Women’s bodies must be hidden!

The transphobes are experiencing the contradictions inherent in their ideas. In England, which has become Transphobe Central, they set up some rules that competitors in swimming competitions must compete according to their birth sex. A transwoman showed up for the women’s races, and the organizers turned her away…so she showed up for the men’s competition, in men’s swimgear. She swam topless, like a man.

Anne Isabella Coombes protested a policy banning her from female competitions by competing in an ‘open’ category race wearing men’s sports trunks and no bra.

The 67-year-old swimmer said Swim England, the UK’s competitive swimming regulator, told her she wasn’t eligible to compete in female category races, despite having done so in the past.

Good for her, breaking gender norms with the assistance of transphobic rules-givers.

The media have also chosen to blur out her chest. They’re going to have to make up their mind about these rules someday.

Another mammoth resurrected!

David Futrelle has brought back We Hunted the Mammoth! Go read it!

The latest post is about JK Rowling and Graham Linehan. OK, maybe you should run away instead — nothing good can come of those two nitwits. There is a healthy dose of schadenfreude here, though. The TERFs have won a victory in the UK Supreme Court, but they’re still miserable and bitter. Futrelle has a long list of various reactions from fervent anti-trans wackaloons, and they’re all whining about how people hate them so much.

Victoria Smith
@glosswitch
But then when there is hope it also hits you just how awful it is, how much open hatred of women has been enabled, how utterly worthless so many professional, paid ‘feminists’ have been, how they will always say nothing no matter how bad it gets.
Julie Bindel
@bindelj
I feel lower than a snake’s armpit the past couple of days – sending love x
10:36 AM · Apr 20, 2025

They don’t get it. Their critics are not expressing “open hatred” of women, they’re disgusted with this small, loud crowd of haters who succeeded at getting legal approval of their bigotry. We’re repelled by you, not women.

And then there’s Glinner.

Graham Linehan 🎗️
@Glinner
“Let it”. It destroyed my family because of the cowardice of my friends, who stood by while a whole generation of gay kids were mutilated and sterilised, and the women who fought it lost their livelihoods. You’re a coward and a fraud
@jonronson
Quote
On a clear day
@ICanSeeForever1
·
Mar 14, 2024
Adam Buxton and Jon Ronson on Graham Linehan
‘I was kind of obsessed with our mutual friend who let it take over his life to the extent that he lost all of his work and his family’

The “it” that destroyed his family is, he thinks, trans people, but really “it” was his pathological obsession with hatred of trans people. Graham Linehan is just a sad pathetic failure of a human being.

Welcome back, David Futrelle. Nothing has changed.

As for Rowling, here’s an accurate assessment from Salon, commenting on her selfie with cigar and liquor.

But no matter how much money you have, you can’t dominate the world if you’re not out in it. In her photo, Rowling is notably posted up on a yacht or some beach resort, enjoying the spoils of her wealth and a strong 5G signal from her cellular provider. She’s not joining the cheering members of For Women Scotland and the other anti-trans voices in person, she’s playing edgelord from the comfort of a life so far removed from reality that the truth is just a speck in the distance. After years spent tarnishing her brand with rampant trans-exclusionary takes, Rowling has assured that her writing won’t define her legacy; her flagrant cowardice will.

Despite what she might say, Rowling isn’t for anyone, especially not women, whom she claims to champion; she’s for herself. The author of a beloved book series about coming together to fight the rise of fascism has written herself into the story as a real-life villain. No matter how much fans try to separate the art from the artist, Rowling and “Harry Potter” are inextricably linked forever. And with the “Hogwarts Legacy” video game and Max’s upcoming “Harry Potter” series trying to breathe new life into the franchise, it’s time for even diehard Potterheads to put their money where their mouths are and leave Rowling’s wizarding world behind for good.

It’s amazing how this group of people who eagerly embraced discrimination and hatred of trans folk have become so wretched, in spite of any wealth and success.

