I am interrupting my reader’s choices of films for the Heroes season. Since this is the New Zealand Special, I thought we needed a NZ film - Vigil. Here, effectively, the hero is a child.
Eleven-year-old Toss ( Fiona Kay) lives on a remote farm in a valley somewhere deep in rural New Zealand with her father (Gordon Shields), mother ( Penelope Stewart) and grandfather Birdie (Bill Kerr). When she witnesses her father's death while out herding sheep, she is shocked to see another man present, who then carries her father's body out of the bush. When the new man, Ethan ( Frank Whitten) moves onto the farm and begins a relationship with her mother, Toss sees him as an invader into her isolated world.
Free Speech
Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union talks about the ‘war on free speech.’
Very much related to this ( and more from the authoritarian Labour Government) on his substack, Andrew Doyle discusses non-crime hate incidents:
The return of “non-crime hate incidents”
Why is the Labour government so determined to crack down on free speech?
Aug 30, 2024
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary
I have a tendency to be over-optimistic. In my 2022 book The New Puritans, I wrote about “non-crime hate incidents” and how they were still being recorded by police, in spite of the Court of Appeal’s ruling that they were “plainly an interference with freedom of expression” and direct instructions from the Home Office that the police must stop this illiberal and unethical practice. However, I concluded that ultimately “it seems unlikely that ‘non-crime hate incidents’ will last for much longer”.
Of course I was wrong, because I had not counted on just how authoritarian a new Labour government might be. It was bad enough that the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson scotched the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act just one day before parliament went into recess - presumably to avoid having to debate the matter - but now the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has reversed the Conservative’s pledge to limit the recording of “non-crime”. Labour is bringing back this absurd policy, and has convinced itself that this is somehow a progressive measure.
It should go without saying that the police have no business recording “non-crime”, particularly when such records are based on accusations alone (that is to say, the “perception” of the “victim” is what counts, rather than actual evidence of hatred). The Tory government should have eliminated the entire practice in its entirety, but instead decided that such “incidents” ought to stay on record if there was a “real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence”. The science fiction writer Philip K. Dick had a phrase for this: “pre-crime”.
So let’s leave aside the woefully inadequate restrictions put in place by the Tories. Let’s also leave aside the obvious point that hatred, along with all other emotions, will never be eradicated through legislation and that the state is wasting its time trying to alter human nature. Let’s focus instead on why the Labour government is so determined to control the speech and thought of its citizens.
How does it help anyone for the name of the schoolboy who accidentally scuffed a copy of the Koran at a school in Wakefield to be on police records? His “non-crime” was duly recorded after the event, but why? Does the government really suppose that this child is one step away from torching a mosque? Even if he had deliberately scuffed the Koran, what has this to do with the police? I don’t much approve of defacing books, but vandalism of one’s own property is a matter for individual conscience.
Of course, Labour will say that the recent riots have proven the necessity for cracking down on the private thoughts of citizens. In truth, these acts of violence are being exploited to justify further authoritarian policies. We have seen how quick our politicians are to seize upon these moments to advance their own goals. The murder of Sir David Amess had precisely nothing to do with social media, and yet politicians immediately began to argue that his death was evidence of the need to curb free speech online. This was grotesque opportunism from a political class that does not trust the public.
According to the Times, Yvette Cooper believes that the Tory’s efforts to curb investigations into “non-crime” was “preventing police from monitoring and identifying tensions and threats to Jewish and Muslim communities that may escalate into violence”. What is the evidence for this claim? Potential terrorists are already on intelligence watchlists. Those branded as “non-criminals” are typically those who are unlikely to break the law. The recording of “non-crime hate incidents” is simply a chilling means to control the parameters of acceptable opinion, to narrow the Overton Window through state intimidation.
Labour hopes to adopt a new definition of “Islamophobia” which claims that it “is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”. The inelegance of the phrase is bad enough, but the conflation of religion and racism makes no sense whatsoever. If such a definition is to be applied in law, there is little doubt that ridiculing or criticising Islam could be criminalised along with attacks on mosques and Muslims. Given that assault and vandalism is already illegal, what exactly is the purpose of this redefinition other than to limit freedom of speech?
