I featured the 1985 film My Life as a Dog some time ago - https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/my-life-as-a-dog
I think it bears repetition.
The film centres on 12 year old Ingemar ( excellently played by Anton Glanzelius) who spends some time thinking he is a dog and barking at people. He is also obsessed with Laika, the ‘space dog’. Sputnik 2, launched on November 3, 1957, carrying poor Laika, the first living creature to be shot into space and orbit Earth. Laika was a stray dog found on the streets of Moscow. There were no plans to return her to Earth, and she lived only a few hours in orbit.
With regard to Ingemar’s decision that he is a dog, everyone just thinks : fine, let him get on with it. Do you see where I am going with this? He meets a young tomboy, Saga ( equally well played by Melinda Kinnaman), who beats him in a boxing match but eventually they become best friends. Ooh, a tomboy!! Nobody decides to actually treat Ingemar as a dog or to say that Saga must now be a boy because she is a tomboy and is good at boxing. Expanding on this, nobody tells an anorexic girl that she really is fat or a child who says she or he wants to commit suicide that that is a jolly good idea!
The excitement in the trailer, where Ingemar’s uncle shouts out of the window ‘Hooray for Sweden’, is because ( this is 1959) the Swedish heavyweight, Ingemar Johannson, has just beaten the American Floyd Patterson to win the World Heavyweight title. So this is set in 1959. If Ingemar ( the boy not the boxer) and Saga actually lived now, what might have happened to them in the midst of this gender madness!!
In fact, I’ve been kind of lucky. Compared to others.
Hats off to Dudley Council
We live in the area of Dudley Council in the West Midlands. Luckily my daughter reads her local paper, unlike me, so thanks to her for this excellent piece of news.
Helen Attwood in Stourbridge News ( Dudley Council takes stand against unisex toilets in schools 20 September) reports:
Dudley Council said it will not create any unisex toilets in schools after concern over new facilities at Bromley Hill Primary .
DUDLEY council has made a "clear policy" against unisex toilets in schools - after a furore over new facilities at a Kingswinford primary.
The council pledged that it will not create any unisex toilets in its schools and will actively "discourage schools" carrying out their own work from installing unisex bathrooms.
The move comes after a new open-plan unisex toilet block at Bromley Hill Primary in Kingswinford, which was installed by the council, caused concerns amongst parents and pupils, becoming a hot topic on social media.
It will now be remodelled to feature separate boys' and girls' rooms.
Dudley Council said it was setting out a clear policy after listening to parents and pupils on "what is important to them in creating happy and thriving schools."
Cllr Paul Bradley, deputy leader of Dudley Council, said: “We have revisited Bromley Hill Primary and agreed some remodelling of the toilets including creating separate boys’ and girls’ rooms.
"This work will be carried out over the next few weeks and will ensure there is appropriate privacy for all children."
Cllr Ruth Buttery, cabinet member for children’s services, said: “We have also taken a decision to not create any unisex toilets when contracted to carry out work in schools and, at the same time, discourage schools from having unisex bathrooms in general when using external contractors.
"This is what parents and children have told us is important to them in creating happy and thriving schools and we have acted swiftly to meet their requests and create a clear policy.”
Talk TV breakfast show host Julia Hartley-Brewer waded in on the issue of Bromley Hill Primary's new 5/6 toilets being unisex asking: "Who would want this? Not little girls. Not little boys. Not parents. So who?????"
Home Secretary Suella Braverman has said schools have a duty of care to offer 'single-sex toilets' to students.
Ms Braverman, can you please make sure that all other councils now follow Dudley’s lead!
If anyone knows of any local good news stories like this one, please let me know.
And hats off to Richard Ayoade
Ben Chapman on GB News ( I tip my hat’ Kelvin MacKenzie praises Richard Ayoade amid trans activist backlash 21 September) reports:
Richard Ayoade and Kelvin MacKenzie © GB News
Former Sun Editor Kelvin MacKenzie has praised Richard Ayoade’s show of support for cancelled comedian Richard Ayoade [ Dusty - I think this should read Graham Linehan unless Richard is supporting himself 😎].
It comes as the comedian faces backlash over his endorsement of Graham Linehan’s book.
The co-creator of Father Ted and Black Books has been a long-term target for trans activists after expressing a variety of opinions on gender issues in recent years.
