I Am JK Rowling
Update 418 Women Boxers Special continued #BeMore porcupine
Continuing with the Heroes season thanks to one of the readers mentioned below for several suggestions. I think that, at some stage of this Labour Government, they are going to pass a piece of legislation ( eg misgendering) and we are just going to have to stand up, speak (peacefully, of course - mindful of current events) and face the consequences. This will be our I Am Spartacus moment. Luckily crucifixion isn’t still on the statute book 😊
Kirk Douglas is Spartacus. You might also spot Tony Curtis and Laurence Olivier.
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
The Woolympics
The Double X symbol appears again!!
The Telegraph ( Turkish fighter in ‘X’ symbol protest after losing to Lin Yu-Ting 07 August) reports:
Taiwan’s Lin Yu-ting, one of two boxers at the centre of a gender dispute at the Paris Olympics, moved a step closer to the Olympic title as she [ HE!] beat Turkey’s Esra Yildiz by unanimous decision in the women’s featherweight semi-finals on Wednesday.
Lin, twice world champion, and Algerian boxer Imane Khelif have been in the spotlight at the Olympics over a gender row that has dominated headlines and been the subject of much discussion on social media platforms.
The 28-year-old Lin is looking to clinch Taiwan’s first Olympic title in boxing, the country having previously won only three bronze medals in the sport.
She [ HE!] faces Poland’s Julia Szeremeta in the final on Saturday.
The full article is here:
Alex Davies in GB News ( JK Rowling fumes 'frankly bonkers' in Imane Khelif rant as boxer bags Olympics final spot amid gender row 07 August) reports:
JK Rowling has returned to X to unleash further criticism of the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and its decision to allow Algerian boxer Imane Khelif to compete in the 66kg women's division.
On Tuesday night, Khelif secured a spot in the gold medal bout with China's Liu Yang after seeing off Thailand's Janjaem Suwannapheng during the semi-finals.
Khelif's participation has been the subject of global debate due to the fact she was banned from the world championships helmed by the IBA (International Boxing Association) last year for failing a gender eligibility test.
The Russian-backed boxing body refused to allow Khelif and Chinese Taipei's Lin Yu-ting to compete last year after claiming to find the XY chromosome in their tests - the strand typically found in males.[ Dusty - typically found in males?? 😂]
The IOC's eligibility tests [ Dusty - what are those? Are you a female? Do you like pink?] aren't the same as the IBA's and as the organisation is overseeing the boxing at the Paris Games, both boxers have been allowed to compete.
Caitlyn Jenner has been one vocal opponent to Khelif's involvement and Rowling has followed suit, continuing to do so after the Algerian sailed through the semis.
Imane Khelif© GB News
Rowling took to social media to hit back at critics who have accused her of being motivated by "transphobia" in her critique of Khelif.
But the Harry Potter author claimed: "Commentators pretending critics of the IOC’s reliance on documents rather than sex testing think Khelif is trans are straw-manning.
"I don’t claim Khelif is trans. My objection, and that of many others, is to male violence against women becoming an Olympic sport."
Rowling followed up her clarification with a second post, once again hitting back at her critics: "For the record, bombarding me with pictures of athletic women to ‘teach’ me that women don’t all look like Barbie is like spamming me with pics of differently-shaped potatoes to prove rocks are edible.
"I can still see the difference and you look frankly bonkers."
Both Rowling and Jenner are far from the only celebrities to have spoken out against Khelif's inclusion after she saw off Italian Angela Carini in her opening bout.
The full article is here:
On her substack Terf Report, Kara Dansky re-posts a piece by Madeleine Kearns.
'It's Not Fair! It's Not Fair!'
Female boxer quits fight after 46 seconds in shocking Olympic scene.
Aug 02, 2024
The article below was written by Madeleine Kearns and published on August 1 by The Free Press. I am sharing it here with the permission of the author and publisher.
Photo and caption: The Free Press
An unprecedented scene unfolded at the Paris Olympics today. In a boxing ring two contestants were announced: a woman from Italy and an opponent from Algeria who only last year failed a sex test and was barred from competing against women.
After just 46 seconds of fighting and two blows to the face, Italy’s Angela Carini immediately abandoned the bout against Algeria’s Imane Khelif. Carini broke down in tears, saying Non è giusto. Non è giusto!