History teaches us a great deal about where this is heading. We know that legal proscriptions against offensive viewpoints do not have a mitigating effect; bad ideas that are driven underground tend to fester and multiply. We also know that laws against offensive speech soon expand to incorporate any viewpoints that are not approved by those in power. In 1644, John Milton published his Areopagitica, a counterblast to the Licensing Order of June 1643 which decreed that all printed texts be passed before a censor in advance of publication. In this essential defence of liberty, Milton pointed out that censors do not “stay in matters heretical” but “any subject that is not to their palate”. Little has changed since then.
Once the state has been empowered to set the limits of speech, to introduce legislation against vague and indefinable concepts such as “hate” or “offence”, the groundwork for future tyranny is firmly established. One thinks of Juvenal’s famous question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“who will watch the watchmen?”). Nobody with any familiarity with the history of authoritarianism would be naïve enough to trust that legally-enshrined speech codes will not eventually be used to curb political opposition.
We already know that before the Tories modified the guidelines “non-crime hate incidents” were being recorded against anyone accused of “hostility towards religion, race or transgender identity”. Given that “hostility” is now commonly deployed as a synonym for “criticism” or “disagreement”, we cannot possibly reach any helpful conclusions from these records. For instance, those who take issue with Critical Race Theory could be accused of “hostility towards race”, even though such concerns are typically based on a belief that people should not be judged by the colour of their skin. Similarly, those who maintain that men should not be in women’s prisons are routinely smeared as “transphobic”, even though their motivation is to preserve important safeguarding measures. How many of these legitimate points of view have been recorded as “non-crime”?
Due to a lack of transparency in the system, we’ll probably never know. Estimates suggest that since the practice was implemented by the College of Policing in 2014, there have been at least a quarter of a million “non-crimes” recorded by police in England and Wales. We know that this can have an impact on the employment prospects of the accused, particularly if they work in a field that requires DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) checks. The system of “non-crime hate incidents” gives a green light to anyone with a grudge to exact revenge without having to present any evidence whatsoever for the charge of “hate”.
The threat that “non-crime hate incidents” represent to liberty cannot be overstated. That the Labour government is trying to escalate the practice should trouble us all. The creeping authoritarianism of our times is undeniably picking up pace.
https://substack.com/@andrewdoyle/p-148261084
Protest Judgment
This report is related to the above two albeit it is not about gender madness. Firstly, you need to be aware that the organisation Liberty are extremely off with the woo. Following on from the bringing into force of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, Liberty took a legal challenge against the then Tory Government challenging the new definition , with regard to protests, of ‘serious disruption’. They were successful in this challenge. The Labour Government have now decided to continue with an appeal against that decision. So Labour are even going to challenge a judgment obtained by their friends at Liberty. This is how authoritarian they are!
Callum Parke in The Independent (Civil liberties group accuses Labour of ‘disregard for the rule of law’ over protest policing legal battle 29 August) reports:
A civil liberties group has accused the government of showing “disregard for the rule of law” after the Home Office decided to continue with an appeal against a High Court ruling over protest laws following talks.
Liberty won a legal challenge against the department in May over protest regulations passed by statutory instrument last year, under then-home secretary Suella Braverman.
The measures, which two judges found to be unlawful, lowered the threshold for what is considered “serious disruption” to community life, from “significant” and “prolonged” to “more than minor”.
The Home Office, now overseen by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, paused its plans to appeal against the ruling in July, with Liberty claiming it was hopeful of being able to “find a resolution in the case”.
But on Wednesday, the department confirmed it had decided to continue with its appeal after talks to resolve the dispute failed.
The full article is here:
Gender and the Law in New Zealand
There are plans afoot to get ‘gender’ included in the Human Rights Act in New Zealand.
Katrina Biggs covers this on her excellent substack, A B’Old Woman:
‘Gender’ and the law – and a chat with Jill Ovens from the NZ Women’s Rights Party about this.
