A Lame Ass Offer

Update 422 Even More Women's Boxing and Free Speech Special #BeMorePorcupine

Aug 15, 2024

Today, in the Heroes season, we have an individual standing up to a large corporation ( or maybe it could be a government). Now who does that remind me of?

Erin Brockovich is a 2000 American film directed by Steven Soderbergh. The film is a dramatisation of the true story of Erin Brockovich, portrayed by Julia Roberts, who fought against the energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) regarding its culpability for the Hinkley groundwater contamination incident. Albert Finney is her boss, Edward L. Masry.

Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.

More Woolympics

I think Mr Khelif must have a screw loose for ploughing on after his trainer has let the cat out of the bag ( see last update). Anyway…

Tom Murray in The Independent ( JK Rowling and Elon Musk named in Imane Khalif’s lawsuit over Olympics gender row 14 August) reports:

(From left) JK Rowling, Imane Khelif and Elon Musk© Getty Images

The attorney representing Algerian Olympic boxer Imane Khalif has said that JJK Rowling and Elon Musk are among those listed in the sportsperson’s legal complaint over online harassment.

Khelif won gold in the women’s welterweight tournament in Paris on Friday (August 9), becoming Algeria’s first woman to ever win a gold medal in boxing at the Games.

However, her performances became marred by a row over her gender when the 25-year-old was disqualified by the International Boxing Association (IBA) from the women’s World Championships after allegedly failing a gender eligibility test.

The full article is here:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/jk-rowling-and-elon-musk-named-in-imane-khalif-s-lawsuit-over-olympics-gender-row/ar-AA1oKFqn?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f2a124d68b6d4b518e1554b5b6ba23c1&ei=9

From their weekly round up ( 12 August), Reduxx ( who first spotted the presence of the two male boxers in the women’s boxing) report:

Today, Reduxx spoke with female boxer Joana Nwamerue, a Nigerian-Bulgarian boxing whizkid and former sparring partner of Imane Khelif. Nwamerue is no-holds-barred, and firmly believes, based on her experience with the Algerian, that Khelif is male.

She also recounted a bizarre encounter with the Algerian national team, which confronted her for calling Khelif “a man” during a boxing retreat in Sofia, Bulgaria this past February. In Khelif’s defense, the team claimed that Khelif was simply a woman who had been biologically altered by living in high altitudes.

The reaction we imagine you have right now is certainly the reaction we had, and most definitely the reaction Joana had to that information.

Nwamerue is an incredible woman, and she has a lot more to say about this entire debacle, so make sure you stay tuned.

The full piece is here:

https://reduxx.substack.com/p/reduxx-weekly-roundup-august-5-13?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true

Great speech by Australian Senator, Claire Chandler:

It looks like the controversy is set to continue in the Paralympics but now we have a larping man instead.

Stuart Ballard in GB News ( Paralympics to feature transgender athlete for first time as 50-year-old sprinter cleared to compete 12 August) reports:

Valentina Petrillo will become the first openly transgender athlete to compete at the Paraylmpics this month after being selected by Italy for the major event.

The 50-year-old began living as a woman in 2018 and began hormone therapy a few months later to begin the transition.

She came close to making the Italian Paralympics team in 2021 for the Tokyo Games, but wasn't selected for their roster.

That was used as fuel by Petrillo to target the Paris Paralympics and she won two bronze medals at the 2023 World Para Athletics Championships.

It saw Petrillo become the first transgender athlete to win a track and field medal on a global stage.

Her achievement drew widespread criticism with Canada's former Olympic head coach, Peter Eriksen, branding it 'shocking'.

Britain's third-fastest female marathon runner Mara Yamauchi also questioned 'How many 49-year-olds would win medals at world level?'

Petrillo competes in the women's T12 classification - for athletes with visual impairment - and won gold in the 100m, 200m and 400m events at the 2021 Italian Paralympic Championships.

The full article is here:

https://www.gbnews.com/sport/olympics/paralympics-transgender-athlete-50-year-old-sprinter-compete

Free Speech and Two Tier Policing

See my last update for why two tier policing is relevant to us Terfs.

Very interesting discussion on his substack by Andrew Doyle. All thoughts gratefully received.

Jailed for a Facebook post

Isn’t it about time we had a sensible discussion about incitement to violence?

Aug 13, 2024

“Every man and his dog should be smashing the fuck out of Britannia Hotel”. This was the grim message posted on Jordan Parlour’s Facebook page which has resulted in him being imprisoned for twenty months for inciting racial hatred. That someone would actively promote violence against the refugees being accommodated in this hotel is obviously reprehensible. Nobody I know, or would care to know, would support it.

