This morning I woke to the news that the organisation laughingly known as the American Humanist Association (AHA) has withdrawn the ‘Humanist of the Year Award’ given to Richard Dawkins in…wait for it…1996!
Here’s the backstory: Ten days ago, Richard Dawkins tweeted this.
I wasn’t irked by this comment as some were – including many on our side of the biggest cultural conflict of our time. We expect high-profile scientists to stand up for science against an ideology based on post-modernist pseudoscientific claptrap but we expect them to do so sooner rather than later. We have been disgusted by those – such as Alice Roberts, current President of Humanists UK – who’ve sold out and we’ve been dismayed by the silence of others, including Dawkins. Some responded irately on the belatedness of his intervention while others saw the framing of his comment as cowardly fence-sitting.
If the man – assuming it is a man – who murdered Sarah Everard identifies as a woman, will they mobilise in support of him…sorry, ‘her’ when ‘she’ stands trial?
Will they defame and abuse the real feminists, the ones who understand that the oppression of women by men is rooted in biological reality, the ones who support all female victims of male violence, regardless of what the perpetrators claim to be?
Will they accuse us of targeting, harassing and doxing the poor trans ‘woman’ whose behaviour, in spite of his having that mystical essence that entitles him to claim womanhood as his own, bears an uncanny resemblance to that of a vicious woman-hating thug?
I owe a debt of gratitude to Prof Alice Sullivan for raising awareness that one of those invited to give evidence to the Women and Equalities Commons Select Committee, as part of their Inquiry into proposed reforms of the Gender Recognition Act, is one Ruth Pearce who, the day after I was assaulted by three male trans activists, tweeted this.
I was aware of this tweet at the time and included it in my original account of the assault.
(Note that the intended recipient was Ada Cable who played no small part in the hate campaign against me.)
When I saw Alice’s tweet I decided to contact the Committee directly to complain about Pearce’s inclusion. Only then did I check Pearce’s Twitter timeline for any more tweets and I was horrified to discover this thread. This tweet in particular stands out.
Paul Ilett describes himself as a “best-selling author”. If you find that interesting, I’ll leave you to check out the novel he once wrote.
A couple of nights ago, he took it upon himself to conduct what he later described as “an interesting experiment”. This involved posting an absurd and unsupportable statement, which he undoubtedly knew would anger and offend countless women and some men.
His challenge to anyone thus offended, however, was not that they should explain why they felt as they did nor that they should attempt to engage him in a civil exchange of views in the hope of developing greater mutual understanding. Instead, he asked anyone who disagreed to ‘simply block’ him.
Many of those who are active on social media will be familiar with seeing the assertion that ‘transwomen are women’ followed by a wearisome demonstration on the part of the poster of their total inability to offer anything remotely resembling a coherent substantiation.
Almost invariably, anyone who invites an explanation of how someone born male can be a woman will be blocked, usually well before they’ve subjected the poster to anything that could be described as abuse.
The dictionary provides us with a concise definition of anti-Semitism as ‘hostility and prejudice against Jews’. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance – an inter-governmental organisation set up some years ago to focus on issues related to the Jewish holocaust – provides a comprehensive list of examples. The mention of George Soros’ name and objecting to any of his political and philanthropic activities doesn’t feature in that list of examples.
Catholic journalist and commentator, Caroline Farrow – about whom I have written one post already, on the occasion of her being sued by the notorious transgender litigant, Stephanie Hayden – is the latest to be defamed in this manner.
Her accuser is none other than the repugnant and obsessed James Billingham, about whom I have also blogged previously. In this instance, Billingham uses his sock-puppet, @TheOnlySprout, to tweet a screenshot of a Facebook post by Caroline promoting a CitizenGo petition, which was launched after an article written by Soros himself in the New York Times: Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook.