Translation: “It’s not fair. It’s not fair!”
Later, in an interview, Carini said: “I have never been hit so hard in my life.” She wept as she described how she had to give up on her dream for gold, which she had pursued in the memory of her dead father. “Until the end, I fought with blood in my eyes because I wanted this victory at all costs. Just for my father.” Khelif will now advance to the quarter finals.[ Dusty - in fact, he has now advanced to the Final on Friday].
How did we get to this point?
For the first time in history, the International Olympics Committee this year has permitted two athletes whose sex is unclear to compete in the women’s boxing championships. In addition to Khelif, competing in the 66 kg category, there is Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan, competing in the 57 kg category.
This is happening even though Khelif and Lin were disqualified from the 2023 Women’s World Boxing Championships last year after the president of the International Boxing Association (IBA) said DNA tests “proved they had XY chromosomes.”
Photo and caption: The Free Press
But the International Olympics Committee has given the boxers the go-ahead because, according to the IOC spokesman, “everyone competing in the women’s category is complying with the competition eligibility rules.” Those eligibility rules are “incredibly complex,” he added.
What he didn’t say: the IOC’s rules appear to be colored by gender ideology. According to the body’s “Portrayal Guidelines” for members of the media, the terms biologically male and biologically female are “problematic,” and “a person’s sex category is not assigned based on genetics alone.”
In 2023, the president of the International Boxing Association announced that “a series of DNA tests” had “uncovered athletes who were trying to fool their colleagues and pretended to be women.” Speaking to an Algerian TV network, Khelif rejected the IBA disqualification as a “big conspiracy.” Despite speculation, neither Khelif nor Lin has claimed transgender status or a disorder of sex development (DSD)—medical conditions in which reproductive organs and genitals develop abnormally.
Regardless of their reasons for letting these particular athletes into the ring with women, critics say the IOC is putting female athletes in danger. “Males—however they identify—pack a punch that is 162 percent more powerful than women—THE biggest performance gap between men and women,” Nancy Hogshead, an American Olympic gold medalist, posted on X. “Gender ideology will get women KILLED.”
One female boxer, Brianda Tamara, recalls how difficult it was fighting with Khelif in a previous tournament. “Her blows hurt me a lot, I don’t think I had ever felt like that in my 13 years as a boxer, nor in my sparring with men,” Tamara wrote on X. “Thank God that day I got out of the ring safely.”
Asked about Khelif and Lin’s participation in the Olympics, Mark Adams, the IOC spokesman, said at a press conference, “I am not going to comment on individuals.” Then he went on to comment on individuals, saying: “They are women in their passports and it is stated that is the case.”
No matter what their passports say, if the athletes have XY chromosomes, “that means they’re male and they have no business competing in the women’s category,” Kara Dansky, feminist, lawyer, and author of The Reckoning: How the Democrats and the Left Betrayed Women and Girls tells The Free Press.
“This is nothing other than male violence against women for sport and entertainment,” she says.
It’s also bloody unfair.
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/its-not-fair-its-not-fair
Sarah Ditum deals with this on her substack, Tox Report.
Tox Report 60. The rules do not apply
Confused about sex and sport? You're supposed to be
Aug 06, 2024
I wrote for UnHerd last week about the controversy over the Olympics’ failure to screen for sex eligibility in boxing, but it turned out I had more to say. If you’re interested in the science and policy issues, the Real Science of Sport podcast has been covering this in excellent detail.
The trans activist, or gender identitarian, or sex denialist, or whatever you want to call it, project is fundamentally a linguistic one: it’s about the replacement of material reality with an ideological framework imposed through the application — and, just as importantly, the denial or hollowing out — of certain verbal formulations. Here’s a typical example from the International Olympic Committee’s Portrayal Guidelines: Gender-Equal, Fair and Inclusive Representation Guidelines, in a section on “problematic language”:
“TERMS TO AVOID: “born male”, “born female”, “biologically male”, “biologically female”, “genetically male”, “genetically female”, “male-to-female (MtF)”, “female-to-male” (FtM)
Use of phrases like those above can be dehumanising and inaccurate when used to describe transgender sportspeople and athletes with sex variations. A person’s sex category is not assigned based on genetics alone and aspects of a person’s biology can be altered when they pursue gender-affirming medical care.”
