A Tribute to Maggie Smith
Update 445. Down Under and Ladies' Lounge Special. #BeMorePorcupine
This is another long one, dear readers.
EDI Jester has done a lovely tribute to Dame Maggie Smith who has just died, so I am pausing the Aussie Heroes season to feature that. However he didn’t include a clip from my personal favourite, The Lady In The Van, so I am starting with that.
https://substack.com/@edijester/p-149523330
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Free Speech
Excellent speech at the Together 3rd Anniversary by Baroness Claire Fox.
England and Wales - The Bar Standards Board
I previously reported on the disastrous and alarming proposals from the BSB here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/buffalo-bill?utm_source=publication-search
Excellent interview about this with barrister Akua Reindorf on the Double Jeopardy podcast.
Stupid MP
On the New Zealand substack Resist Gender Education ( and see further below for another report from them) is a report from Helen Joyce following the recent lobby of Parliament. It makes you despair if MPs are of this calibre!
Bursting the bubble (27 September)
Reporting on conversations at the Lobby Day in the UK Parliament on 18 September, where constituents were able to speak to their MPs in person, Helen Joyce wondered how to get through to people as thoroughly confused as one particular MP:
‘This MP claimed to believe that there are no differences between male and female bodies except for the sex organs; refused to accept that there was such a thing as a “trans woman” who had not had genital surgery; apparently found the statement that “a woman is not the same thing as a man who has had his genitals removed” perplexing; refused to accept that male puberty conveys a strength advantage; and seemed to believe that trans women are already receiving womb transplants and will soon be able to carry pregnancies to term. This is someone who has wide experience of life, and is a parent.
‘This particular MP has young, virulently activist staff. Presumably they keep their boss away from anyone or anything that might penetrate the epistemic bubble that’s been carefully constructed around them. What would happen if something managed to make it through, and what should that something be?’
The British Medical Association - More Reversing Ferrets!
Here is a report on Twitter from James Esses:
https://x.com/JamesEsses/status/1839555231983546410
Sex Matters also deal with this in their latest newsletter ( 27 September).
BMA votes to take neutral position on Cass
The British Medical Association’s council of members has voted to confirm that the BMA will retain a neutral position on the recommendations of the Cass Review of gender-identity services for children and young people while a BMA “task and finish” group undertakes its own evaluation.
The chair of the council, Professor Phil Banfield, said that the group’s aim is not to replicate Cass, but to “listen to those with lived experience either as patients or as clinicians, consider the link between evidence and recommendation, and compare the recommendations with the actions or strategies that have arisen from them”.
David Strain, chair of the BMA’s board of science, urged a focus on “the nuanced realities of those affected” and said that the process “will ultimately contribute to a more informed and empathetic approach to healthcare for children and young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria”.
It’s still pretty outrageous that the BMA don’t simply accept Cass!!
Irish Hate Speech Bill
I reported on the sleight of hand from the Irish Government in the last update.
Women’s Space Ireland report on a great letter to the Irish Times.
https://x.com/WomensSpaceIre/status/1839601660596732171
Australia - Moira Deeming Part 4
I have recently been covering the Moira Deeming case against Liberal Party leader, John Pesutto. Edie Wyatt on her substack Culture & State picks up the story.
Slander in the Court
Deeming V Pesutto
Sep 28, 2024
If you don’t think slander is serious, you may not have known anyone personally who has been publicly slandered. Slander has devastating impacts on lives and it should have no place in politics. Because of my involvement with gender-critical politics, I now know many women who have been publicly slandered.
In the gender-critical movement, public slander is something we negotiate to advocate for the political and legal outcomes we want. Our main argument is that sex is real and that women and girls should be protected, from men and boys. it’s hard to mount a case against our arguments with logic and facts, so we get called transphobic on most days, on other days we get called racists and Nazis. Those accusations intend to discredit us as people to nullify our public voice.
I now know several women who have been subject to public slander. I don’t know Moira Deeming well, but we have been in the same small section of Australian women’s politics for a few years. Along with Sall Grover, Angela Jones, Gillian Spencer and Katherine Deves, Moira is among the women I have met personally, who I have read things about in the media, that I know are lies. Those lies are designed to disempower perfectly reasonable and fact-based arguments that gender-critical women are mounting.
