Canada Kicks Ass
J. K. Rowling at it again...


Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

DrCaleb @ Mon Mar 28, 2022 12:01 pm


Thanos @ Sun Apr 03, 2022 3:04 pm

Lies and the lying liars who lie, and who deftly use every single one of the mechanisms of social media & pop-culture, in order to impose and agenda that no one is allowed to even discuss.....

The Truth About Trans Murders

Looking at Transgender Europe’s list of cases, it became clear — to my relief — that the total murders reported for (alleged trans) in the United Kingdom since 2008 amounted to 11. This translates as a murder rate of around 0.165%.

Now, that is still significantly higher than the murder rate for the UK as a whole: the ONS reports that the homicide rate in the UK for the year ending March 2020 was 11.7 per million people, rising to 17 per million among men. But look a bit closer at the list of trans murder victims, and that figure of 11 becomes increasingly suspect.

For instance, two of the listed victims, Vikki Thompson and Jacqueline Cowdry, appear to have been erroneously included. Thompson died by suicide while incarcerated in HMP Leeds, while Cowdry’s death was ultimately ruled as non-suspicious. This reduces the total to nine unlawful deaths, all of whom were born male. (By contrast, the number of homicides committed by transgender people between 2008 and 2017 was 12.) For context, the number of women killed by men during the same period was 1800. So much for our alleged “cis-privilege”.

Searching for more information led me to the work of Karen Ingala-Smith, who founded the Counting Dead Women project in 2012 after she realised that there was no central record of the extent of femicide here in the UK; thanks to her, a list of murdered women is read out in the House of Commons each year to imprint the rate of femicide on the minds our political class. Ingala-Smith’s tireless work focusses on female victims of, predominantly, male violence, though she made an exception to highlight the discrepancy between the mass hysteria about transgender victims of homicide compared to the treatment of woman-killing as mere background noise. (There is still no equivalent to the Trans Day of Remembrance for the much greater number of women killed by male violence.)

Crucially, her research sheds a vital spotlight on the nine remaining victims identified by the Trans Murder Monitoring report. Reading it, two things become clear. The first is that it is not entirely certain that all the victims themselves identified with the label “transgender”. The second is that the motives behind these crimes are more complex than straightforward “transphobia”.

Three of the nine victims were murdered by a violent punter while working as prostitutes; another was killed by their husband, who lived on her earnings from prostitution. Another of the victims died at the hands of someone who was also trans-identifying. Another was a gay man who cross-dressed occasionally, and the motive for the murder has been ascribed to both transphobia and homophobia. Two of the murders were linked to drug use.

In other words, despite the way their deaths are often framed in the media and by activists, the large majority of these trans victims were not killed simply for being trans. Almost half appear to involve prostitution — a fact that has been quietly brushed under the carpet.

Nor is this wilful misunderstanding confined to the UK: according to global statistics, 58% of transgender murder victims were born male and work in prostitution. It seems remarkable, then, that “Trans women are women” and “Sex work is work” remain two of the most heavily promoted mantras in trans-activist circles. Indeed, a number of role models in the trans community go as far to claim that it was only because of prostitution that they were able to afford their treatment and surgeries.

The clearest way to understand that a hoax is being perpetrated on you is when you're told you're not allowed to discuss any of the actual details that are counter to the narrative you're being sold.

Everything we're being told, and sold, on this issue is an absolute fucking lie. :|


Thanos @ Tue Apr 05, 2022 10:13 pm

Democrats fuck up big time, and Republicans naturally pivot on a dime in order to exploit it to the maximum. This is the first of two major issues, the other being forcing CRT into the schools & advancing the theory of collective white guilt, that the Democrats in the US have foolishly adopted as major police. And the odds are massive that this will destroy the Dems in the upcoming midterms and that will probably put Trump, or a GQPer even worse than him, back into the White House:

(all important sub-links are in the article's source site)

"Right-thinking Americans", until very recently, tended to believe that heated arguments over transgenderism were a peculiarly British phenomenon. While the UK had been inexplicably captured by anti-trans bigots, and the country become a “Terf Island”, Americans had largely accepted that the struggle for transgender equality was, in Joe Biden’s words, “the civil rights issue of our time”. Unreconstructed transphobes might lurk on Substack and in GOP-controlled state legislatures, but they could safely be dismissed as cranks, their bills met with massive economic punishment, and their books deplatformed from Amazon.