Which makes it notable that, when IOC president Thomas Bach made a statement on the two boxers competing as women after failing sex tests at the World Championships last year, he used these dehumanising words:
“We are talking about women’s boxing. We have two boxers who are born as a woman, who were raised as women, who have passports as woman, who have competed for many years as women. This is the clear definition of a woman.”
Bach also said, erroneously, that this was “not a DSD case”. After the press conference, a correction was issued: Bach misspoke, and should have said this was “not a trans case”. This is both true and irrelevant, because for people like me with an interest in the integrity of women’s sport, it has never mattered whether male athletes were trans or not: regardless of identity, they have no place in women’s sport. This, by the way, is why the inclusion of trans man Hergie Bacyadan in the women’s boxing is unproblematic: because Bacyadan is, if the IOC will forgive the offensive phrasing, born female and has not undergone testosterone therapy.
Maybe Bach would argue that there’s a significant difference between “born female” and “born as a woman”, though I don’t see how this is possible to maintain, especially given the number of times trans activists have smugly announced that no one is “born” a woman, because women are by definition adults and anyway didn’t Simone de Beauvoir say “one is not born but rather becomes a woman” so why does it matter what you’re born as? (I guarantee that no one who quotes de Beauvoir in this context has ever actually read her.)
What’s particularly infuriating (beyond the fact that Bach has apparently not read his own organisation’s briefing) is that the language deemed “problematic” has only been established in reaction to a more fundamental taboo — on using the words “male” and “female”. There’s a certain self-satisfied tone to some of the commentary: well, isn’t categories for people “assigned female at birth” what the terfs wanted? But the language of “assigned female” was originally applied by trans activists, in a maneuver that co-opted DSDs (intersex conditions) in order to obfuscate the fact of biological sex by implying that every identification is liable to be a mistake.
Now, when the athletes in question appear to have DSDs and the language of “assigned at birth” may be genuinely appropriate, the phrase is used as though there could never be any ambiguity or error. The assignation is treated as absolute in the very case where it should not be. First the sex denialists rewrote the terminology to be dislocated from reality, and then they treated that terminology as the ultimate arbiter of reality.
If you are one of the people who has tried very hard to learn the correct forms of language in order to #bekind, you would be justified in wondering why you bothered. Essentially, you’re in the position of the good Soviet citizen or the Medieval monk for whom truth is always provisional and subject to revision by the authorities: more fool you if you took it seriously. The linguistic project of the sex denialist position has always been opportunistic rather than principled. The point has never been to introduce a vocabulary that precisely reflects the subjective experience of gender; rather, it has been to generate a set of shifting norms that rendered the description of women as a group impossible.
Clearly, people in general are still very confused about sex, athleticism and DSDs. There is a persistent suggestion — as made by the writer Kat Brown in the Independent — that the athletes in question are accused of being female with elevated testosterone, rather than (as the IBA has said) XY male. (Brown also tweeted that the safety issues of males in women’s sport should be ignored because “it’s Olympic boxing not tiddly winks”, which implies that she either could not care less about women’s safety, or that she plays an unspeakably violent game of tiddlywinks.)
On social media, the tweely euphemistic claim that the boxers have “girl parts” became widespread, despite there being no external verification of the athlete’s physiology (and despite the fact that this would be a weird and unpleasant thing for the IOC to confirm). The insistence that they were “born women” has been interpreted to mean that they are female, when more likely, they are male with external genitals that developed in utero to appear feminised. After more than a decade of insisting that DSDs show sex is too complex to be legislated on, sex denialists have responded to an apparent case of DSDs by insisting there is no complexity here at all.
As Janice Turner observed in the Times this weekend, the Olympics has always been grudging about the inclusion of women’s sport. When outright bans are no longer acceptable, undermining the category of “female” is a way to serve the same misogynist logic. Bach can break the “rules” of his own organisation, because he is doing so in service of the deeper rule: that femaleness should be made unspeakable.
https://sarahditum.substack.com/p/tox-report-60-the-rules-do-not-apply?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
Sex Matters have done a piece on this as well ( 07 August).
The final of the women’s 66kg (welterweight) boxing at the Paris Olympics takes place on Friday at 9.51pm.
Sex Matters has been producing videos and briefing documents to help people understand the situation and dispel misinformation. Whether you are talking with friends, posting on social media, calling into a radio show or writing to your MP, we hope these briefings will help you feel confident about the facts.