And this is where the problem lies. One of the major fallacies in the free speech debates is the assumption that those who are defending someone’s right to make objectionable statements are thereby endorsing what they have said. On the contrary, we need to defend free speech even for those we despise, because once we have diluted the principle the consequences will affect us all. When it comes to incitement to violence, sensitivities are naturally high, but this is all the more reason why we need to initiate a sensible discussion. At present, we seem to be allowing our emotions to overcome our reason.

Let’s start with our shared revulsion at the comment made. I feel confident in asserting that Parlour is an unpleasant individual who should be vehemently criticised for his Facebook post. If I were one of the people who saw the post I would have blocked him instantly. But I also do not believe that there was ever any reason for the state to get involved, let alone to have Parlour incarcerated.

Whereas I hope we can all agree that the words he wrote were unconscionable, we need to take a moment to consider rationally whether or not they actually had the impact that we assume. Even if Parlour’s intention was to incite violence, there is precisely no evidence that he was successful. It is one thing to point out that there are keyboard warriors cheering on needless acts of violence, and that violence is indeed taking place. It is quite another to assert a causal link between the one and the other. This is a hypothesis that should be tested, not merely asserted. And this is especially the case if this hypothesis is to be the justification for public prosecutions.

This issue is far more significant than Parlour and his ilk. In such situations, we should be asking ourselves the following question. Which do we consider to be more of a threat - a handful of vile men encouraging each other to commit violent crimes, or a state that is eager to imprison citizens on the basis of what they choose to say? Those of us who know a thing or two about history will understand the extreme dangers of the latter scenario.

This is a question I repeatedly asked on my appearance yesterday on Talkback on BBC Radio Ulster, but no serious answer was ever attempted. The host William Crawley, and his guest Claire Hanna (SDLP MP), both took the view that incitement to violence should be prosecuted even when there was no evidence that the words had directly caused harm. They further made the case that the criminal prosecution of Markus Meechan (aka “Count Dankula”) for a comedic video in which he taught his girlfriend’s pug to react excitedly to phrases such “gas the Jews” and “Sieg Heil” was justified because they didn’t find the joke funny. So for this BBC presenter and SDLP politician, hauling someone through the courts and slamming them with a criminal record is a legitimate form of comedy criticism.

The debate was enjoyable and lively, but I do not think it was particularly productive. This is mostly because infantile arguments were allowed to dominate. For instance, Hanna repeatedly asserted that Elon Musk’s views on free speech were illegitimate because he had once mistakenly shared an antisemitic conspiracy theory online. Crawley jumped to her defence, saying that Musk was indeed guilty of spreading white supremacist content. I asked him whether the same could be said of the BBC, which likewise had promoted an antisemitic conspiracy theory – in this case that the IDF had been targeting medics at a Gaza hospital – and, like Musk, later apologised for the mistake. Crawley refused to answer.

The most helpful element of the discussion came with the arrival of Dr Olivia Brown, an expert in the impact of social media. She was invited on to the show to make her case that words lead to violence and that online censorship is therefore justified. As it happens, she inadvertently ended up disproving her own point. By Brown’s own admission, there was no evidence whatsoever of a direct link between online rhetoric and real-world violence. It was all a matter of speculation and theorising.

When it comes to state censorship, theorising is not good enough. Those committing acts of violence ought to be prosecuted, and I do not believe that their responsibility should be mitigated through reference to potential “incitement”. If somebody were to call on me to physically assault someone else, and I then chose to commit that crime, I would be entirely culpable. For me to claim that I was “triggered” into action by someone else’s words would be dishonest and untrue. It would merely be a cynical ploy to find somebody else to blame.

Every tyrannical regime in history has enacted censorship under the guise of protecting the “safety” of its citizens. Nebulous terms such as “hate speech” and “incitement” will always be subject to concept creep. Today, a man suggesting that his friends attack a hotel is considered “incitement”. Tomorrow, it may be anyone who criticises the government’s policies. You might call this a slippery slope fallacy, but it is one that has been proven to materialise again and again throughout history.

