The Long Good Friday
Update 469. Trump Wins Special. #BeMorePorcupine
Welcome to the British Heroes season and John Mackenzie’s The Long Good Friday. An East End Gangster, the Mob and the IRA - what more do you need for a gangster movie? I think that Harold Shand ( Bob Hoskins) counts as an anti-hero but let me know what you think!
Spoiler alert: The scene below is the final scene - superb acting from Hoskins with virtually no words said!!
Thanks to two wonderful readers for suggested pieces.
Trump Wins!
I’m speaking as a former Labour loyalist here but let’s be honest… if Kamala Harris had won, the destruction of Title IX would have continued, more larping men would have gone into women’s prisons, the destruction of women’s single sex spaces and their sports would have continued and - most alarmingly - the medicalisation and mutilation of often same sex attracted children would have continued and doubtless escalated. So now we have a chance for the tide to be turned. We should celebrate this opportunity, as EDI Jester does.
All thoughts, as ever, gratefully received.
I hope the heading in this piece on The Distance turns out to be correct! Note the reference to the upcoming, extremely important Skrmetti case before the Supreme Court.
It's Not Just Trump: The Jig Is Up For 'Gender Identity' In 2025
How hard will Democrats fight for lost causes?
Nov 07, 2024
An old Democratic Party acquaintance reconnected with me yesterday to admit I had been right. “Well you said the trans thing would be an issue, when [ sic] you were right,” they said. “I can’t even say publicly how much I think it was really a factor but I saw right here … how much it was.” Sports were the topic most commonly raised in his everyday conversations. Turns out that Americans do not enjoy watching sports cheats, just as I had warned Democrats years ago.
Donald Trump will not fix this all by himself. Holding his feet to the fire will be essential. We want swift executive action to protect female sports categories, regulatory action to shut down the child-sterilizing medical cult, and policy action to remove pronouns and Queer Theory indoctrination from the federal bureaucracy. We want our single-sex and same-sex rights back.
There are many battles to fight. Somewhere in all those asks, for example, someone must convince the Trump 47 administration to care about men being housed in prisons with women. We who opposed these developments in the first place must now ensure follow-through, expanding on our historic opportunity to roll back the constitutional abuses of genderwoo, one by one, using all three branches of government. We have our work cut out for us.
On 4 December, the United States Supreme Court will hear the Skrmetti case. This is the challenge to Tennessee’s ban on pediatric transition. Chase Strangio is scheduled to argue against the law. Nothing is for certain in the Supreme Court, but analysts we trust here at The Distance do generally expect them to uphold the state’s right to pass such legislation.
It is also likely that the Court will decide whether the ‘trans child’ is a quasi-suspect class, that is, a discrete population deserving an increased level of protection by federal courts. The election of Trump does nothing to alter the outcome of this case. As the court regularly hears cases and issues decisions months later, we should expect a landmark opinion of some sort during 2025.
As we have written on the Skrmetti case before, an adverse ruling will likely have secondary effects on the entire legal project of ‘gender identity.’ Biglaw does not like to lose, so if this area of law becomes a loser, there will be less interest in taking on such cases. Future litigation by the gender lobby might be more narrowly-focused focused on questions of discrimination against ‘transgender’ Americans.
The full piece is here:
https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/its-not-just-trump-the-jig-is-up?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
And here is Kellie-Jay:
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic via Spiked.
Joe Biden: the first trans-activist president ( 07 November)
Under the Biden-Harris administration, so-called trans rights have been sanctified, becoming a holy mission for the mainstream left. Last year, Biden claimed on Transgender Day of Visibility that ‘transgender Americans shape our nation’s soul’. In the same speech, Biden claimed there is an ‘epidemic of violence against transgender women and girls’, although all the evidence would suggest it is actual women and girls who are being put most at risk from his trans-rights crusade, as sex-based rights are corroded and women’s spaces are thrown open to any man who claims to be a woman.
As Biden now prepares to shuffle off the global political stage, it’s worth looking at the damage he has done while waving the insipid baby blue, white and blush-pink tricolour trans flag. The president’s position was clear from the outset. On his first day in office, he blithely signed away women’s rights when he nodded through an executive order, entitled ‘Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation’. By treating discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity’ as equivalent to sex discrimination, the order effectively removed the sex-based rights of the nearly 900,000 women who work in the federal government, and more who rely on statutory services. A year later, his administration proposed similar changes to Title IX. Title IX was established to defend women’s rights in education. But the updated version instead obliterates single-sex bathrooms, sports and locker rooms in federally funded schools.