Consequently, women who end up on my side of activism are notoriously thick-skinned, often a little bit rude and almost always genuinely motivated. I found it particularly amusing when a video of my friend Stassja Frei was played in the Australian Federal Court in the Deeming V Pesutto defamation case by the defence. The video was presented as an example of the kind of dodgy characters that Moira Deeming MP was associating with. The kind of women who engage in “the debate” in a hateful way.
Stassja’s speech was from the Let Women Speak Melbourne rally, that Moira attended. For the occasion of the speech, Stassja wore a unicorn horn that she called a ‘female penis’ and did a comedy sketch where she called many people, including some trans-identified people, and the then Premier of Victoria Dan Andrews, ‘dickheads’. The context of feminist comedy played in Federal Court by scoffing Melbourne lawyers, was an amusing highlight for many of us in the gender-critical stands of the Deeming V Pesutto show.
I am not ignorant that the trial could go either way, nor that the lawyers are ordering the Italian marble for the patio as we speak, nor that the lawyers are being partly funded by factional interests of the Liberal Party. I am well aware that political knives are being sharpened in Liberal Party circles this minute. But for me, the Deeming V Pesutto trial is not just about well performing lawyers playing gotcha for the kind of money that would feed Melbourne’s homeless for a year.
This court case is about who can engage in political discourse, how people, and especially women, should engage in political discourse, and with whom women should do politics. Women who engage in essentially working-class politics, with ordinary women, saying dangerous things like “gender identity is bollocks”, those women are not permitted to be speaking around posh Melbourne Liberal Party circles. As I have said many times, but not originally, this culture war has a class war core.
The highlight thus far for me, in the Deeming V Pesutto drama, playing out on public live stream, was being able to watch Moira’s defamation lawyer, the brilliant Sue Chrysanthou SC, mercilessly shred John Pesutto’s defence, and the man himself, on the witness stand this week.
The evidence Ms Chrysanthou went over regarding the life and connections of Moira Deeming was stunning in its mundanity. Moira had some drinks on a popular women’s YouTube channel with other women, Moira laughed about men in gym shorts, Moira nodded while someone talked about institutional capture, Moira is a Christian, Moira spoke at the Let Women Speak rally for a Muslim constituent who wanted women’s spaces, and shockingly, Moira refused to denounce gender-critical women for being far-right, because she knew for a fact that they were not. That Moira refused to slander to gain political advantage, and that she is a politician, may be the one remarkable thing we learned about Moira Deeming.
Ms Chrysanthou tediously and mercilessly dissected the embarrassingly flimsy evidence on which the leaders of the Parliamentary Liberal Party of Victory acted to expel Deeming, page by page, paragraph by paragraph, line by line. By the time Chrysanthou was only a third way through the fateful dossier, the judge and the defence looked to be losing the will to live, while gender-critical feminists around Australia were refreshing their popcorn.
Gender-critical women so rarely see our arguments get one word of defence in this country, let alone get to witness the expensive skills of a woman, such as Chrysanthou, hold a prominent man to account in the Australian Federal Court, for disciplining a woman who expresses very ordinary facts about human biology.
In addressing the issue of Moira Deeming holding ‘fringe beliefs’, Chrysanthou asked Pesutto if it was fringe for a woman to believe that she should be able to choose a person to perform her pap smear, who has a shared health experience. Graciously, Pesutto admitted that this was not a “fringe belief”.
By contrasting the original documents in the Pesutto dossier, to what was eventually presented to the Parliamentary Liberal Party room, Chrysanthou was attempting to demonstrate that the dossier had been edited to remove material that was fairer to Moira’s gender-critical associates and retain incomplete information that was, at best misleading, and at worst, slanderous.
Nobody was surprised to hear Pesutto admit in Court that former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennet was contributing to his legal fund, but it was a new revelation to hear Pesutto admit that he was sharing a large amount of information with Kennet, some of it he knew to be privileged.
