’s looking. I worry if someone’s going to say something to me.”

Looking at what? Say something about what? Does he wear a pumpkin on his head or something?

Jessica Brown, 45, has been “out” for about 20 years and says she has recently noticed a “huge uptick” in transphobia. She says she was physically assaulted earlier this year – before the ruling – and now experiences abuse “almost daily”.

“I’ve had the most vile things shouted at me; people are so abusive,” she says.

Well it was nice of Jessica Brown to feed the BBC what it so obviously wanted to hear, but I’m not 100% sure I believe his account is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

All five in the Ipswich group say they are more anxious about the future following the court’s decision.

Benji Rayson, a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary, says they do not believe the ruling will “fix anything” but has instead “shone a light on a community that just wants to get on and do their own thing”.

Hahaha ok Beeb, you got me. I thought you were serious until “a 35-year-old bingo caller who identifies as non-binary.” Hahahahaha you win.

Fake fake fake 18 May 5:10 PM (3 days ago)

Smith College is confused.

Sneaky. Anyone who doesn’t already know who “Rachel” Levine is will of course assume he’s a woman being honored by a women’s college. Sneaky all around – doing the women-insulting thing, and being coy about doing the women-insulting thing.

There’s been a lot of insulting of women over the past decade or more. We’re rather tired of it.