Yesterday I posted a new video in my series about awful arguments by trans activists. This one is entitled, ‘It’s all your fault’ and it’s about the extraordinary phenomenon of trans cultists blaming feminists and others who oppose transgender ideology for the fact that sometimes gender non-conforming women get mistaken for men and the mental gymnastics involved in attributing this mundane fact of life to ‘transphobia’. Everything I say in the video is my opinion which, in the absence of any serious challenge, I stand by.
Wipe the tear, baby dear, from your eye-ee.
Though it’s hard to part I know
We’re quite happy to see you go…
As we learned from the Guardian yesterday, a small group of authors have thrown their toys out of the pram and flounced off the Blair Partnership’s list of clients because they couldn’t bully the literary agency into kowtowing to their inflated sense of entitlement by making some pointless, cringeworthy gestures.
Obviously, the Guardian doesn’t put it quite like that, going instead for more subtle, low-key humour and saying the four had “resigned after accusing the company of declining to issue a public statement of support for transgender rights”.
Wow! They actually accused them of that? How very, um, serious.
I mean, really? They resigned not because of anything the agency did but because of something they wouldn’t do, something there was no need to do. Further down the Guardian piece we learn that not only did the authors want a public statement but they wanted the company to “conduct staff training with the group All About Trans”, a group that promotes itself as “Positively changing how the media understands and portrays transgender people”.
But why? Had the Blair Partnership said or done anything, either publicly or internally, that could be construed as anti-trans? It seems not.
There I was, extending the hand of friendship and not only does he refuse it but he blocks me on FB and then goes and boasts about it on Twitter. I’m broken-hearted, obviously – not only at his rejection of me but at his claim that I’ve “only ever shown hostility and hate” towards him.
That’s just not fair! Why, every time I see him in real life – which, in case you’re wondering, has always been in court watching this notoriously prolific litigant pursue his favourite pastime – I smile warmly and gaze at him fondly. Unfortunately – and probably due to an understandable lack of self-esteem on his part – he invariably misinterprets my well-intentioned and cordial behaviour as hostility and calls me horrid things!
I owe a debt of gratitude to 44-year-old retired Mixed Martial Arts fighter, Fallon Fox. Fox was the first athlete in MMA history to be openly transgender – though he only admitted it after he’d already taken part in two professional fights in the women’s division. During the course of his career, he knocked two women out: one of them – Tamikka Brents – sustained an orbital bone fracture and a head wound requiring seven staples. Six years later, Fox is still boasting about it.
Why am I grateful to him? Well, because he publicly represents all that is rotten about transgender ideology. Like all male athletes competing in women’s sporting events, he’s a cheat. And, like so many trans-identifying men, he is a violent misogynist thug.
Yet we are supposed to accept him as a woman, ‘respect his pronouns’, etc, etc. Who can blame us for feeling uncomfortable and even afraid of being in a changing room or being followed into the Ladies by men like Fox? And it’s not as if he’s the only one.
These two tweets were directed at me during a Twitter spat I had with James Billingham a couple of months ago. Yes, he really is one of those men who presume to adjudicate on what feminism is. I can’t in all seriousness believe he thinks I care what he would “love” to see me do. Rather, I think these tweets were intentionally condescending to me in order to virtue-signal to his followers, who will probably applaud the insufferable arrogance of a man telling a woman old enough to be his mother how she should be doing feminism.
This line, which manages to be both unusually honest and typically disdainful at the same time, occurs two minutes into a video by a popular transgender youtuber called Natalie Wynn, better known as ContraPoints. The video is entitled Gender Critical and, at the time of writing, it has had close to a million and a half views and attracted 90k ‘likes’.
Like most videos produced by trans activists, I wouldn’t be giving it the time of day were it not for the fact that I’ve seen it promoted left, right and centre on social media by people who obviously think it’s good and, in a perverse way, it is. Clearly, a lot of time, work, skill and creativity went into its production. Most importantly, the arguments are presented in such a way as to sound convincing even to some who would probably claim to be scientific sceptics but who, for some reason, leave their scepticism to one side when it comes to pseudo-scientific and regressive transgender ideology.