An article from the Australian Financial Review was presented to the court in a way that could have been interpreted to indicate that the article contained poorly veiled threats from Kennet to Liberals who supported Deeming with affidavits. The vibe seemed to have been “nice pre-selection you got there”.
Stripped of any evidence of Deeming having any links at all to anyone with far-right or Nazi beliefs, Pesutto struggled to articulate his motivation for acting to remove Deeming from the Parliamentary Liberal Party, leaving commentators to make conclusions about factional struggles and Pesutto’s lolly-legs before master politician, former Premier Daniel Andrews.
The entire issue of sex and gender that Moira Deeming has been accused of overbalancing on, is a genuinely difficult one for anyone who takes hold of the Victorian Liberal Party, in the event of Pesutto’s inevitable resignation. Pesutto’s problem, was that he tried to play Andrews in his own game by the rules that Andrews set.
You can’t cover truth with slander any more than you can cover sex with pretend. You can dispense of one woman, maybe even two, but ultimately the issue of sex being real and important will not disappear from public debate while it is being denied in law.
The Victorian Liberal Party will need to step away from the culture wars and dissect the issue of sex and gender, factually and strategically, keeping safeguarding principles and the rights of women and girls out front. If they do this, they will take the public with them. Slander should have no place in a party that purports classic liberal principles. The Victorian Liberals will need a more courageous leadership to remove the stench of slander that is currently blowing down Spring St.
https://msediewyatt.substack.com/p/slander-in-the-court?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
Germany - Paedophilia
Thanks to Feminist Legal Clinic for the next two reports.
Things are really bad in Germany!! Any German readers out there?
EXCLUSIVE: German Parliament To Review Petition To Make “Pedosexuality” A Legally Protected Identity (27 September)
Germany’s parliament will be reviewing proposed amendments submitted by a pro-pedophile group tomorrow, sparking concerns from child safeguarding advocates. Krumme-13, a lobby group which advocates for lowering the age of consent and legalizing child pornography, is seeking to add language to the constitution which would establish “pedosexuality” as a protected sexual identity.
In April of this year, Gieseking [ of Krumme-13] shared the news that his petition to include the “sexual identity of pedophiles” as a protected characteristic under the constitution had been approved for discussion by the Petitions Committee.
“Pedophilia must also be included in sexual identity. Pedophiles in particular must be fundamentally protected from discrimination in the Basic Law. And this is completely independent of sexual criminal law. The vast majority of the estimated 250,000 pedophiles do not commit any of these types of crimes. Pedophilia is a separate sexual identity.”
Yet his claims contradict other actions and positions advocated for by Krumme-13. In another petition he sent to the government, Gieseking called for the decriminalization of the possession and distribution of child pornography.
Gieseking advocates for a distinction to be made between “sexual consent” and “sexual violence” when it comes to sexual acts between adults and children. As it is his belief that children can consent to sex with adults, he promotes the view that only the latter should be criminalized.
In 1996, Gieseking was sentenced to eighteen months, for which he served one year in prison, on charges related to operating a mail order child pornography service from a van. In 2003, Gieseking again appeared in court accused of possession of child sexual abuse materials obtained between July 1999 and January 2001. The pornography was found on Gieseking’s computer after a search of his residence in August 2001. His devices contained a total of 216 image files of naked children, and he was sentenced to eight months in prison.
In a 2014 interview with Taz Online, Gieseking called for lowering the age of consent to 12 years of age, and said that adult sexual interactions with toddlers would have to be “discussed separately.”
In accordance with his views on children’s ability to consent, Gieseking has publicly endorsed Germany’s new gender self-identification law, which takes effect November 1 and allows parents to change the sex marker on their children’s documents from birth. From the age of five years old, it allows for name and sex changes if there is “mutual consent” between the child and their parents.
“Why is gender identity also politically important for pedophiles/pedosophists?” Gieseking wrote in a post to K13online. “Gender and sexual identity does not only begin on the 14th birthday, when the so-called protection age limit ends. Children can and want to experience their childhood sexuality self-determined beforehand.”