That all changed last month, when a series of high-profile stories swept trans issues into the national spotlight, starting with the victory of transgender swimmer Lia Thomas at the NCAA women’s swimming championship. Although Thomas was, for the most part, lauded by the press, the victory was accompanied by protests, complaints from the parents of other competitors, and a string of anonymous tabloid leaks from Thomas’s teammates — at least some of whom seemed opposed to her presence on the team.

The pictures of the broad-shouldered, 6’1” Thomas towering over her competitors, were striking. Long-winded explanations about the role of testosterone in athletic performance aside, it was hard for the average person to conclude she hadn’t had a competitive advantage.

Then, later the same month, Florida governor Ron DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education Act into law. The “Don’t Say Gay” bill was vociferously opposed by the White House, much of the media, and major corporations such as Disney and Apple; it prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity from preschool to third grade — roughly ages four to nine — and requires that parents be notified about any medical or mental-health issues with their children. Prominent liberals were scathing, with Biden denouncing the law as “hateful”, Pete Buttigieg’s husband warning that it will “kill kids”, and the hosts of the Oscars chanting the word “gay” in protest. The Right, meanwhile, has launched itself into a frenzy, accusing Democrats of wanting to “groom” children and insinuating that opponents of the law are pedophiles.

It is no coincidence that both pillars of the current trans controversies relate to education. A leitmotif of the post-pandemic world has been parental rebellion against progressive excesses in schools and instruction on issues such as race and gender. Remote schooling allowed parents to peek into their children’s classrooms, where they saw elementary schoolers being instructed to rank themselves on an intersectional privilege hierarchy and to celebrate the “black communism” of Angela Davis.

Republicans, sensing opportunity, have embraced the parental crusade with anti-CRT bills, curriculum transparency bills, and, in some states, new restrictions on trans athletes and “gender-affirming” medical procedures. They are responding to the fact that the woke extremism popular with professional educators is deeply unpopular with voters. Indeed, wokeness in general is unpopular, and “educators”, as a class, are something like the Salafists of social justice. This is a specific instance of a general problem for the Democrats: its professional and leadership class is fond of social positions that strike a lot of ordinary people as wacky or perverse.

Democrats, however, have fallen into what Ruy Teixeira calls the “Fox News fallacy” — the idea that if Republicans are complaining about something, it must be made up. On CRT, for instance, they have used the unconvincing defence that CRT is only taught in law schools and dismissed parental concerns as a product of “disinformation.”

Similarly, they have cast the Parental Rights in Education Act as a homophobic attempt to “force kids back into the closet” and prevent gay teachers from discussing their home life in the classroom — when, in fact the main concern of the bill is gender identity. The strategy, as Leor Sapir has argued, has been to make the debate over the law a debate over gay rights — which are supported by the vast majority of Americans — while dodging the much more contentious issue of whether, and how, schools should be teaching about gender.

This is no idle concern. What evidence we do have suggests that paediatric gender dysphoria is rising at a rate that would be almost impossible to explain purely as a result of greater acceptance or diagnostic sophistication. One clinic in Northern California reported an 500% increase in paediatric referrals for gender dysphoria between 2015 and 2018, while in Sweden, gender dysphoria diagnoses among teenage girls rose by over 1,500% between 2008 and 2018.

Some researchers, such as Brown University’s Lisa Littman, have argued that this rapid increase is consistent with other social contagions such as anorexia or cutting. This suggests that many children are adopting these identities due to peer influences and social media consumption rather than a stable and deeply felt sense of dysphoria. But if these messages are reinforced at school, they may be more likely to stick. This is a particularly explosive issue given that schools have encouraged children to socially transition without notifying their parents, and some states, such as California, consider failure to affirm a child’s gender identity as grounds for stripping a parent of custody rights.

Although Littman’s work has been denounced as “misinformation”, it has received support from a number of “detransitioners” who have gone public with their stories. Their stories, on the whole, follow a pattern: a girl who is struggling with an unrelated mental health issue such as anxiety or depression falls down an Internet rabbit-hole, where she learns she is unhappy because she was born in the “wrong body”. She visits a psychiatrist who, instead of interrogating her feelings, “affirms” that she is actually a boy and sets them on the road to medical transition.

Only later, sometimes after painful surgeries, do the girls realise that whatever was bothering them was not gender dysphoria but another unresolved psychological issue. They are left wondering why the adults in their lives allowed them to damage their bodies in the name of what they later come to believe was a delusion. Due in part to stories like these — and to the lack of solid evidence in favour of “gender-affirming” care — a number of European countries have begun to discourage medical interventions for youth gender dysphoria in favour of psychotherapy.