Aug 28, 2024
Basically, the concept of ‘gender’ is bullshit. There might be politer ways to phrase this, but it’s a shape-changer of a word, and can’t be pinned down with a definition that sticks. ‘Gender’ has long-since busted out of any confines in which it was once used, and abandoned all pretence at consensus of meaning. It’s a veritable diarrhoea of a word now.
Yet, we have countries scrabbling to put that word into law. Australia did it back in 2013, and we’ve seen how it worked for Sall Grover when she tried to make a female-only app called Giggle for Girls. The TQ+ (trans, queer, and all other made up ‘genders’) desperately need ‘gender’ in law, because it’s the key to getting entry into those sex-specific spaces and sports which might otherwise legitimately exclude men who say they’re women. Lawmakers are unfathomably almost falling over themselves to oblige them in this pursuit.
Although it’s not yet in law here in New Zealand, our Law Commission has now been tasked with reviewing how to get ‘gender’ into the Human Rights Act. They have created an ‘Issues Paper’ which technically looks at the pros and cons, but the cons are noticeably thin on the ground in it. Public submissions on the review have been invited, and close on 5th September. Many individuals and groups have made submissions against having ‘gender’ in law, including the Women’s Rights Party.
In their submission, the Women’s Rights Party says -
“Legislation reflected the recognition that our biological differences meant we needed services and facilities tailored to our unique needs. Single-sex public toilets, safe and private changing rooms in our places of work or recreation, provided protection under the law so we weren't seen as fair game for whatever sexual harassment men felt like indulging in, and to be taken seriously if we reported incidences to the police.
“Women gained the right to say "No" to men. Do not take this right away from us by putting into law an obligation that we see others in the way they demand we see them, rather than the evidence of our eyes and ears. Do not humiliate us by denying our perception and do not tell us we are suffering from some phobia when our fear of male violence and sexual harassment is very real and absolutely justified.”
Writer, Joan Smith, in reference to Australian woman Sall Grover’s ‘Tickle v Giggle’ court case in her UnHerd article, nails the current situation perfectly, including here in NZ, too, in her closing paragraph -
“We are now in a bizarre situation where sexual predators and domestic abusers know what a woman is, but most of Australia’s political class can’t answer the question.”
In contrast, the submissions by TRA lobby groups could likely be summed up by a post from a barking getup called Countering Hate Speech Aotearoa (CHSA). The “hate speech” part of the name is mainly anything said by those (particularly women) who don’t think men can become women. This getup appears to be run solely by a very vocal feminophobic man, who wants any sex-based rights women have to be obliterated.
This same man backed out of an invitation he initially accepted a while ago to debate Jill Ovens, the national secretary and co-leader of the Women’s Rights Party, on The Platform. In some ways I don’t blame him, as Jill is one of the most knowledgeable women I know about matters pertaining to people, politics, and rights. Here, she and I have a chat about the proposal to put ‘gender’ into law in NZ, how Sall Grover’s legal case may affect that, and traverse other related subjects, too, of course.
‘Gender’ and the law - Jill Ovens from the Women’s Rights Party NZ chats with me about this.
Here is the link to the Women’s Rights Party submission to the Law Commission. There is also a guide on how to make a submission, plus a link to the very good submission by FOWL (Feminist Older Women Lobbyists) made.
https://substack.com/@aboldwoman/p-148245181
Resist Gender Education have also made an excellent submission ( albeit I am not sure about their submission on ‘variation of sex characteristics’) and here is reference to that on their substack:
Keep gender ideology out of the HRA
Submission to the Law Commissions Issues Paper #53
Aug 29, 2024
Today RGE sent its submission to the Law Commission regarding the proposal to add protections for ‘gender identity’ to the Human Rights Act.
Click on this link to read our full submission.
Many of you are probably feeling daunted about making a personal submission because of the sheer scale of the Issues Paper and the many problems it exposes. That is completely understandable - RGE’s submission has taken many hours of work and individuals simply do not have that time available.
So, here are a few tips on how to submit without blowing a gasket!
Choose two or three questions that are most important to you to submit on.
Quote from RGE’s submission (or another group you agree with) and add your own personal experience of this matter.