Australia - Victory for Mona
Wonderful news about the marvellous Ladies of MONA!! I previously reported on them here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/a-woman-saying-no?utm_source=publication-search
Ladies’ legal win in ‘discriminatory’ lounge fight (27 September)
Tasmania’s Supreme Court has quashed a tribunal decision that would have forced a museum to allow men to enter its women-only “Ladies’ Lounge”.
In March, New South Wales’ man Jason Lau brought an anti-discrimination case against Hobart’s Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) after being denied entry to the lounge last year, and initially won in Tasmania’s appeals tribunal.
But that decision has today been quashed by Acting Justice Shane Marshall, and sent back to the tribunal for reconsideration.
He found the lounge was designed to promote equal opportunity for women generally, and so it could lawfully exclude men.
Acting Justice Marshall found the discrimination experienced by women was not just confined to the past, but occurs today as well, and so women should be able to create an “exclusive space” to create a “flipped universe”.
“The correct approach … is to ask first whether the arrangement’s purpose was to promote equal opportunity,” he wrote.
“On the evidence, the unequivocal answer is ‘yes’ because the Ladies’ Lounge was designed to provide women with an exclusive space where they receive positive advantage as distinct from the general societal disadvantage they experience.”
In his ruling, Acting Justice Stephen Marshall said the tribunal erred by claiming the lounge addressed only past disadvantage experienced by women.
Source: Ladies’ legal win in ‘discriminatory’ lounge fight
Australia - The Human Rights Commission
Sandra Pertot on Gender Clinic News reports on the HRC.
Human wrongs
Australia has a human rights agency that rides roughshod over the female sex
Sep 26, 2024
It comes as no surprise to learn, given the long game being played by trans activists, that as early as 2010, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) began a campaign to review the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA)1984. They conducted a consultation to canvas the experiences and views of people who might have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation and sex and/or gender identity.
Despite this broad agenda, the specific aim was to have the biological definitions of females and males removed from the SDA. This was achieved in 2013, under then Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The definition of a “woman” meaning “a member of the female sex irrespective of age” was repealed to instead accommodate the demands of men who want to be women.
This was done without proper investigation or discussion, as the Affiliation of Australian Women’s Action Alliances recently explained: “Nothing was said in the relevant parliamentary debates about redefining ‘sex’ or ‘woman’ or about women’s rights, while the now famous explanatory memorandum to the Act notably excluded ‘special measures’—that is, measures that previously allowed for female services and spaces—from the 2013 changes.”
Paradoxically, the current version of the SDA does contain protections for discrimination on the ground of pregnancy or potential pregnancy, and on the ground of breastfeeding, and these protections are recognised as being required for women without any reference to transwomen or transmen, so this is a back-handed acceptance of the biological characteristics of women.
The definition of “woman” in terms of her reproductive role and related sex characteristics—that is, a woman as an adult female human—had served humanity since we were able to use words to describe sex differences. However, it seems the legal system does not have to acknowledge the biological process of reproduction that is the foundation of the survival of our species, instead it can develop a new set of “facts, knowledges and truths”—
“Facts sustain law and legal institutions. Contesting, debating, and then ‘finding’ or establishing facts is seen as essential to the process of law-making that follows. But, far from acting on or applying to a set of pre-existing facts, law produces, writes and determines its own facts, knowledges and truths (Emphasis added).”
And so, with the Gillard amendments to the SDA, the grounds for erasing female sex-based rights were set in law. The AHRC is currently involved in two legal cases, and at the heart of both cases are the vexing questions of “what is a woman?”, “is sex binary and immutable?”, “can a woman have a penis?”, and “can a biological man be a lesbian?”.
Tickle v Giggle
Roxy Tickle is a transwoman who underwent “gender-affirming” surgery and changed the sex marker on his birth certificate from male to female (for reasons outlined below, I will refer to Tickle with masculine pronouns). He wanted to join a social networking app, Giggle for Girls, developed by Sall Grover for women only. Tickle apparently passed an initial on-line application which used artificial intelligence to identify applicants as female or male. Grover removed him from the group after identifying him as male.
Tickle initially complained to the AHRC, but conciliation did not proceed. Tickle then began legal action, claiming he was refused access because he is a transwoman, and therefore had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender identity.