The ramifications for women at the sharp end of Biden’s trans-inclusive policies have been obscene. As Reduxx magazine has consistently reported, the most dangerous and predatory male prisoners are now routinely locked up with women inmates who are then penalised if they complain.
Many of Biden’s actions that have been heralded as great steps for ‘trans rights’ have been downright chilling. His appointment of trans activist Rachel Levine first as assistant secretary for health, and then as an admiral and head of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, has allowed the dangerous fiction of the ‘transgender child’ to be embedded into medical protocols across the US.
In essence, the Democratic Party has sacrificed women’s rights and children’s safety at the altar of gender ideology, providing Republicans with an open goal.
Joe Biden was America’s first trans activist commander-in-chief. Here’s hoping he’ll be the last.
Source: Joe Biden: the first trans-activist president – spiked
Stop Press
Very interesting discussion between Mr Menno and Kara Dansky. Disappointed she didn’t hold her nose and vote for Trump but at least she spoilt her ballot paper. All comments gratefully received.
England and Wales - The Bar Standards Board
I have reported previously on the BSB proposing ‘to replace the current Core Duty 8 (You must not discriminate unlawfully against any person) with a new duty: You must act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion’. I have also reported on barrister, Sarah Phillimore’s grave concerns ( concerns I endorse) about this proposal.
Sarah has considered the matter further on her substack:
Why I am still repulsed and enraged by 'EDI'
I have had the chance for further reflection on the proposed new Core Duty - and I still hate it. If it comes into force - will I be allowed to remain a barrister?
Nov 06, 2024
I responded immediately and viscerally to the BSB’s proposals on 3rd September 2024 to impose a new ‘Core Duty to ‘advance’ EDI. Which I think was reasonable, given what was proposed - emphasis added.
‘We propose to replace the current Core Duty 8 (You must not discriminate unlawfully against any person) with a new duty: You must act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion, which expands on the current Core Duty not to discriminate unlawfully. This will apply to all barristers when practising or otherwise providing legal services. We also propose to amend outcome oC8 to reflect the new breadth of the duty. and to remove the current rule rC12 which states that “you must not discriminate unlawfully against, victimise or harass…” (as this restates what is already required by law and in any case the Equality Rules specify that barristers must not discriminate, harass, bully, or victimise.)’
This raised two immediate discrete concerns for me that ‘when practising’ would include
a) the manifestation of my own gender critical beliefs that some deem ‘exclusionary’
b) representing clients who themselves manifested views that some deem ‘exclusionary’
But of course, underpinning it all is my visceral dislike and distrust of the very notion of ‘EDI’ which I explained here - that anyone who wants to rely on it offers their own subjective definition of what it all means, there is no reliable evidence that ‘EDI’ has any beneficial outcomes (in fact the opposite is often true) and it encourages empty performative signalling that leaves out in the cold those of us with very concrete disadvantages.
I wasn’t reassured by a LinkedIn post from ‘VinciWorks’ who were offering a webinar on 13th November which was headed ‘Prepare for the BSB’s new EDI requirements’ - which certainly had a whiff of a ‘done deal’ - and when asked what ‘EDI’ meant, told us to refer back to the BSB, thus confirming my suspicions set out above that ‘EDI’ means whatever you want it to mean.
I then attended an event organised by the Free Speech Union on Monday 4th November, which had contributions from Akua Reindorf KC, Ken Macdonald KC and Poornima Karunacadacharan from the BSB. I hope on the night I paid sufficient tribute to Ms Karunacadacharan’s bravery in facing down a universally hostile audience and interjections from two KCs but I am afraid I was not left with any better impression of the consultation.
The BSB did at least confirm that the duty wasn’t directed at ‘barristers’ private lives on social media’ or the cab rank rule so that is something. Why then the consultation was worded so clumsily, despite being a product of much thought and discussion, is another matter. I have set out below my attempt at live tweeting the discussions that night.