The Biden administration’s great strength so far has been its ability to recognise when the preferences of the Twitter class are deeply out of step with those of the public and then side with the public. Here, it has done the opposite. Last week, in response to the Florida and two recent Arizona laws (one banning biological males from girls’ sports, the other banning medical transitions for minors), the administration announced that it would be expanding its interpretation of Title IX — a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education — to include protections for gender identity.

The full implications of the move are unclear, but they could include denying federal education funds to states that bar trans athletes from girls’ sports. Separately, the Justice Department warned states that any attempt to limit access to “gender-affirming” care for children could be in violation of the Constitution and federal civil rights law.

Biden may be miscalculating. Americans are by and large tolerant of differences and tend to take a laissez-faire attitude when it comes to how individuals choose to live their own lives. But they also have a basic sense of fair play and proportion. Majorities oppose laws, such as Arizona’s, prohibiting “gender-transition related medical care for minors”, presumably because they seem to legislate individual medical decisions. But a solid majority believe that trans athletes should compete on teams that match their birth sex, and polling suggests that even a majority of Florida Democrats supports the language of the Parental Rights in Education Act.

In short, Americans tend to support trans rights when they are analogous to gay rights, meaning when they are seen as a simple matter of accepting those who are different. But they are more sceptical of the maximalist positions pushed by elite progressives — that the Lia Thomases of the world should be permitted to compete as women, or that schools should be allowed to facilitate major medical decisions for children without parental notification or consent.

By picking a national fight over these issues, the Biden administration risks stepping into a trap it has so far avoided: siding with the common sense of college-educated progressives against the common sense of the electorate as a whole. For a GOP attempting to rebrand itself as the party of ordinary people, this could be a blessing in disguise.

I doubt that Joe Biden has the awareness of how problematic these issues are, that so much of the American electorate by default rejects the hard-left positions. And, unfortunately, even if he was more aware of the danger here I don't think he has the strength inside the Dem party to resist this insanity anyway. So, with nothing but horrible consequences for literally everyone, the United States will end up being ruled one day by some Gilead-pushing bible-thumping kook from the GOP who's multiple times worse than Trump simply because the Dems lost their goddamn minds over the most divisive social issues imaginable. :|


Zipperfish @ Wed Apr 06, 2022 2:57 pm

Think you're right. Dems are gonna get hammered for all this silliness


Thanos @ Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:27 pm

For those who think that they aren't coming after the kids, well, enjoy....

The Alphabet People on Tik-Tok

No one on the "phobic" side is making their up to smear them. These are their own words, their own statements, proudly posted of their own free will on a platform for everyone else to see. When someone tells you what they are? Believe them. :|


bootlegga @ Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:25 pm

Thanos Thanos:
For those who think that they aren't coming after the kids, well, enjoy....

The Alphabet People on Tik-Tok

No one on the "phobic" side is making their up to smear them. These are their own words, their own statements, proudly posted of their own free will on a platform for everyone else to see. When someone tells you what they are? Believe them. :|

Holy shit, that Twitter feed is a train wreck. 8O


Thanos @ Tue Apr 12, 2022 8:38 pm

I don't see how anyone could watch any of those videos, on any of these platforms, and not acknowledge that we're dealing with a serious mental & emotional illness. Huge numbers of these people, as shown in their own videos, are clearly delusional. And what's multiple times worse is that the powers-that-be (government, academia, media) have decided that totally surrendering & catering to that illness in everything it wants, by literally forcing it onto every aspect of our society, is the only way this issue is to be discussed & acknowledged.

I think we've finally reached the bottom. This is one of the very worst things our society has ever done.


Thanos @ Wed Apr 13, 2022 1:02 pm

In their rush to show support for a group estimated to make up just 0.3 per cent of the population, the police have forgotten the rights of the 51 per cent – women.

This is what it looks like when police forces are politicized so much by wokeness that all procedural sanity gets obliterated, in effect making the police an instrument to enforce an ideology. In Britain female suspects can't be strip-searched by male officers but have no right to protest against being strip-searched by a male officer identifying as female, and risk being charged with hate crimes if they refuse to submit: ... -ideology/

It has been 20 years since I was forced to bare my pimpled derrière to a pair of police officers, after I was suspected of carrying drugs. Undressing in front of strangers is always humiliating. But because the coppers who strip-searched me were respectful – and, crucially, female – I retained a little dignity. Today, however, women who attract the beady eye of the law could be searched by a male – if he identifies as a woman. Worse still, if a woman objects to this treatment, her complaint could be treated as a hate crime.