The AHRC was not a party to these Federal Court proceedings but acted in the role of “a friend of the court” (amicus curiae) by providing submissions on their interpretation of the SDA.
Justice Robert Bromwich determined—in line with the current legal “facts, knowledges and truths”—that “sex is not confined to a biological concept” and “a person’s sex can be changed.” Therefore, “Ms Tickle is correctly described as a woman.” The judge then decided Tickle had been subjected to “secondary discrimination,” and Sall Grover was obliged to pay him $10,000 compensation plus his legal costs.
The Australian Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, welcomed the ruling—
“We stand with trans communities and will continue to advocate for their rights and the rights of women. No one in Australia should face discrimination or exclusion based on their sex or gender identity (Emphasis added).”
Unfortunately, despite lip service to “sex and gender identity”, gender appears to trump sex every time for Dr Cody.
Lesbian Action Group
In August 2023, the Lesbian Action Group (LAG) sought the AHRC’s approval to hold a public event only for lesbians born female. The group needed an exemption under the SDA to exclude transwomen who identify as lesbian.
The group said—
“Our application for the exemption is so we can run lesbian-only events again. We are tired of living in the shadows and being underground. We are also really concerned that young lesbians have no community or lesbian-only spaces in which to socialise and meet potential partners. They have not had the benefit older lesbians have had pre-1990s and they are finding it hard to find lesbian community when everything LGBTIQ+ is compulsory mixed sex. We know young lesbians who are finding this to be a major issue (Emphasis added).”
The AHRC decided it was inappropriate and unreasonable to—
“make distinctions between women based on their cisgender or transgender experience, or among same-sex attracted women based on the exclusivity of their same-sex attraction at an event of this kind, or exclude same-sex attracted women who are transgender, bisexual and queer from an event of this kind.”
Further, the AHRC expressed concern that the organisers would not be able to identify translesbians and might ask “questions about an attendee’s physical sex characteristics or the exclusivity of their same-sex attraction, which could reasonably be expected to intrude on an individual’s privacy and, in some cases, has the potential to amount to sexual or sex-based harassment.”
The AHRC, faithful to modern gender theory, rejected the application.
Gender theory meets the criteria for an ideology as it is based on queer theory, which in turn rests on a set of beliefs that are not backed by any tradition of scientific research. These beliefs have been and continue to be strongly contested.
Belief: Sex isn’t binary
Perhaps it is because this generation is one of the first to have access to reliable contraception that gender ideologues are able to claim there is a disconnect between sex and reproductive function. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to accept that any adult would not have a good understanding of human reproduction. Every person on the planet—including people with a disorder in any biological system—exists because an egg from a female was fertilised by sperm from a male. There are no in-between sexes that contribute to this system of reproduction. Two and only two sexes, female and male, exist and maintain the survival of the human species. Sexual characteristics may overlap across the range of feminine traits and masculine traits, but sex is binary.
Any textbook on human reproduction outlines the differences between women (females) and men (males) and how babies are made.
Belief: A person’s sex can change
The concept that a person can change sex reflects the incorrect inference drawn from the disorders of sexual development (DSDs). The argument is that because some people appear to change sex then all people can change sex. For example—
“Babies born with 5-alpha reductase deficiency are classified as girls when they are born. During puberty, an increase in the levels of male sex hormones leads to the development of some secondary sex characteristics, such as increased muscle mass, deepening of the voice, development of pubic hair, and a growth spurt. The penis and scrotum (the sac of skin that holds the testes) may grow larger.”
The essential point to grasp is that only people born with a specific DSD can experience this change in their sex characteristics. There is zero evidence that any person can change sex simply by identifying as the other sex. Using DSDs as “evidence” that anyone can change sex is like claiming that because some people are born with disorders of sight that ultimately cause blindness, it follows that—
becoming blind is not a disorder but a normal condition
if someone declares they are blind, they are blind despite evidence to the contrary
to refuse to accept they are blind is bigotry and sightphobia
Although trans activists rage against biological reality, which is incorrectly called “bioessentialism,” they implicitly acknowledge that a person’s sex doesn’t change when they argue for “inclusive language.”