One solution is to implement an equivalent to the US threshold for incitement to violence, known as the “Brandenburg Test”. This was established by the Supreme Court in 1969, when the conviction of Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg for promoting violence was overturned. Following that precedent, the test for incitement to violence is that the speech in question must be deliberately aimed at inciting violence, likely to do so, and that any possible impact must be imminent. Some idiot on Facebook speaking to his 1,500 friends about smashing up a hotel certainly would not meet this threshold.

https://substack.com/@andrewdoyle/p-147661966

Sarah Phillimore continues this discussion on her substack, Sarah’s Newsletter:

Is it 'irresponsible' to talk about 'two tier policing' ?

Recent and horrific riots around England have been seen by some through a lens of 'two tier' policing. Is this irresponsible incitement or necessary comment?

Aug 12, 2024

It should not need saying but I am sure if I don’t, I will be accused by some of arguing that ‘free speech’ encompasses threats to kill or incitement to violence. It does not. As I have repeatedly said, people who make such threats have no defence, they should be arrested, charged and imprisoned for the safety of us all.

So why have the recent riots in England encouraged discussion about ‘two tier’ policing, if anyone with any sense agrees that there is no defence to violence or the threat of it? Because the police and the Government have not directed their stern admonitions and threats of immediate punishment to simply those who are violent or incite violence. Again, in proclamations to camera or by social media posting, the word ‘hate’ crops up frequently. And with it the concern that the police do act differently when faced with groups they are afraid of or who they consider to have unacceptable political view.

Again, I have to make it clear I understand the different operational choices that apply when faced with a very angry and large group of people, where de-escalation may have to take priority rather than immediate arrests. But all of this is still taking place against a backdrop of concern about how the police and Government define ‘hate’ and whether the violence of the recent riots are being used as further opportunity to enlarge the ambition of the accusation of ‘hate’.

For example see the social media publications of the CPS and the Attorney General. The Gov.UK re tweet was widely mocked, and had to turn off replies which were universally negative. This is encouraging but underscores the ill advised nature of such broad pronouncements.

Fair Cop have long campaigned against the woolly use of the word ‘hate’ to underpin or exacerbate criminality - its definition includes ‘dislike’ and ‘unfriendliness’. We have also pointed out repeatedly the distrust that is created when the police abandon the core ethical demand of impartiality and treat certain groups as morally inferior to others.

See for example the treatment of Jennifer Swayne contrasted with the response to Sarah Jane Baker. One bundled into a police van for putting up stickers containing biological facts, the other excitedly encouraging a crowd of thousands to physically attack women and who was only charged after a wave of outrage, given that at the time he was out on licence for a life sentence for kidnapping and attempted murder. It is a reasonable assumption that the stark disparity in the response of the police to Swayne and Baker, was that one was a woman daring to express views the police found repulsive, the other a trans identifying man and hence beyond reproach.

When the police proudly announce they have dedicated teams scouring social media to find the next examples of criminal ‘hate’ I am rather less reassured after considering these examples of how they define it.

As our brave undercover operative at the Northumbria Pride showed, the Northumbria police were very happy to publicly pose with a sign equating ‘terfs’ to ‘racists’ and opining that both should be ‘afraid’. Gender critical belief has been affirmed time and time again as a protected characteristic. Just what the bloody hell do the police think they are doing? I hope the plans for judicial review of Northumbria Police proceeds apace; if one force falls, they all do.

Someone emailed Fair Cop to say that he was among about 100 people handcuffed at a protest on 31st July 2024 in London - they were simply standing and watching. They were held for 20 hours and then bailed to return in October. The police claimed to be operating under section 14 of the Public Order Act which allows restrictions to be placed on demonstrators when there is fear of significant disorder. But no warning was given to those standing by, no opportunity for them to disperse. Compare this to the police liaison officer who advised a group of armed men that they could leave their weapons at the mosque and no arrests would be made.

The problem is, as I discussed with Andrew Doyle on Free Speech Nation on Sunday 11th August 2024, you cannot ring fence your idiocy and corruption. If you abandon truth and reason in one area - such as what is a woman? - you cannot be trusted with it in ANY area. How you do something is how you do anything.

I note that Hope Not Hate have condemned Fair Cop as a dangerous ‘far right’ group, without contacting any member of our group for comment or giving us any right of reply. And yet their Director Nick Lowles was able to publish very serious misinformation on line on 3rd August 2024 about an acid attack on a Muslim woman He faced no consequences. He was not arrested. His promotion of this lie can only have served to inflame tensions - but because he has the correct political views, he can spread lies with impunity. But why is he less blameworthy that those who wrongly asserted the man who attacked little girls in Southport was a Muslim?

Lowles is simply a less covered up version of all those men in their black balaclavas, empowered and encouraged to threaten women with violence in public while the police either watch or walk away. Because they have the ‘right’ views.