Linehan has documented his departure from public favour by putting pen to paper for a new book, Tough Crowd, which has drawn praise from the likes of Ayoade and Jonathan Ross.
Well done, Richard and Jonathan Ross. About time more comedians got together the courage to come out in support of Glinner and others like him.
The One Million March 4 Children
Sounds like the marches have been going really well in Canada and well done to everyone standing up for children. So called ‘antifa’ have been causing trouble including attacking a Rebel News journalist and cameraman :
Social Attitudes
I think this report needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. See my comments (not in italics) as I go through it.
Gabriella Swerling and Ben Butcher in The Telegraph ( Trans prejudice doubles in three years in wake of JK Rowling cancel culture row 20 September) report:
Prejudice towards trans people has doubled in three years in the wake of the JK Rowling cancel culture row, a survey has revealed.
The survey does not reveal any link to JK Rowling or cancel culture. Gender critical/ women’s rights campaigners always make it clear that they have nothing against trans people but are simply seeking to protect women’s and children’s rights.
One in three people describe themselves as prejudiced towards trans people - double the number of people in 2019, according to the British Social Attitudes (BSA) report published on Thursday.
Despite my best efforts I have not been able to find the actual question that was asked. Did the researchers define what they meant by ‘trans’? If not it is likely that a lot of people will confuse the term with the LGB community especially due to the forced and false teaming created by use of the ridiculous acronym LGBTQ. I note that in a 2018 survey conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission ( Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain), 46% of lesbian, gay or bisexual people reported experiencing ‘sexual orientation based prejudice.’ LGB groups such as LGB Alliance and Gay Men’s Network have long been saying that biological men entering women’s spaces and sports and the medicalisation of children is likely to lead to a backlash against the LGB community precisely because of the forced teaming.
Moreover, without any follow up question, we not only do not know if those surveyed understood the word ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ correctly but also why they said they were prejudiced. Maybe, in some cases, this was because they do not want trans identifying males coming into women’s single sex spaces or competing in women’s sports or do not want children with gender dysphoria being sterilised and mutilated.
National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) has been conducting the annual survey of what people in Britain think about a wide range of social and political issues since 1983.
NatCen said that while social attitudes have become increasingly liberal, people’s self-declared views about trans people are an outlier.
Britons were asked if they were either “very prejudiced”, “a little prejudiced” or “not prejudiced” towards transgender people.
Twenty seven per cent of people surveyed in 2022 identified as “a little prejudiced” - a record high and almost double the result of 14 per cent in 2019.
Those that described themselves as “very prejudiced” also increased from two per cent in 2019 to six per cent in 2022. In contrast the number of people describing themselves as “not prejudiced at all” towards trans people dropped dramatically from 82 per cent in 2019 to 64 per cent in 2022.
How are the terms ‘very prejudiced’ or ‘a little prejudiced’ being defined?
The NatCen researchers have urged the Government to adopt more liberal policies to counteract the divided public opinion, saying: “Whilst homosexual relationships are now widely accepted and supported legislatively, with little apparent reason for this support to decline, we might conclude that policy-makers need to take on board the current divided state of attitudes towards people who are transgender, when developing future policy on this issue, if they wish for it, and public attitudes, to ultimately move in a more liberal direction.”
The researchers themselves seem to be conflating ‘homosexual’ with ‘transgender’. If ( big ‘if’ I think) this survey is reliable, the more obvious positive steps to take would be to ensure that women’s single sex spaces and sports are fully protected and so called gender affirming care for confused children is halted completely.
Aside from that, what do NatCen mean by being ‘more liberal’? That sounds all very cuddly but what exactly are the policies they are suggesting? Completely erase the word ‘woman’ perhaps? Or completely destroy women’s single sex spaces and sports? Or medicalise even more children? Will such things really solve any prejudice? No, they won’t.
The shift in attitudes came after JK Rowling first voiced support for Maya Forstater in 2019 who lost her job after tweeting that transgender women could not change their biological sex.
Once again, the survey did not ask questions about this and, therefore, there is no evidence that this is the reason for any shift in attitude, if there even is such a shift (i.e. did people understand the question in the first place).
The speed with which the NatCen researchers moved on to say that the Government should “adopt more liberal policies” smacks of a hidden agenda. How did they select the group of interviewees, for example?