By insisting that transmen can menstruate, get pregnant, and give birth, trans activists reveal their knowledge that a women’s biology doesn’t change when she identifies as a man. What they champion is simply changing labels—
“Front hole: An alternative word for the vagina preferred by some transmen and/or non-binary people with a cervix”
“Pregnant people”: The term used by the Australian Government’s website on family and domestic violence
“Menstruators: all people that menstruate”
“Nonman: a being that is not a man”
Ms Pertot concludes:
In my opinion, the following actions are required to remedy the harm currently being done to females in Australia—
The Attorney-General should consider whether the AHRC and Dr Cody have been using conversion practices to compel females of all ages to accept a person born male as a girl or woman, contrary to their own deeply held sense of self as a female.[ Dusty - this is good 😄]
The AHRC should acknowledge that trans ideology is based on a set of beliefs that are strongly contested and lack a sound research basis
There should be a review of the AHRC as it is currently structured and performs to determine if that organisation is fit for purpose to support the well-being and safety of all females
The AHRC should work towards a repeal of the 2013 Gillard amendments to the SDA and add clear and unambiguous definitions of the words “female” and “male” derived from the field of reproductive biology
The AHRC should apologise for any identified conversion practices
The AHRC should publish statements that make it clear that any person, organisation, or workplace that threatens, abuses, punishes or otherwise pressures females for not wanting biological males who identify as women in their spaces is performing an illegal conversion practice
The right of free speech for females to define a woman as an adult female human without penalty should be restored
…
The AHRC was offered an opportunity to comment on the allegation that it is engaging in conversion practices; it made no comment. Dr Sandra Pertot retired not long ago after five decades of practice as a clinical psychologist specialising in human sexuality, including sexual dysfunction, sexual orientation and gender diversity
The full piece is here:
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/human-wrongs?publication_id=627677&r=1v403b
New Zealand - The Cass Review
On their substack, Resist Gender Education report:
NZ media play catch up (27 September)
After years of ignoring international warnings about puberty blockers, and having barely mentioned the critical Cass Review when it was published in April, the NZ Herald, the Press, Stuff and Radio NZ all today reported that NZ is prescribing the drugs at a rate up to 7 times higher than in comparable countries.
Quoting from a paper written by Charlotte Paul, Simon Tegg, and Sarah Donovan that has been published in the NZ Medical Journal, the reports said, “the authors found that use here was approximately 1.7 times higher than in the Netherlands, and between 3.5 and 6.9 times higher than in England and Wales, and 3.9 times higher than in Denmark. Comparisons with Australia and the US were unable to be made.”
400 children aged 12-18 received prescriptions for puberty blockers at the high point in NZ in 2022. It is unclear why usage has dropped since then but Dr Paul commented that it may be “the result of clinicians and parents becoming aware of more cautious approaches being taken overseas.”
Ruth Hill’s report for RNZ was the most comprehensive, quoting the endocrinologist who reviewed the paper, Paul Hoffman, saying,
“Given this is an expensive therapy and the evidence for its efficacy in transgender youth remains relatively weak, it suggests that Pharmac should ask for a transgender diagnostic category for pubertal suppressive therapy use to confirm its prevalence in New Zealand. While the study cannot categorically demonstrate increased pubertal suppressive therapy use in New Zealand, it raises an important question that needs answering.”
Hill also included a statement from PATHA (Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare Aotearoa) defending the high rate of blocker prescriptions as, "a good sign that young people felt safe expressing their gender and health needs, and had access to services”.
The Herald added a brief mention of the Cass Review as “a four-year investigation by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, which concluded that the evidence base for treating dysphoria with puberty blockers was weak” and reported that the British Medical Association, the union that represents 200,000 doctors, has challenged Dr Cass’s findings. However, it didn’t report that the challenge was from the governing council of the BMA, not from a democratic vote of its 200,000 members, over 1000 of whom have signed an open letter objecting to its position.
In this article in the New Statesman, Hannah Barnes reports that, “The BMA was the only major medical group in the UK to consider rejecting Cass. Supportive statements have been issued by the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Association of Clinical Psychologists. Many BMA members were dismayed, some resigning their membership in protest.”