(Speak Up for Women and the Women’s Rights Party both have links to their own and others’ submissions on their websites.)
Either put your comments in the correct question box in the online submission form, or put all your comments in the box for Question 80, at the end of the form. Here is the link for online submissions.
The full piece is here:
FSU New Zealand reports on posties in Wellington ( 28 August):
Wellington posties refuse to deliver mail they deem 'misinformation'
Did you see the coverage of posties in Wellington who refused to deliver a pamphlet by advocacy group Better Wellington? Honestly, where do posties get off deciding what information individuals do or don't get to hear?
We were pleased that in the face of posties refusing to do their one job, NZ Post said that it wasn't up to them to censor Kiwis' mail. However, the Postal Workers Union said they didn't want to censor, but that it was their social responsibility to refuse to deliver this information.
So, in other words, they don't want to be a censor, but for the so-called 'greater good', they're going to anyway? Who gave them that authority?
The most basic tool that workers' unions have historically used to advocate for employees' rights is free speech. What does it say about the Postal Workers Union if they're willing to undermine this crucial right?
And … are you happy with your local postie gatekeeping what does and doesn't land in your mailbox?
The pamphlet raises awareness of Wellington City Council's latest District Plan. The line the Postal Workers Union had a problem with was that the Council was examining the viability of allowing mosques to broadcast a call to prayer. They said it was misleading and 'misinformation'.
Well, if this is the case, then counter-speech is the answer. Censorship doesn't debunk false claims or misunderstandings.
We wrote to the Union and told them that they should do their jobs and deliver the mail. Co-president of the Union, John Maynard, said in an interview on RNZ's Morning Report that the posties didn't want to be party to "undermining the social relationships in the city and the potential danger for people if that word gets out, because we know what happened in Christchurch."
The irony is this pamphlet was initially just going to homes in the Wellington region. Now, it's had national media coverage.
We were pleased this afternoon to hear that NZ Post went ahead with the delivery. They do have a social responsibility - but it's not to cherry-pick what you receive in your mailbox.
A Library in New Zealand
Katrina Biggs deals with a library in NZ:
A story about the ‘rainbowing’ of a smalltown library in New Zealand, and one woman who challenged that.
Aug 30, 2024
Recently, upon someone’s recommendation, a woman from a small town here in New Zealand reached out to ask me if I might be able to help her sort a rainbow affliction at her local library. I can’t use her real name here, or the name of the town she lives in, because transactivists, transmaidens, and transbros walk amongst us. I think that’s all that has to be said to understand the need for protection. Therefore, I shall call her Paula, and her town will be referred to as Panga (Māori for riddle/puzzle).
Paula didn’t think that Panga’s library should be blatantly displaying rainbow ribbons and badges in a bowl on the front counter, or have rainbow-painted the outdoor seat, nor the free books box. Her initial concern was for children being exposed to this each time they visited the library, knowing how susceptible they are to suggestion, and what can result from that. Paula felt that rainbowing-up the library with enduring displays and fixtures, was aligning itself with indoctrination about gender ideology, when libraries should be impartial and neutral spaces.
A library’s neutrality is vital to a community; it’s a place where we rub shoulders with everyone. Although we expect and appreciate a variety of temporary displays in libraries which reflect the world we live in, both near and far, no ongoing bias towards any one group should be visible to its users. When enduring displays and fixtures are introduced, which promote one group of people only, that becomes a demonstration of bias which is not acceptable.
When Paula complained to the library staff about the permanent appearance of the rainbow displays and fixtures, she was told to put it in writing. This is a common request, and often kills many complaints right there on the spot. However, it didn’t stop Paula. She reached out for assistance, and found her way to me through word of mouth. I was happy to help, as the corruption of neutrality in our libraries with their enduring neo-rainbow (as I think of them) displays and fixtures creates a sense of unease within many of us.
So, I helped to draft the below letter, which Paula sent it to the library -
“Dear ….
Re: rainbow paraphernalia and insignia at the library counter.