‘Fascist’ and ‘far right’, like ‘transphobic’ will shortly cease to have any meaning. They have become just another in the now long list of thought terminating cliches, a net cast very wide to catch anyone who challenges your narrative. Better be sure that your net is strong and sturdy indeed.

You may find that you need a bigger boat.

https://substack.com/@sarahphillimore/p-147590084

Sarah is also interviewed here by Andrew Doyle on this issue:

https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-evidence-for-two-tier-policing?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true

The Misgendered Daschund

I reported on the settlement of the case brought by social worker, Lizzy Pitt here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/you-gonna-leave-me-never?utm_source=publication-search

There were some unusual (!!) aspects to the case as discussed on the site Fair Job:

James Esses

James has sent out a report on the settlement of his case against his former college.

14 August

Update on Expelled from my university course

Dear Supporters,

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the lack of update for a lengthy period of time. There were delays within the Employment Tribunal and we then had to wait a number of months before we could hold a Judicial Mediation, which was the next stage of proceedings.

Following this Judicial Mediation, I am pleased to announce an exciting, positive update. I have agreed a settlement with the Metanoia Institute in my claim against them.

Although I am not in a position to reveal the exact terms of settlement, I can say that I am extremely happy with them.

Metanoia have also published a formal statement, which reads as follows:

‘We are pleased to announce that we have reached settlement in the Employment Tribunal claim brought by James Esses against us.

Metanoia recognises that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010. These are the beliefs that sex is binary, immutable and biological and is fundamentally important. Whilst Metanoia specialises in professional training for those working in adult and not child psychotherapy it accepts as a matter of general principle the validity of the professional belief that children with gender dysphoria should be treated with explorative therapy, rather than being affirmed towards medical intervention. Discrimination against students because of these beliefs is unlawful.

Metanoia also acknowledges the changing policy landscape in this field, including the significant UKCP withdrawal from the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy, on child safeguarding grounds, as well as the outcome of the Cass Review. We accept that Mr Esses’ advocacy on this subject-matter was motivated by a desire to protect children.

We also recognise the importance of freedom of speech within educational institutions and the steps taken by the government in this regard, including the recent introduction of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.

We accept that in our treatment of Mr Esses we were in breach of our own policies, when we summarily, and without due process, expelled him from his Masters’ course in Integrative Psychotherapy. Mr Esses was not afforded a hearing or an internal appeal.

We also apologise for publicising Mr Esses’ expulsion on social media and in other communications. We accept that the Institute’s public comment on social media contributed to Mr Esses receiving online abuse from third parties, which we condemn.

As a consequence of his expulsion, Mr Esses was barred from the opportunity of completing the additional two years of his studies and receiving his qualification with the Institute. Mr Esses passed every assessment undertaken which had been marked, had received positive feedback from his clinical placements and, at the time of his expulsion, had been signed off to set up in private practice by his supervisor, clinical placement and personal tutor. We apologise to him for the impact of his expulsion, both professional and personal.

Notwithstanding the fact that high-quality therapy is rooted in empathy, active listening and unconditional positive regard, we did not fulfil these values in our treatment of Mr Esses. For this we apologise fully.

We will seek to learn the lessons from this ordeal to ensure that this never happens to another student within our Institute and have already taken significant steps so as to improve quality in decision-making. We acknowledge the hurt that it has caused to Mr Esses and wish him well for the future.’

Finally, after having the vocation I loved so much snatched away from me, and the years of abuse that have followed, I feel vindicated.

This, coupled with the outcome of my litigation against the UK Council for Psychotherapy, means that I have closure at last.

More importantly, I hope that this outcome will ensure that educational institutes think twice before doing to another student what was done to me.

I must thank my incredible legal team, Peter Daly and Akua Reindorf KC, who have been with me every step of the way.

Finally, I would like to thank each and every one of you who supported me in my fight and donated to my crowdfund. I very literally could not have done it without you. I will remain eternally grateful to you all.

I will now take stock and reflect on my future life plans. However, please know that, whatever direction my career may take, I will never stop fighting for the wellbeing of children and the preservation of biological reality.

James

News from Australia

Bernard Lane in Gender Clinic News ( Medical misinfo 14 August) writes:

Which way to turn? — Photo by Taylor Deas-Melesh on Unsplash

Treatment guidelines used by gender clinics in Australian children’s hospitals falsely claim a medical consensus and mislead parents, distressed young people and health professionals in the wider community.