We were left with the fundamental problem that EDI is, in and of itself, considered by many to be a controversial political ideology. The KCs expressed consternation that barristers should be held to the higher duty of ‘advancing’ equality whereas public bodies only have to pay it ‘due regard’. The BSB simply denied these obligations were different. Akua Reindorf made the powerful point that adopting something controversial would inevitably mean that those who didn’t ‘believe in it’ would then be excluded, which is arguably discriminatory.
Ken Macdonald KC continued the debate in the illuminating podcast Double Jeopardy in conversation with Karon Monaghan KC who favoured the new duty ‘with some tweaks’ - but what those might be was not explained. It was an interesting discussion but not one that changed my mind. Monaghan was clear that she thought ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ were uncontroversial ‘good things’ and how could we object to advancing them? She was less sure about ‘inclusivity’, rightly criticising it as ‘woolly’ but made no suggestions as to how that term could be divorced from its less controversial siblings.
The full piece is here:
What Is Gender Identity?
I reported on a recent Seanad debate in Ireland on the Hate Crime Bill where Senator Keoghan brilliantly showed up the nonsense of all this by reading out an enormous list of supposed ‘genders’: https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/my-left-foot?utm_source=publication-search
Andrew Doyle continues in like vein on his substack:
Why are so many government policies based on a concept that no-one can define?
Nov 05, 2024
The concept of “gender identity” is the engine of a recent revolution in public health policies and school curricula, as well as guidelines for the civil service, law enforcement agencies, academia, the army, the judiciary and the corporate world. This week it was reported that the Labour government has instructed all its departments to modify its official language to use the phrase “LGBT+” rather than “LGBT”. The “+” is intended to reflect those whose “gender identity” falls outside of the standard binary of male and female. [ DUSTY - FFS!!]
The ramifications of wholesale policy changes on the basis of “gender identity” have been severe. We have seen rapists in women’s prisons, men in women’s sports, male patients accommodated on female hospital wards, children medicalised, and citizens arrested for failing to conform to the new diktats. Surely, given the seismic nature of these societal changes, someone in the government would know how “gender identity” ought to be defined?
Apparently not. Jacqui Smith, now the Rt Hon the Baroness Smith of Malvern and the government spokesperson for equalities, was asked this question only today in the House of Lords. Here is the transcript from Hansard:
Lord Lucas (Con): My Lords, do the Government have a working definition of gender and gender identity and, if so, could they share it with the House?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab): The noble Lord would be well advised to look at the Equality Act, for example. I have to say that this would be a better debate if we spent more time worrying about how we provide services and account for people’s needs, and less about how we catch our political opponents out.
Lord Markham (Con): As a previous Health Minister, I know that there is a serious health reason to have a proper understanding of the answer to the question of when a woman is a woman and needs to have treatment based on her sex. Please: this is a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab): I agree – a woman is an adult female, and her biological sex may well determine what services she needs from the NHS. That is why it is important that, in statistics that are used both in the census and more broadly by our public services, we have a consistent and an agreed approach to that. That is what I have been talking about up to this point. Frankly, I was taking this seriously, and I hope that others around the House will as well.
But was Smith really taking this seriously at all? She at least acknowledged that a “woman” is an “adult female”, but that wasn’t an answer to the question. Not a bat’s squeak of a definition of “gender identity” was attempted here, which can only lead us to assume that Smith does not have one. If no-one knows what the term means, why is it the basis of any government policy at all, let alone the wellspring of an entire branch of so-called “medicine”?
In the comments I said: ‘I think I've got it. Gender identity is a deep ( deep, deep, deep...) internal feeling as to whether you prefer pink or blue. Bingo! Cracked it!’ 😊
The full piece is here:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-151231001
New Zealand - Erasure of Language
Katrina Biggs on her substack, A B’Old Woman discusses the declining birth rate in NZ and the campaign against the NZ Midwifery Council guidance that I recently reported on here:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/brooklyn?utm_source=publication-search
Katrina then moves on to the effects of the erasure of female language:
Despite the indoctrination and bravado of the women who go along with trans ideology, there surely has to be a mental health impact of denying one’s female existence as a sex class? And how much does it mess up women and girls who are forced to call a man ‘she’, knowing it’s false? Lynne Pinches, a UK female pool player who courageously walked away from playing a game with a man who says he’s a woman in November 2023, talks with Meghan Murphy about her decision to do that, and the “mental harm” it’s done to her from being forced to call that man ‘she’ (39.00 to 42.00).