I do not consider it appropriate to display rainbow paraphernalia and insignia at the library as a fixture. Whilst temporary displays may be appropriate to celebrate cultures, countries, and activities at different times, a permanent display – whatever it’s comprised of - which shows favouritism to one group over others is inappropriate. A library is a public space where all who go there should feel welcome. As such, no preference for any one group, or people, should be visibly displayed as a permanent feature.
Rainbow paraphernalia and insignia at the library counter as a permanent feature indicates partisanship by the library. It is improper for the library to do that. No one who walks through the library door should be confronted by anything but it being a place of shared neutrality.
Communities are made up of a wide variety of people and groups, and a library serves them all. No one group should demonstrably occupy pride of place on a permanent basis in a library, by way of insignia and paraphernalia specific to them. This conveys a message that the library favours one group over others, and that is not a role it should take on.
Therefore, I request that the library removes any rainbow paraphernalia and insignia which is not part of a temporary display. To continue to display it shows that the library lacks neutrality, which could be inferred as an intent to indoctrinate library users with rainbow ideology, which children are particularly vulnerable to. This is an unacceptable position for the library to be perceived as having.
Thank you”
Much to her surprise, Paula got a phone call from the District Mayor soon after, who asked for photos, and expressed concern that ratepayers’ money was spent on such things. On her next visit to the library shortly afterwards, Paula noticed that the rainbow ribbons and badges, and a little sign about ‘LBGTQ friendliness’ had been removed from the counter. She followed that up with another missive to the library asking what their intention was re: the more permanent fixtures of the outdoor seat and free books box.
The response Paula received was to advise her that the idea to “reinvigorate the benches outside our library” had been picked up upon the library team’s visit to the Far North Libraries, and that “Community support for the rainbow bench has been incredibly positive”. Work on the benches [it appears that another one may be intended to be rainbow-painted, as well] was a combination of being paid for by the New Zealand National Library, and freely given by a local organisation and a business. So, “You can see that no ratepayer’s funds were used and it was a good community effort,” the library assured Paula.
Whilst ratepayers’ money mightn’t have been used, taxpayers’ money was used via the New Zealand National Library.
The full piece is here:
Shame On ‘Children In Need’
EDI Jester reports on BBC Children in Need funding LGBT Youth Scotland for years after their director was convicted of child rape.
Puberty Blockers in Northern Ireland
Michelle O’Neill ( left) Image: Wikimedia Commons
Maria Maynes in Gript News ( As trans activists protest Sinn Féin, O’Neill defends ban on puberty blockers 28 August) reports:
First Minister Michelle O’Neill has released a statement saying that the extension of a UK-wide ban on puberty blockers in Northern Ireland was a decision “based on clear and unequivocal advice from the Chief Medical Officer.”
The statement comes as a protest was held outside the Sinn Fein headquarters in Dublin on Tuesday over the ban on puberty blockers.
Sinn Féin, who just last summer issued a statement saying it supported an “update to gender recognition laws in the North to be harmonised with the south,” has received criticism from supporters in the wake of the news that a temporary ban on the prescription and supply of puberty blockers would be extended to Northern Ireland.
Amid controversy from supporters over Michelle O’Neill’s sign-off on the ban, the party released a statement on Tuesday night in which she claimed, “We want the best medical support for children and young people who need trans healthcare.”
“Following safety concerns being raised regarding the long-term effects of puberty blockers, a temporary 3 months suspension has been put in place based on clear and unequivocal advice from the Chief Medical Officer,” a statement published on the party’s website read.
“We want the best possible medical support for children and young people who need trans healthcare,” Michelle O’Neill said, adding:
“The three-month temporary suspension of puberty blockers for children and young people is based on clear and unequivocal advice from the Chief Medical Officer pending review.
“Children, parents and clinicians need to have full confidence in the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments. Health care and clinical decisions need to be based on scientific and medical evidence.”
The full report is here:
Scottish Women’s Aid
The only thing I can say is: Beam me up, Scotty!!