In December 2021, new guidance quietly issued by the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) advised forces ‘to recognise the status of transgender colleagues from the moment they transition, considered to be the point at which they present in the gender with which they identify’. In other words, the NPCC holds that coppers who ‘identify’ as a woman should be treated as a woman not only by their colleagues, but by the wider public, too. Of course, only a cynic would suggest that this new guidance might be open to abuse.

Forces have been told that it may be ‘advisable’ for a searching officer to be replaced should a detainee object to being searched by someone of the opposite sex. But, if this objection is thought to be based ‘on discriminatory views’, then ‘consideration should be given for the incident [to] be recorded as a non-crime hate incident, unless the circumstances amount to a recordable crime’. This would essentially mean punishing people for expressing the ‘wrong’ opinions.

The guidance was brought to public attention by retired officer Cathy Larkman, a police officer for over 30 years, who rose to the rank of superintendent before retiring last year. Larkman is concerned that the new rules will deal a ‘devastating blow to women’s trust in the police’. She told this weekend’s Mail on Sunday: ‘Women are not even an afterthought in this guidance – they are completely non-existent. Everything is geared towards the sensitivities of the officer doing the searching.’ Larkman is correct. The balance of concern is weighted entirely towards the officer who identifies as trans.

Many police forces seem to have developed an obsession with transgenderism in recent years. This is best understood as a misguided attempt to apologise for a past injustice.

For decades the police targeted gay men for nothing more than being ‘out’ in public, entrapping some and using archaic ‘importuning’ laws – some convictions for which have only recently been overturned. Trans activists in organisations like Stonewall, which counts numerous UK police forces as members of its controversial Diversity Champions Scheme, have touted the idea that identifying as ‘trans’ is similar to being same-sex attracted, that trans rights are the logical next step after gay rights, and that ‘transphobia’ is the homophobia of our time.

As a result, dim-witted plods across the country are desperate to avoid being smeared as ‘transphobic’. In their rush to show support for a group estimated to make up just 0.3 per cent of the population, the police have forgotten the rights of the 51 per cent – women.

And why should women have any faith in the police? From last year’s murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer – nicknamed ‘the rapist’ by colleagues – to the recent jailing of two Met officers for taking pictures of the dead bodies of two sisters, it is clear to me that the boys in blue have a woman problem.

Whenever trans rights and women’s rights come into conflict, you can count on the police not to side with women. In fact, in recent years the police have allowed themselves to be used as attack dogs for the trans cause. This has led to numerous arrests of law-abiding citizens – many of them women – who reject the idea that gender identity should trump reality.

A recent and extreme case of heavy-handed policing was the detention of Newport-based grandmother Jennifer Swayne. Earlier this year she was hauled into a police van with her mobility scooter and held for 12 hours, and a warrant was issued for her house to be searched. The police removed some of her books, presumably as evidence of her criminal intentions. Her crime? She was accused of posting feminist stickers, some of which were critical of transgenderism.

The NPCC guidance makes it clear – a woman’s right to not be searched by a man is less important than a male officer’s right to identify as a woman. Who, when standing naked under the gaze of the law, would feel strong enough to question the sex of the officer in whose rubber-gloved hands their future rests?

Forcing detainees to accept the identity of those searching them on pain of criminalisation is a grotesque inversion of justice – it will be looked back on as another shameful, misogynistic moment for the police.

Jo Bartosch is a journalist campaigning for the rights of women and girls.

Sickening. :evil:


Zipperfish @ Wed Apr 13, 2022 3:47 pm

Thanos Thanos:
I don't see how anyone could watch any of those videos, on any of these platforms, and not acknowledge that we're dealing with a serious mental & emotional illness. Huge numbers of these people, as shown in their own videos, are clearly delusional. And what's multiple times worse is that the powers-that-be (government, academia, media) have decided that totally surrendering & catering to that illness in everything it wants, by literally forcing it onto every aspect of our society, is the only way this issue is to be discussed & acknowledged.

I think we've finally reached the bottom. This is one of the very worst things our society has ever done.

I didn't worry a lot about metal and emotional illnesses in high school. I was trying to stay alive. I lived in some pretty tough parts of town--North End of Winnipeg, Newton area of Surrey, BC. It was brutally violent. If you came out as gay in those schools, you had to be legitimately concerned about staying alive. My teenage years were spent at bush parties, listening to metal and trying like hell not to attract the attention of the dude that just got out of jail, pissed and off his rocker.