The women who go along with trans ideology will vigorously deny that calling men ‘she’ will have an impact of any significance, because for whatever reason it’s important for them to believe that. But reality’s a bugger, and those of us who have been in this world for a while know that denying it only ever works temporarily. The pieces that need to be picked up after reality shatters a delusion are often far more numerous than any fallout from refusing to go along with a delusion in the first place.
Although the decline in our birthrate began before trans ideologues began erasing women’s words from our language, only fools could ever think that there’d be no negative repercussions from it of some sort. Regardless of how far those in our organisations and institutions bury their heads in the sand about this, one day they will realise that erasing women’s language, forcing us to call men ’she’, and allowing them to invade our spaces are not consequence-free actions.
And when that day comes, I wonder how being such willing chumps for TQ+ lobby groups will be dealt with? It may even be the stuff that elections are either won or lost on.
What I find rather amusing in a wry way, is how Stats NZ freely use the words woman and birth in the same sentence when it suits them, as does anything to do with surrogacy, but eliminates them when it’s a matter of pandering to trans ideology.
²Trans man’s pregnancy and birthing journey in Aotearoa - NZ Herald
The full piece is here:
Important New Report
Bernard Lane on his substack, Gender Clinic News discusses an important new report just published on so called ‘gender affirming care.’ Hopefully this report will especially be of use in the States with the change of administration.
Mapping the harm
Rights-driven gender medicine has thrown off safeguards as it colonises health systems around the globe, but it faces a new challenge
Nov 05, 2024
The rise of rights-driven gender medicine and ill-defined laws discouraging exploratory psychotherapy run counter to the welfare of the distressed young people supposedly championed by the “affirmative” worldview.
This is the warning from a landmark paper charting the adoption of the “Dutch protocol” for medicalised gender change of minors across 13 Western nations since 1999, with a weakening of normal safeguards over time in most cases, but also a reassertion of cautious, evidence-based treatment policy begun by Finland in 2019 and followed by Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Australian child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr Kasia Kozlowska is first author of the new paper, with 22 colleagues from a dozen countries, including well-known figures in the gender clinic debate such as Canada’s Dr Ken Zucker, Finland’s Professor Riitakerttu Kaltiala, Sweden’s Professor Mikael Landén, Genspect founder Stella O’Malley, and the French psychoanalysts Dr Céline Masson and Dr Caroline Eliacheff.
The open source paper, published on November 2 in the journal Human Systems: Therapy, Culture and Attachments, notes the emergence of an “unrestricted”, child-led “gender-affirming” treatment approach, “one where many (or all) safeguards have been removed and where puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones—coupled with early social transition—are seen as first-line treatment for gender dysphoria in children/adolescents.”
“[T]he countries that have applied the rights approach unconstrained by other considerations or restrictions have tended to downplay or dismiss questions concerning potential harms—questions that are now being raised by the increasing number of detransitioners.”
Dr Kozlowska and her co-authors challenge the identity-rights affirmative model with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, provisions of which would raise “concerns about government legislation that funnels children into experimental treatment that lacks a research foundation and long-term follow-up.”
The authors argue that the UN convention would also question “the widespread use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones that are not approved for gender dysphoria by the majority of national drug-regulation agencies and that have likely irreversible consequences for the child’s intellectual (brain) and physical development.”
They observe that the shift to supposedly “child-led” medicine has taken place with the “involvement of powerful pharmaceutical companies,” the intrusion of gender ideology into education and politics, social media influence, and a cultural moment in which the distress of young people is expressed as “gender dysphoria.”
But the very fact of the new paper—and the growing global network of concerned clinicians and researchers reflected by its multiple authors—will spread the news among international health authorities of an emerging evidence-driven consensus view that distressed children are being exposed to experimental medicine.
In contrast to the rights-driven medicalised approach, this “diverging path” taken by the UK, Nordic countries and US Republican states such as Florida, gives priority to patient safety, the doubtful capacity of minors to consent, and the need to elucidate the effects of treatment by employing the gold-standard method of “systematic review” to assess the quality of the scientific literature.
“As [shown by systematic reviews of the evidence undertaken independently in those jurisdictions, the] medically oriented, gender-affirming hormonal treatments are experimental and not currently supported by evidence-based medicine,” the Kozlowska et al paper says.
“The interplay—the push and pull—between the rights-based approach and evidence-based approach has created a complex dynamic that will take years to play out, in different countries, and in ways that are hard to predict.