The fact that I see the video being promoted by people who should know better, means that I have to take a closer look at the content to see what I can learn and what I can pass on to people who, like me, find Wynn’s persona and style rather irritating but who, unlike me, aren’t willing to spend time studying the transcript, which I’ve copied here.
Having done that, I’ve decided that there is too much to respond to for one blog so I’ll focus on one thing for now:
One of the things I was somewhat hurt by in the weeks after I was assaulted at Speakers Corner was the lack of contact from Humanists UK. I was Facebook friends with the CEO and several other high profile humanists and the night after I was assaulted I posted an emotive rant, which was shared widely. A lot of people – including some humanists I consider to be dear friends – expressed sympathy and support but there wasn’t a peep from the leadership of the organisation I had been a member of for a quarter of a century. I’d also been a humanist funeral celebrant for eight years and, early this century, I had spent a couple of years there in full-time employment as a development officer.
I envisage any trans activists reading the above to be nodding approvingly at the lack of interest and compassion from Humanists UK. To trans activists I am a hate figure. I am the guilty party who instigated a violent attack on a poor innocent 25-year-old, 6-foot-plus “trans girl”. I am a liar, a hater, a bigot, a transphobe extraordinaire, a giant terrifying beast, a white supremacist, a Nazi.
This is the post in which I express my anger against those young women who’ve betrayed the goal of women’s liberation by promoting male entitlement and female erasure. And, no, contrary to what certain trans activists such as Stephen Whittle say, the term ‘handmaidens’ isn’t misogynist. Misogyny refers to contempt and disregard for women because they are women, i.e. adult human female. It doesn’t include the disdain we feel for women who are selling us down the river, the women who prioritise the feelings of men over the psychological well-being and the physical safety of women. The true meaning of ‘handmaiden’ is female servant and that, in effect, is what these women are. Continue reading
Anyone who gets embroiled in squabbles with trans activists will be familiar with certain canards that crop up time and again. Like a set of plastic skittles, it doesn’t take much to topple them but, wearisomely, there is always someone willing to put them back up to be knocked down yet again.
In a recent article on the BuzzFeed News site, LGBT Editor Patrick Strudwick could have scoured trans Twitter and come up with the exact same input from common or garden Twitter numbskulls as that provided by the five sociologists he calls – and this is the only touch of humour in the article – “leading feminist thinkers”: Akwugo Emejulu, Sally Hines, Tracey Jensen, Alison Phipps and Vanita Sundaram. If you’ve only been a feminist for a few decades, you’ll be forgiven for never having heard of them.
I suspect that no academic worthy of the name would bother responding to the article. Why would they when the Professors’ “arguments” – for want of a better word – could be refuted by a teenager without a single GCSE? On the other hand, the article is a good example of the sheer dishonesty as well as the cultish thinking of the trans activists. As such, I think it’s worth including in that very tiny and select group of articles that I refer to on this site because they are so unbelievably bad.
I came across the article because I’d started writing a different blog, for which I needed to check whether I was up-to-date on the definition of a certain word as it is used by anyone who promotes transgender ideology. It was a search I’d done many times before and had always come up short. This time was no different. It is a word for which the trans lobby have no robust and useful definition. The word is ‘woman’. Continue reading
A couple of days ago, a “trans rights activist” (TRA) published an article on Medium* entitled, I was one of the transactivists on the Channel 4 documentary, I regret what I did — this is why.
The documentary in question – which was, in my opinion, excellent and well worth watching – was Trans Kids: It’s Time To Talk. It aired last week and can currently be viewed on Vimeo.
Quite a few people on the gender critical side of what is laughingly called this “debate” have applauded the author, Esther Betts, for being courageous. It is a sign of the times we live in that admitting you behaved abominably after the evidence that you did has already been broadcast on national TV, is called “courageous”. However, others – including me – aren’t quite so charitable.