Georgia Purdom explains sex

As everyone knows, it’s all about the size of the palps

The creationists (and a few scientists) are unhappy that there isn’t a simple, single, concrete factor to differentiate the sexes. They looked to the scientists, and were not satisfied with the answer.

at its annual meeting in 2023, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) canceled a session that aimed to explore biological sex as an analytic category in anthropology. The AAA justified its decision by stating that “there is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification.”

That’s not the answer they wanted, so they turned to Georgia Purdom, the ex-molecular biologist working for Answers in Genesis to provide that single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification. The single criterion! What will it be, you may wonder.

From a genetic standpoint, biological sex is determined by our chromosomes. I often say, “No Y, no guy.” Females typically have two X chromosomes, while males have an X and a Y chromosome. This chromosomal distinction provides a clear biological marker for sex.

The creationist has spoken.

Except…

It’s important to note that sexual development disorders do occur, and we must approach these situations with compassion. However, chromosomal analysis remains a reliable method for determining biological sex.

Except when it isn’t. She’s not keeping up with the times; all the cool kids are saying it’s all about gamete size. Or hormone titers. Or the morphology of primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Or pelvic dimensions. Or muscle mass. Or bone density.

At the very least, they ought to admit that the American Anthropological Association was correct: there is no single biological standard. And all the standards have exceptions and gray areas or ambiguities, sometimes contradict each other, or even conflict with each other. People are complicated, and anyone who claims there is a single obvious parameter that defines sexuality in such a way as to create a simple binary categorization is full of shit.

I wonder how Georgia plans to evaluate the chromosomal complement of everyone who wants to use a public restroom?

Some conservatives might be persuadable

Good news from Montana: the legislature was flooded with anti-trans laws, but they’ve all been defeated. They failed because a few eloquent trans advocates stood up and persuaded 29 Republicans to change course. Here’s one of the speeches, this one by Zooey Zephyr, with support by a Republican representative:

“Here I am again to rise on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, exasperated. “At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community. You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago… There were three-article-of-clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender, they could stop you, arrest you… it was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ+ bar that led to the Stonewall riots, one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history,” she began.

“When the sponsor closed on this bill, he said, this bill is needed… and I quote his words… ‘because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing.’ And I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud within a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display. That is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after… not obscene shows in front of children, we have the Miller test for that, we have laws for that. This is a way to target the trans community, and that is in my opinion, and in the speaker’s own words.”

Then something even more remarkable happened: A Republican, Representative Sherry Essman, rose to defend Rep. Zephyr and chastised the bill’s sponsor. “I’m speaking as a parent and a grandmother. And I’m very emotional because I know the representative in seat 20 is also a parent. No matter what you think of that, she is doing her best to raise a child. I did my best to raise my children as I saw fit, and I’m taking it for granted that my children are going to raise my grandchildren as they see fit,” she began.

“Everybody in here talks about how important parental rights are. I want to tell you, in addition to parental rights, parental responsibility is also important. And if you can’t trust a decent parent to decide where and when their kids should see what, then we have a bigger problem,” she turned to parental rights and spoke about how people who claim those rights should vote against the bill.

And then, she closed by chastising the bill’s sponsor for bringing the bill, “Trust the parents to do what’s right, and stop these crazy bills that are a waste of time. They’re a waste of energy. We should be working on property tax relief and not doing this sort of business on the floor of this house and having to even talk about this.”

There’s more at the link. I also appreciate this criticism of weak Democrats.

At a time when anti-trans bills are sailing through red-state legislatures, many are left wondering how they can be stopped. Some Democrats, like Gavin Newsom, have chosen appeasement—standing alongside anti-trans hate leaders like Charlie Kirk instead of standing up for transgender people. But Representatives Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell offer a different path. As transgender lawmakers in a Republican-dominated government, they have shown that representation, relationships, and the power of speaking truth in hostile spaces can move hearts and minds. Their success is a reminder that even in the most challenging environments, refusing to back down can make a difference.

Another chickenshit Democrat

Gavin Newsom, the governor of California who also has aspirations to the presidency, has destroyed any chance he has of achieving that higher office, by creating a podcast.