I hope one or more of the groups on the gender critical side of the debate might seek to examine this issue further.
All comments gratefully received.
Boycott Braun!!
Thanks to a wonderful reader for bringing this article to my attention.
Nana Akua in The Mail Online ( Braun's marketing campaign featuring a trans model is immoral and breathtakingly cynical 20 September) writes:
At first glance, Braun's latest marketing campaign looks like any other advert for male grooming gadgets: a shirtless, tattooed model wields his razor in front of a mirror.
That's until you notice the unfamiliar — and to my mind disturbing — twist: the model is a trans man, sporting livid-red surgical scars left by a double mastectomy.
It is not the first time that the British consumer has been confronted with such a provocative image. In July, for Pride month, the UK's largest coffee chain, Costa, adorned one of its vans with a cartoon image featuring mastectomy scars in the name of 'inclusivity and diversity'.
In the same month, boot maker Dr Martens gave away a pair of custom rainbow-coloured boots featuring a topless cartoon individual with the same post-operative scars.
Both companies were accused of glamorising complex surgery and were branded crass and irresponsible — sparking calls for boycotts by customers.
Yet, as they say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
The shocking ad!
And no doubt anxious to capitalise on such outcries, Braun has gone one step further, producing an advert that goes far beyond the reach of a local poster and is likely be seen by millions nationwide.
Irresponsible? Certainly. But I would go further and say it is immoral …, not to mention breathtakingly cynical.
Immoral because, as Braun undoubtedly knows, its advert will be seen by millions of teenagers already bombarded by trans ideology in schools. For them, an advert showing scars like these only contributes to the ongoing normalisation, even glamorisation, of invasive surgery as the 'answer' to adolescent angst.
That road, as recent research has shown, can end in disaster. By unhappy coincidence, Braun's advert was released in the same week that new analysis found that a third of transgender children on puberty blockers — the starting point for confused youngsters who believe they are 'trapped' in the wrong body — suffered mental health problems after taking this powerful medication.
You only need to listen to Keira Bell, who herself experienced how dangerous this dogma can be. Placed on puberty blockers at 16 by doctors at the now-discredited Tavistock Clinic, Keira then underwent a double mastectomy, only to realise she bitterly regretted what she'd done.
And what makes Braun's advert so cynical? Well, I do not believe that the well-remunerated executives have any real interest in promoting inclusivity.
In thrall to trans campaigners, they appear to have chosen instead to normalise traumatic surgery from which only a tiny portion of the population is likely to benefit.
To its shame, Braun seems unconcerned about the influence this imagery might have on impressionable young minds.
It may yet find its cynicism comes at a price. Guidance issued by the Advertising Standards Authority on its website warns against 'glamorising' or 'trivialising' the decision to have cosmetic surgery, and I would hope that the regulator is paying close attention to this shocking and bizarre campaign
Nana Akua
The real cost, however, may come at the check-out. When U.S. beer giant Budweiser hired the controversial Tik-Tok influencer and transwoman Dylan Mulvaney as the new face of its Bud Light brand earlier this year, its sales fell 15 per cent, and it was knocked off its perch as the holder of the title of the U.S.'s bestselling beer.
Braun may suffer a similar fate — and I would urge consumers outraged by this advert to take their business elsewhere.
If they do, then Braun may finally wake up to the fact that when the customer is your judge and jury, you virtue-signal at your cost.
Well said, Nana. Kellie-Jay also addresses this issue (and also the recent puberty blocker study and the Gender Recognition Reform Bill legal challenge) in an interview on GB News:
Online Safety Bill
Interesting interview by Winston Marshall on Spectator TV with Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch about the Online Safety Bill and free speech in general. I previously reported on the Bill here where I said that it was very important to us gender critical campaigners that the phrase ‘legal but harmful’ had been removed:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/chinatown
I was waiting for Ms Carlo to say ‘let’s just get rid of hate crime’ but, unfortunately, that didn’t happen.
And finally…
Given the Braun ad, I thought I’d return to the spoof Bud ad:
Good analysis re: the ‘prejudice’ survey Dusty. If there is growing hostility, it’s down to the fact that there is growing awareness of the harms being inflicted by gender ideology, tras, sports cheats and AGPs. Genuinely disphoric adult males need to join GCs in condemning it all.