There are two boxers competing in the women’s category who some people believe to be male. Imane Khelif of Algeria, a welterweight, is through to the final and will take home either gold or silver. Lin Yu-Ting from Chinese Taipei, in the featherweight class, will fight for a place in the finals and the chance of gold, but has already secured bronze at a minimum.
Whether these boxers win or lose, it is unsafe and unfair for male athletes to compete in combat sports for women. When Italian boxer Angela Carini fought Khelif, she said she had “never felt a punch” like Khelif’s. In the next round, Hungarian fighter Luca Anna Hamori used her fingers to make XX symbols in the ring after losing to Khelif. [ Dusty - this was actually the Bulgarian boxer - see my last update].
What is going on? The boxers and their coaches refuse to say, but it is likely that both have the same disorder of sex development as the South African runner Caster Semenya; that is, they have XY chromosomes, internal testes and male levels of testosterone, but were wrongly recorded as female at birth. Here’s our explainer about DSDs in sport, and the fuller picture of the problem:
One-page briefing on sport and DSDs
The problem of male inclusion in women’s sport
The controversy, disruption and unfairness could have been avoided by the International Olympic Committee, which is running the boxing competitions in Paris. The IOC says that Khelif and Lin are definitely women, but it defines being a woman as having an “F” on your passport.
The IOC’s 2021 Framework document says there should be “no presumed advantage” for those with a transgender identity or differences of sex development. It is committed to letting people identify as they wish, taking the sex on their passport as proof, and opposed to sex testing, even though that can be done with a simple cheek swab.
We’ve looked into the IOC’s position and explained why it’s ideological rather than scientific.
Cass on Schools
Transgender Trend explain why the Cass Review also has important implications for schools.
The gender affirming model in schools – what does Cass tell us?
Post published: August 6, 2024
The Cass Review final report has driven a coach and horses through ‘gender affirming care’ practice in the NHS, exposing the inbuilt negligence in a model of care that affirms a child’s belief without question.
The Cass Review is not a sociological analysis. Dr Cass stays within a clear remit:
‘The Review is cognisant of the broader cultural and societal debates relating to the rights of transgender people. It is not the role of the Review to take any position on the beliefs that underpin these debates. Rather, this Review is strictly focused on the clinical services provided to children and young people who seek help from the NHS to resolve their gender-related distress.’ (p. 16)
However, the final report, although focused on the medical and not the cultural, did include some analysis of social changes affecting this generation and the impact on their mental health, in particular girls.
8.59 The data on young people’s mental health, social media use and increased risks associated with online harm give an appreciation and understanding that going through the teenage years is increasingly difficult, with stressors that previous generations did not face. This can be a time when mental distress can present through physical manifestations such as eating disorders or body dysmorphic disorders. It is likely that for some young people this presents as gender related distress.
Although the Cass Review does not directly apply to schools, its lessons must be learned and questions asked about the role of schools in normalising and promoting the gender affirmative pathway that led to the clinic for so many children.
In the chapter on social transition, Cass says:
12.6 Although the focus of the Review is on support from point of entry to the NHS, no individual journey begins at the front door of the NHS, rather in the child’s home, family and school environment. The importance of what happens in school cannot be under-estimated; this applies to all aspects of children’s health and wellbeing. Schools have been grappling with how they should respond when a pupil says that they want to socially transition in the school setting. For this reason, it is important that school guidance is able to utilise some of the principles and evidence from the Review.
The ‘gender journey’ (as activists call it) begins all too often in schools. Adolescents may initially get the idea they are ‘trans’ from social media or peers, but it is schools that enable the real journey to begin through affirmation policies and celebration of ‘gender identity’ as fact.
Irreversible medical intervention is only the most extreme end of a scale of ‘gender affirmation’ that must begin with a first step. The act of using a child’s preferred name and pronouns is that first step and it is the most significant; it is the leap that propels a child from reality into unreality. The likelihood of further steps, each one becoming less ‘reversible’ than the previous, is facilitated by taking that first crucial step.
Affirmation is promoted by LGBTQ+ activist groups as ‘reversible’ because it’s not a medical treatment. But there is no evidence to show that active psychological intervention is any less reversible for being an influence on the mind rather than treatment of the body. It is the mind that decides on medical intervention and the mind that is persuaded of its necessity. It is a child’s mind that is influenced by what adults tell them, particularly adults in positions of authority such as teachers.