The first guest on that podcast? Charlie Kirk. The unqualified white nationalist backed by far-right millionaires.

Aww hell no. I’m never going to support a candidate who gives air to evil lunatics like that.

Even worse…what did they talk about? They found common ground in their shared hatred of transgender athletes. It’s insane. Transgender kids participating in sports is a good thing that should not be of concern, and only bigots are furious at trans boys and girls. Especially since…

Newsweek also spoke to Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who told Newsweek that Save Women’s Sports, a leading voice in the bid to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, identified only five transgender athletes competing on girls’ teams in school sports for grades K through 12.

Yes, that’s right. Not 5000, not 500, not even 50 – just five trans student-athletes. All of this legislation, work, lobbying and anger – is aimed at preventing a tiny handful of young people from playing school sports.

It shouldn’t matter whether there are 5 or 5 million — denying rights to any group of people is wrong. Newsom is just pandering to the perception that Americans all hate trans people.

Why delete rules unless you plan to break them?

Yesteray, I took my required online training course in Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation Prevention and Response (SMPP). This is an administrative mandate, where the university periodically tells me I have to take some particular training; I’ve had courses on implicit bias, COVID awareness, and responsible conduct of science, for instance, and they generally are reminders of what we’re expected to do in our job. It’s not at all like signing a EULA, though. EULAs are legal noise that are designed so you won’t bother to read the whole thing. These are detailed step-by-step breakdowns of our legal obligations, where we have to verify that we’ve read each short section, and there are example scenarios and descriptions of situations and proper responses, with short quizzes to make sure you understand the points. It sounds like a lot, but I cruised through it in under a half hour and it was easy.

It starts with a reminder of the official policy of the Board of Regents.

The University shall:
(a) provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender, age, marital status, familial status, disability, public assistance status, membership or activity in a local commission created for the purpose of dealing with discrimination, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
(b) establish and nurture an environment for faculty, staff, students, and visitors that actively acknowledges and values diversity, equity, inclusion, and equal opportunity, and is free from identity-based prejudice, intolerance, or harassment; and
(c) promote and support diversity, equity, inclusion, and equal opportunity through hiring and admissions processes, academic programs, employment policies and practices, the delivery of services, the purchase of goods, materials, and services from businesses of the diverse communities it serves, and all of its other programs and activities.

We also get a dose of Title IX.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]” All federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX’s nondiscrimination mandate. ED gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs and libraries.

Yeah, I kind of rolled my eyes at most of it, because I’d never even consider breaking those rules. It is, however, good to be reminded of the social chains that bind us, especially since they impose no painful constraints — the chains are light, they don’t limit me from doing what I want to do, and they can double as armor in case anyone wants to violate my boundaries. So it’s all good. I’m happy to work within the system.

And then I read about Iowa.

Iowa lawmakers became the first in the nation to approve legislation removing gender identity protections from the state’s civil rights code Thursday, despite massive protests by opponents who say it could expose transgender people to discrimination in numerous areas of life.

The measure raced through the legislative process after first being introduced last week. The state Senate was first to approve the bill on Thursday, on party lines, followed by the House less than an hour later. Five House Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against it.

The bill would remove gender identity as a protected class from the state’s civil rights law and explicitly define female and male, as well as gender, which would be considered a synonym for sex and “shall not be considered a synonym or shorthand expression for gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role.”

The measure would be the first legislative action in the U.S. to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.

I remember back in 2009, when Iowa first legalized gay marriage. They beat Minnesota to it. I was impressed that stodgy, conservative, Republican Iowa could approve something so progressive. What happened?

I am confident that my colleagues in Iowa naturally accept the same principles we sign off on here in Minnesota, but I do wonder about those people who celebrate the removal of explicit protections. Are they now thinking it’s OK to disrespect people’s gender identity? Are they now happily planning to sneer at gay or transgender people? Why did they want a constraint removed, other than to allow some people to violate the rights of others?

Someone in Iowa needs some sexual discrimination training.