Barnes adds. “Earlier this week, the BMA’s council members voted to “retain a neutral position on the recommendations of the Cass Review… while a BMA task and finish group undertakes its own evaluation”.
The reports all noted that the NZ Ministry of Health’s evidence brief and guide for clinicians on puberty blockers has now been delayed by nearly a year.
There are lots of other reports from around the world on the substack:
New Zealand - The Use of Language
Katrina Biggs on her excellent substack A B’Old Woman looks at the importance of language.
Shhhh .... there's a health provider in New Zealand who still knows about "mums" and "breastfeeding".
Sep 28, 2024
Satire: In an undisclosed location in New Zealand, there is a health provider who still uses the words “mum” and ‘breastfeeding”. This is in direct contravention to the Woke Stasi’s newspeak words of ‘birthing people’ and chestfeeding’. It’s imperative that the location of this health provider remains secret from the authorities.
The Woke Stasi within the NZ Midwifery Council, Ministry of Health, Health NZ, and all trans/queer lobby groups may not be at all impressed. They want humans to become sexless on paper, so nothing stands in the way of those who desire to adopt an opposite sex identity to that which they were born getting documented as such.
Using women’s language for women is anarchy. What will be next? Using the words ‘woman’ and ‘female’ in the same sentence? Only the ‘far right’ do that - i.e. ordinary people - whom the Woke Stasi consider dangerous, and, with burning-red eyes, obsessively hunt. If found, desistance is demanded. Health providers who use anarchistic language like ‘mum’ and ‘breastfeeding’ will be threatened with dire consequences if they don’t.
If threats don’t work, then woke infiltrators may worm their way into the organisations of non-compliant health providers, and destroy them from within. All efforts must be made to keep health providers who use true and correct women’s language safe, and their locations secret from the authorities.
Our language is more than mere words - treasure it, and do whatever necessary to protect the identity of the Resistance fighters who defy the Woke Stasi language-abominators.
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/shhhh-theres-a-health-provider-in?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
Canada - Woke Teacher Training
On the site Weekly Canadian Culture Wars Report, Melanie Bennet attended a woke online webinar. Well done sitting through this annoying garbage! The teacher ( if he deserves that title?) carefully avoids: biology; sex is immutable; women’s and girls’ single sex spaces and women’s and girls’ sports; medicalisation of children, genital surgeries and double mastectomies etc etc
Martine Rothblatt
Another amazing deep dive by Malcolm this time into the story of a transhumanist billionaire and larping man. This is Part 1. The full piece is behind a paywall:
https://malcolmrichardclark.substack.com/p/dolly-the-sheep-and-the-trans-billionaire
Stop Press
Rosie Duffield has resigned as a Labour MP!! She will now be an independent.
https://x.com/nickdixoncomic/status/1840074583648371001/photo/3
Unfortunately her resignation letter doesn’t mention anything about gender ideology! All thoughts gratefully received.
Let Women Speak London
Sun, 29 Sept
Reformers' Tree
Time & Location
29 Sept 2024, 13:00 – 15:00
Reformers' Tree, London W2 2UH
My wife, our friend and myself hope to be there tomorrow, trains permitting.
Endpiece by Liz
JL recently featured giant pandas. Nothing daunted…
I know! Let’s make it Giant Panda Day Of Visibility 😃
#BeMorePorcupine
#LetWomenSpeak
The Deeming v Pesutto case is out of this world, eh? Imagine anyone with even half a brain thinking they can publicly defame someone like Pesutto did to Deeming, and there'll be no consequences. However, there has been an insidious seep of TQ+ indoctrination into some people's minds over the years, which has led to the belief they have carte blanche to say or write anything if it's considered to be in defence of 'the TQ+.
I have a snippet which is tangentially relevant to this case, which I may share soon on my Substack.
I love the idea “ that any person, organisation, or workplace that threatens, abuses, punishes or otherwise pressures females for not wanting biological males who identify as women in their spaces is performing an illegal conversion practice” (in the article about the AHRC in Australia). Maybe the UK government could include this in their proposed conversion therapy legislation!