“Whatever the quality of the medical, cultural, and political processes that come to bear on the situation and its challenges, there is likely to be a serious human cost.”
“The [Cass] report repeatedly emphasized the importance of ‘normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment’ and treatment, as used with other young people with complex presentations.
“It emphasizes the importance of psychological and psychosocial interventions to treat and address co-morbid mental health issues, to build resilience, to address family difficulties, to provide ‘more information about gender expressions and the range of possible interventions,’ and generally to ‘explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not’.”—Kozlowska et al, journal article, 2 November 2024
The full piece is here and goes on to give examples from individual countries and to discuss bans on so called conversion therapy (which, on analysis, are really bans on therapeutic assistance for gay and lesbian children who have ‘gender dysphoria’).
https://www.genderclinicnews.com/p/mapping-the-harm?publication_id=627677&r=1v403b
Stop Press - Roz Adams Awarded Compensation
Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic for this great news.
Woman unfairly dismissed over gender-critical views to get £69,000 payout ( 08 November - this is Australia time 😊)
A rape crisis worker who was found to have been unfairly dismissed over her gender-critical views has received £69,000 in compensation.
In May, a tribunal ruled Roz Adams was constructively dismissed by the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) after suffering harassment and discrimination.
According to the judgment, Adams was subjected to an internal disciplinary process “reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka” after she questioned rules about trans female counsellors working with female survivors of sexual abuse.
Now, the ERCC has been ordered to pay Adams £68,989.71, nearly double the amount previously anticipated, as redress for discrimination and constructive dismissal, as well as compensation for emotional pain and suffering.
Source: Woman unfairly dismissed over gender-critical views to get £69,000 payout
This follows on from the (larping male) CEO of the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, Mridul Wadhwa resigning in the wake of the judgment:
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/this-is-ripley-signing-off?utm_source=publication-search
Women’s and Girls’ Sport
You think you’ve seen everything? I’m afraid not!!
Callum Vurley in GB News ( Teenage girl handed six-match football ban for asking trans player: 'Are you a man?' 06 November) reports:
A17-year-old girl footballer has been handed a six-match ban after asking if a bearded transgender opponent was a man during a pre-season friendly match.
The teenager was found guilty of "discrimination" by a National Serious Case Panel following the July incident, which occurred during a match against a trans-inclusive club.
Two matches of the ban will be served immediately, with four matches suspended for 12 months.
The girl, who wept during the three-hour disciplinary hearing, had faced charges from her county FA for allegedly saying "Are you a man?", "That's a man", and "Don't come here again".
The case has sparked fresh debate about the Football Association's policy of allowing those born male to play in the women's game.
The disciplinary hearing, conducted via video conference, saw the teenager questioned for approximately 30 minutes, during which she became visibly emotional.
One observer described the proceedings as "farcical", noting that panel members repeatedly "misgendered" the alleged victim as "he".
The full article is here:
Talking of cheats…
Endpiece by Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
#LetWomenSpeak
#Grassroots Army
Trump gives me the creeps but I couldn’t be more pleased that he won as long as he carries out his war on gender ideology and woke in general. If he does, I think it will have a knock on effect across the west. It feels as though there has been an outpouring of rage from the common sense, silent majority with a collective sigh of relief from those of us in the fight for reality, sanity and free speech. I can only hope that this proves to be a turning point in the madness that has infected the west like a mind virus over the past decade or so. In the meantime, the insane outpourings from the regressive left will serve to remind us just how deranged so many have become and just how easily people can be led like sheep.
This is the first 'round up' that I have had chance to look at properly, and it is very good and thorough! So, thank you for this.
I read that Chase Strangio (aka The Nintendo Rhett Butler) is either being removed from the front and centre role in the above-mentioned Skrmetti case or at least being 'encouraged' to take more of a secondary role. The implication is that ACLU is losing confidence in his/her/its/thems professional abilities or faculties due to concerns over recent public comments. (if I recall)
Sorry to be vague on this, it could be 'something or nothing', so to speak. Part of me wants Butler.. sorry, I mean Strangio upfront - as that could be more damaging to ACLU and the case and well... *gestures vaguely into space* ... everything.
We'll see...
__
(EDITL It was Leor Sapir on 'X' that made this revelation. No idea about how true it is though)