I'm glad my kids didn't have to experience that.

But jeez that Libs of Tiktok page is whacked.


Thanos @ Wed Apr 13, 2022 4:17 pm

The psychotic bully wasn't trying to convert you to the cause. That's because he was just an asshole and not running a cult the way the gender ideologues are. That's my worry for the kids because the behaviour of the trans activists identically resembles all the other kooks who've ever come along in the last few decades, from Charles Manson to QAnon. And ol' Charlie didn't have the government and legal system and the academics on his side either the way the gender loons now do.

I agree with you 100% that being a kid in the 1970's and 80's was absolutely fucking horrible. I detest any veneration of that era that happens with any "remember the good old days" horseshit. It was awful and the kids today are bloody lucky they missed it altogether.


Thanos @ Wed Apr 13, 2022 8:02 pm

"Can you imagine being so insecure that you believe (transphobic) babies are out to get you?" 8O

Jesus Christ..... :lol:


Scape @ Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:25 pm ... WL&index=2


Scape @ Thu Apr 14, 2022 2:12 pm

What's that saying again? Money talks and bullshit walks.


Thanos @ Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:57 pm

What lunch with actual heroes looks like..... ... f-secrets/

God forbid women eat pasta and have a laugh

by Julie Bindel (goddamn legend)

It may have come to your attention over the last few days that there was a lunch. The events of that afternoon have already been covered in detail, and the joyous photographic record shared widely, so I will instead focus on what led to that glorious, raucous afternoon — and the hyperbolic backlash that followed.

It was late August 2019 when a message popped up in my Twitter inbox from J.K. Rowling. I had noticed that she had begun to follow me on Twitter a few months earlier, along with a number of feminists, and I was delighted to hear from her.

“I’ve just seen that you’re in contact with Magdelen Berns,” she wrote. Berns was a young lesbian who, after being silenced at her university, made YouTube videos tackling the absurdity of transgender ideology. She was popular, hilarious and informative. I say was; Berns, in her 30s, was dying of a brain tumour. I planned to visit her at a hospice in Edinburgh and had put a call out on Twitter to any women who wished to send her a message.

I knew that she would be delighted to hear from Rowling. A few weeks beforehand, during an excitable telephone conversation, she had already told me that “JK is following me!” Berns was thrilled to have her work recognised by one of the most famous and successful women on the planet, and I was thrilled to carry her message.

I kept in touch with Berns after my return from Edinburgh, until she died in September. Rowling and I also stayed in contact, bonded by our feminism and our “simply not having it” attitude. Then, three months later, Maya Forstater lost her job for stating that sex is real. Rowling was furious, and her tweet to that effect has become the stuff of legend. #IStandWithMaya, she said, and all hell broke loose.

On one side, British women were galvanised into action. On the other, the fact that this wealthy, powerful, successful and uncancellable woman was not only expressing her opinion, but doing so in public, inspired a tsunami of abuse. For the crime of having perfectly reasonable views on women’s sex-based rights, Rowling was harassed on social media and beyond. There were death threats, rape threats, doxxings, and wild accusations. Each time, they became more and more extreme, and even, in some places, normalised and justified.

During this period, many other feminists came in for the same treatment, but no one with a profile that came near to matching Rowling’s. Under fire from extreme trans rights activists, a core group of us formed a bond. It was, however, not formed in defiance of them, but around the beating heart of our movement; for women, for girls, for our rights and our protections, and against misogyny and male violence, whatever form that eternal chimera is currently taking.

Here’s the rub. The kind of threats and abuse sent to Rowling, to me and to others are designed to make us feel isolated, afraid, alone. Patriarchy is all about dividing women and ensuring we don’t share our experiences. Why? Because when women talk, we realise our experiences are quite similar when it comes to male violence and abuse. We realise that all the gaslighting, all the lies told to us, have a common thread. We realise that the guilt, blame and shame of what happened should not belong to us, but to the perpetrators.

And when we bond like that over our common experiences, in what some of us still call “sisterhood”, we are powerful beyond measure. We support each other, emotionally and practically. We organise, agitate, fight. The haters try to stop us. But what they don’t realise is that being under fire is a recipe for solidarity.