The Cass research team at the University of York reviewed papers on the impact of social transition on children and young people as part of the systematic review of evidence.
From low quality studies, the evidence for positive mental health outcomes of social transition for adolescents was mixed; there was very little evidence of any benefit but there was one worrying result for long-term harm:
12.24 One study looking at transgender adults found that lifetime suicide attempts and suicidal ideation in the ‘past year’ was higher among those who had socially transitioned as adolescents compared to those who had socially transitioned in adulthood.
Overall the findings showed that evidence for the benefit of social transition is as shaky as the evidence of benefit for puberty blockers. One is a medical experiment, the other a social experiment. A controlled clinical trial for puberty blockers may or may not be given ethical approval. However, school is not the place to enrol children into a social trial on the benefits/risks of social transition.
This is not ethical as it would depend on every other child in the school becoming involved in carrying out the trial and children are not able to consent to this. Nor is it ethical to experiment on children to discover what the psychological impact will be of compelling them to deny reality.
It is worth noting that ‘affirming’ a girl as a boy, or a boy as a girl, was almost unheard of a decade ago, and persistence rates under the approach of ‘watchful waiting’ were much lower:
12.32 Early research cited in Chapter 2 found low rates of persistence of childhood gender incongruence into adulthood, around 15% (for example, Zucker, 1985). Papers from this period were criticised because the children were not formally diagnosed using ICD or DSM. At that time, it was rare for children to have socially transitioned before being seen in clinic.
12.33 Later studies, which showed higher rates of persistence at 37% (for example Steensma et al., 2013) did use formal diagnostic criteria, but by that time a greater proportion of the referrals had socially transitioned prior to being seen.
What is lacking in the research is evidence of how social transition affects persistence/desistance rates for the adolescent cohort whose feelings of discomfort in their bodies begins at or around puberty when they have begun to sexually develop (the so-called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria group).
The only evidence we have of the impact of social transition on persistence for the adolescent onset group is the fact that almost all children seeking medical intervention at the GIDS had socially transitioned:
1.7 MPRG also have a concern that the period between referral and first appointment at GIDS (early-stage delay), has resulted in children and parents having already adopted an affirmative approach. In all but one case, social transition had commenced or completed. There is inconsistent evidence of the individual impact of social transition…with GIDS tending to affirm the presenting social transition.
The full piece is here:
https://www.transgendertrend.com/gender-affirming-model-schools-what-does-cass-tell-us/
A Suicide Cult
Following on from Mrs Justice Lang dismissing the case brought by Transactual and the Good Laugh…sorry, Law Project challenging the temporary ban on the prescription of puberty blockers by private clinics, Malcolm Clark does a brilliant analysis of the suicide myth promulgated by such as Jolyon Maugham (on Malcolm’s substack The Secret Gender Files).
A Suicide Cult Loses in Court
The decision to uphold the temporary ban on puberty blockers is momentous. The apocalyptic response of the trans lobby shows they have now become a suicide cult.
Aug 06, 2024
Last week a High Court judge upheld the UK government’s emergency ban on puberty blockers, citing the Cass Review’s conclusion that the drugs have “very substantial risks and very narrow benefits”, which is medicalese for ‘don’t touch with a bargepole’.
At the heart of the case was the claim that banning blockers would force hundreds of children who believe they are trans into trauma, depression and anxiety and ….trigger suicide.
The case was brought by the trans lobby group TransActual and a young person whose identity cannot be revealed due to a court order. TransActual has previous when it comes to lies about suicide. It was co-founded by trans activist Helen Belcher who never loses an opportunity to wave a shroud.
In 2019 she lost a complaint with the press regulator IPSO against journalist Janice Turner. Janice had written a powerful piece calling out Belcher’s attempt to use suicide as a political weapon.
Belcher had said, “Since The Times started printing such [transphobic] pieces, starting with one by Turner in September 2017, I have heard of more trans suicides than at any other point since 2012. These have mainly been of trans teenagers.”
The use of the suicide trope by the trans lobby is of course nothing new. It really took off in 2007 when the mother of Jazz Jennings, the first famous ‘trans child’ popularised what quickly became the movement’s ghastly motto.