This claim has been put to Australia’s Health Minister Mark Butler by the National Association of Practising Psychiatrists (NAPP), which is calling for an independent federal inquiry, an audit of gender clinic medical records and a centralised registry tracking all minors treated for gender dysphoria.

NAPP president Dr Philip Morris wrote to Mr Butler on August 2, and also sent him a 19-page overview of the gender clinic debate written by Melbourne psychiatrist and researcher Dr Alison Clayton. These two documents went to state and territory health ministers across Australia’s federation on August 12.

This initiative emerged from the NAPP’s July 2 webinar with British paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass on the relevance to Australia of her 2020-24 review of youth dysphoria care.

“While we note that [England’s National Health Service] and the Australian health system are different, the clinical issues regarding gender identity concerns and gender dysphoria in young people are very similar in our two countries,” Dr Morris’s letter to Mr Butler says.

“We consider the general recommendations about the assessment and treatment of youth with gender incongruence and dysphoria by the Cass review are applicable to Australia.”

The full piece is here:

https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/medical-misinfo?publication_id=627677&r=1v403b

Update on Australian legal cases from Anna Kerr of wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic (FLC). It’s tough in Australia at the moment as regular readers will know!!

News from the States

Thanks to FLC for the next two reports.

A Consensus No Longer ( 14 August)

The main justification for “gender-affirming care” for minors in the United States has been that “all major U.S. medical associations” support it. Critics of this supposed consensus have argued that it is not grounded in high-quality research or decades of honest and robust deliberation among clinicians with different viewpoints and experiences. Instead, it is the result of a small number of ideologically driven doctor-association members in LGBT-focused committees, who exploit their colleagues’ trust. Physicians presenting different viewpoints are silenced or kept away from decision-making circles, ensuring the appearance of unanimity.

Perhaps because it has never really depended on evidence, this doctor-group consensus has shown remarkable resilience in the face of major system shocks, including several whistleblowers, revelations from court documents that WPATH manipulated scientific evidence reviews, the Cass Review, a bipartisan commitment in the U.K. to roll back pediatric medical transition, and a growing international call for a developmentally informed approach that prioritizes psychotherapy over hormones and surgeries.

But the U.S. consensus now appears to have its first big fracture. In July, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, a major medical association representing 11,000 members and over 90 percent of the field in the U.S. and Canada, told me that it “has not endorsed any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.” ASPS acknowledged that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”

Malpractice premiums in this area are already rising, and some insurers outright exclude under-18 gender-transition procedures from their coverage policies.

A key question for these lawsuits is the degree to which surgeons are responsible for determining the medical necessity of the procedures that they are asked to perform.

Nazarian, the Beverly Hills surgeon, told me that surgeons in her professional network who perform gender surgeries typically defer to mental-health professionals and endocrinologists to determine for them whether minors should receive procedures like double mastectomy. That approach, she believes, is misguided, and reduces surgeons to mechanics.

Source: A Consensus No Longer | City Journal

The next one is a really shocking report!

Report: thousands of US girls underwent trans ‘top surgeries’ (15 August)

A report from the Manhattan Institute this week revealed that “gender-affirming” mastectomies for patients under 18 are more common than previously believed.

While cross-sex genital surgeries are rare in the US for both adults and minors, mastectomies — also known as “top surgery” in the context of transgender medicine — are widely available to minors and are the most common transgender surgery for this population. Around 5,000 to 6,000 girls underwent “gender affirming” double mastectomies in the US from 2017 to 2023, according to the Manhattan Institute, and at least 50 of those patients were younger than 12-and-a-half years old.

The actual prevalence of these surgeries is likely considerably higher than the latest estimate, since it relies on health insurance data and therefore does not include procedures obtained without using insurance.

Proponents of cross-sex medical interventions downplay the prevalence of these surgeries. The Human Rights Campaign declared last April that “gender affirming surgeries are NOT performed on children”, and the Association of American Medical Colleges wrote, “GAC surgery among youth is rare, experts say.” Marci Bowers, plastic surgeon and president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the leasing standard-setting organisation for transgender medical treatments, has made a similar argument. “Surgery really is not done under the age of 18, except in severe cases . . . And even that is rare, I think the estimates are something like 57 surgeries under the age of 18,” Bowers said in 2023.

But their insistence that surgeries for children are rare should not be confused with repudiation of such surgeries. On the contrary, activists strongly oppose restrictions on trans surgeries for kids.

Source: Report: thousands of US girls underwent trans ‘top surgeries’ – UnHerd