No woman is safe from this kind of attention. Martina Navratilova has a long history of being a very public ally to everybody in the LGBTQ rainbow, and yet was still subjected to foul abuse from radical trans rights activists. What was her sin? She questioned whether biological males should compete against women in sports. But the more they came after us, the closer and more supportive our coven became until one day, another DM dropped into my inbox, again from Rowling, this time to a dozen or so of us. It was an invitation. To lunch.

Like many journalists, I love a good lunch. It’s not like the old days where it would be a three-bottle job, beginning at 12:30 after you’d filed your copy, and ending with the restaurant chucking you out at 5pm. But there is something extremely decadent about getting a bit lashed of an afternoon, with a convivial group consuming fine wine and food. And that is exactly what happened last Sunday.

The problem? We were all women, and to make matters worse, feminists. The icing on the cake was that Rowling was the host, and her guests all known for standing up against extreme transgender ideology and for women’s sex-based rights. That was bad enough, but the fact that we got up to hijinks, and had the temerity to laugh, and drink wine, and eat pasta, and have a bloody brilliant time, and do it on camera, was simply too much for some people. Can you imagine? The cheek of it.

I’d had enough experience of these things to know, beforehand, that there would be some sort of reaction, but I was genuinely surprised by the scale of it. Several national newspapers, radio programmes and talkshows covered it as some fascinating event rather than just ladies who luncheon. I was not surprised, however, by the sheer warmth of many feminists, and even a few men, who lit up social media with their good wishes for us. Nor was I surprised by the fact that there was a backlash from the blue-fringed brigade; the anger and pure spite was palpable, and once word got out that we witches had got together and had some fun, the pile on began.

First, were the handmaidens. One woman, a well-known author with pronouns in her biography, suggested that we were “patting ourselves on the back for solving feminism because of the mutual dislike of trans people”. Then another woman, a comedian, again with the pronouns, kicked off big time, saying that she had had a “mad, angry cry about the photos of J.K. Rowling at the TERF gathering. It’s disgusting how members of our own community can be so hateful”. And of course, Twitter in all its glory was soon awash with the hashtag #MadAngryCry.

Then the boys joined in. Craig Murray, who describes himself as a historian and human rights activist, seemed to think that our event was disrespectful to a man accused of the rape and sexual assault of two women. “While [Suzanne] Moore was knocking back expensive wine in a shit venue with fellow “victim” J. K. Rowling, Assange was entering his fourth year locked in a tiny cell amongst convicted terrorists.” One wonders whether it is only feminists who should refrain from eating until Assange is free?

Hen parties, make-up salons, hair dressers, maternity wards are all permissible places for women to hang out, but actual feminists meeting? Those women that refuse to back down when the patriarchal boot is on the collective neck? No chance.

Some of the intensity of this backlash is no doubt driven by jealousy — not just of us having lunch with the stupendous Rowling, but of how much we made each other laugh. Contrary to prejudicial stereotypes about feminists, there is no shortage of funny women in our midst. As can be seen in the countless photos taken at the lunch, we teased each other in the most irreverent way, such as deciding that Rowling was only 66% straight. I mean, come on: very few heterosexual feminists prioritise the bullying and debasement of lesbians by trans activists and other misogynists as she does.

When the photos were tweeted, to great merriment, I suddenly found myself accused of being some type of sexual predator, out to convert our Queen. In response, Rowling wrote: “Appalled to learn that @bindelj sexually harassed me by (checks notes) making me laugh while lunching. I’ve naturally consulted lawyers, but they say my case is likely to fail at trial due to a legal loophole known as ‘this is bullshit’. Devastated. Please send more fake concern.”

And yet for all that we laughed, it isn’t easy being on the receiving end of so much vitriol and hatred, no matter how much support, or wealth, or sisterhood you have. People seem to think that privileged women such as Rowling have no feelings, no ability to feel pain, and no concern for their safety. But this is sociopathic behaviour, sadistic even — laced with a desire to put women on the receiving end in a position where we cannot win.

Well, on that Sunday afternoon, with that group of women, and the friendship and solidarity in sisterhood in the air, we won. Trust me: we had the hangovers to prove it.



Thanos @ Thu Apr 14, 2022 4:15 pm

And then they came for the gay men next because apparently they're no longer allowed to decide who they can be attracted to .....

Woke Homophobia: Anti-Gay Hatred from Trans Activists & Gender-Identity Ideologues

It's all turned into something basically identical to the scene from Event Horizon when the passage through Hell made everyone on the doomed ship tear their own eyeballs out. :wink:



Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next