What she really meant was she would rather have a mutilated and infertile daughter ….than a homosexual son. And rather make money out of him than not. But that’s another story I’ve written about here and elsewhere.
The High Court challenge to the former Health secretary’s ban on blockers was supported with all his usual hyperbole by Jolyon Maugham who has lately tried out a new role for himself as a prophet of suicide.
When the new Health Secretary Wes Streeting made clear he was minded to maintain the ban, Maugham honed his declamatory style, one part ersatz Biblical and three parts Tourettes, to predict parents, “will tip the ashes of their transgender children outside Ten Downing St.”
The furore had been building for months. When the Cass Review was published in March it confronted the LGBTQ+ lobby with the mother of all dilemmas. For two decades they’d advocated for ever-easier access to puberty blockers for children who think they are trans. Now activists had to decide whether to accept Cass’s forensically-researched conclusion that the drugs were dangerous and should be banned.
This though would have been an admission their sainted lobby had been on the “wrong side of history” they love to invoke so much. So instead they began to throw various sorts of shade on Cass, from the percentage of papers her team had rejected to the experts she’d consulted. Each wild claim crumbled on inspection.
It was time to send the bombers in. The suicide bombers that is. In June, Maugham made a series of breath taking claims about an alleged surge in suicides among “trans children” caused by a tightening up of access to puberty blockers that began in December 2020 after the decision in the Keira Bell case. This was Helen Belcher on steroids, if that’s not too disturbing an image.
Sorry, I don’t know where that fox came from!
The full piece is here (and is behind a paywall):
Clinical Trials
Emily Stearn in The Mail Online ( Teens to get 'banned' puberty blockers early next year in trial - as NHS announces plans for six new gender clinics for kids 07 August) reports:
The NHS has announced a radical plan to tackle the increasing numbers of children suffering gender identity crises — including six new specialist clinics and a trial of controversial puberty blockers involving teens.
The new regional centres join two existing clinics in Liverpool and London that replace the scandal-hit Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service, which shut its doors in July 2022.
Health chiefs said the new centres will focus on providing a more 'holistic' approach including supporting mental health and kids with conditions such as autism.
NHS bosses will also tighten up the criteria for referrals to specialist clinics, with patients having to see two doctors beforehand.
More than 5,700 under-18s in England and Wales are currently on the national waiting list. There are currently two specialist hubs, which came into service last April.
Dr Hilary Cass
Great Ormond Street Hospital in London is one of two hubs that replaced the scandal-hit Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust
The clinics — led by London's Great Ormond Street Hospital and Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool — replaced the scandal hit Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
NHS England committed to transforming its gender identity services in the wake of the publication of the landmark Cass Review, in April this year.
The review concluded children given NHS transgender treatment had been set on a path to irreversible change despite scant medical data.
The move also follows a ban on the routine prescription of puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria.
However, the controversial drugs, which pause the physical changes of puberty, will once again be available to children early next year, as part of clinical research trials.
The health service today said all new referrals to specialist gender services must be made through mental health or paediatric services to ensure every child or young person has had a thorough assessment of need.
The new services will have no minimum age requirement, in order to ensure that parents of very young children, as young as five, are given support through NHS services where necessary.
The full article is here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13718465/nhs-gender-clinics-children-tavistock.html
I think another legal challenge may be pending here since I don’t understand, re trials, how the essential clinical and ethical questions for such trials can be answered. Please let us have your comments. See article ‘What Would an Ethical Clinical Trial Into Puberty Blockers Look Like?’ in this previous update:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/two-horses-too-many?utm_source=publication-search
Survey of Parents
Well done to a 13 year old desister who has produced an excellent survey of parents on the site Parents with Inconvenient Truths About Trans:
https://open.substack.com/pub/pitt/p/survey-results?r=7ogxh&utm_medium=ios
Endpiece by Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
Occasionally we have to explain to new readers our Porcupine obsession 😎
Here are the (Terf) Porcupine Parents protecting their children from the (Gender) Leopard
Yes, me too; I don’t see how any trial would be ethical.
Thanks for some excellent pieces again Dusty, my list of references for peaking purposes is growing very long.😄
Hilarious to see Maugham get another custard pie in the face. Who on earth would trust him to win a case for them.
I’m rather pleased that twitter is called X at the moment #XX and lovely to see the porcupines again.
#BeMorePorcupine