Simon Johnson in The Telegraph ( Domestic abuse charity allows ‘men who identify as women’ to apply for female-only job 29 August) reports:
Feminist groups argue the SWA have put the 'feelings of men with trans identities before the needs of vulnerable women' - izusek/E+
Scotland’s leading domestic abuse charity has advertised for a senior “women-only” role but will allow “men who identify as women” to apply.
Scottish Women’s Aid (SWA) advertised for a head of policy, and said that “applications from women only” would be accepted for the key role.
But the advert then said that the definition of women included people with “the protected characteristic of gender reassignment” under the Equality Act 2010.
The legislation defines gender reassignment as proposing to undergo, undergoing or having undergone a process to reassign sex.
People do not need to have undergone any medical treatment or surgery or even have applied for a gender recognition certificate confirming their change of legal sex.
However, feminist groups argued that the SWA had misinterpreted the legislation and put the “feelings of men with trans identities before the needs of vulnerable women”.
Maya Forstater, the chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said: “If a job needs to be done by a woman, as is usually the case in the women’s sector, employers can lawfully discriminate by excluding men from consideration for the role.
“SWA may, indeed should, turn down applications for this post from men who identify as women.
“The Equality Act protects transgender people from discrimination in situations such as renting a home or being served in a restaurant. It does not mean employers must consider men who identify as women for jobs that require an actual woman.”
SWA is the umbrella organisation for 33 autonomous women’s aid groups helping people, including children, across Scotland.
The full article is here:
Known Heretic
On her substack, Amy Sousa (aka ‘The Known Heretic’) writes about girls and young women who have double mastectomies. A very poignant piece since Amy herself has breast cancer.
Glamorization of Breast Amputation & the Marketing Self-Harm
Continued musings and analysis during my battle with breast cancer
Aug 26, 2024
The Marketing is Working
In my recent substack essay My Journey with Breast Cancer I spoke about how my personal experience with having stage three breast cancer has given me fresh insights into the transgender propaganda and marketing used to promote “top surgeries” aka double breast amputations. The dichotomy between my own self-preservation desire to keep my body intact and the cavalier nature with which young girls are gleefully hacking off their breasts could hardly be wider. I love, value, and respect my breasts as myself while these girls treat their breasts as disembodied objects and worthless things to be thrown in the trash.
My story was covered by Dana Kennedy with the NY Post. The article focuses on the social contagion aspect of why young girls seem to be racing to get “top surgeries.”
Besides being caught up in social contagion, there are many suppositions about the reasons why young girls are signing up for these surgeries more than any other demographic making up 70% of “gender-confirmation surgeries” as documented by the 2017 Plastic Surgery Report. Is it because of a mental health crisis? Are they legitimately born in the wrong body? Is it a form of social contagion as I speak about in the NY Post article? Regardless of whether any of these are true or false, what cannot be ignored is the overwhelming influence of massive publicity campaigns that glamorize, advertise, and directly market these surgeries to girls. Together, Hollywood, the fashion industry, social media, as well as government, corporate, and institutional “inclusivity” campaigns flood the social commons with highly stylized beauty images that depict these surgeries as fashionable and those who get them as high-status individuals associated with wealth, fame, and luxury lifestyles. The underlying thematic value of this combined textual oeuvre is one I would call: the enviable opulence of a beautiful trendsetter. The secondary theme is one of guilt-free privilege because the offered persona is saturated in the mythology of being a victim of a civil rights war, a revolutionary who breaks the cultural mold, not because of anything they do, however, but because of how they superficially appear.
The advertising images and copy used to sell these surgeries to the girls who are led to believe they are “born in the wrong body” are those of commodification and compartmentalization. Elite plastic surgery clinics market the notion that a human body is just a bunch of fashion separates that can be added to or removed with not only zero consequences but with the special added bonus of becoming your “authentic self.” Dr. Vinod Vij of Clinique Aesthetica refers to gender reassignment surgery as a “courageous decision,” and the clinic’s website says that it is a “profound and transformative experience. It is about finding your authentic self, aligning your body with your identity, and stepping into a new chapter of your life.” But how is it possible to have an identity that is out of alignment with your body? And how does cutting off healthy body parts create authenticity? How is plastic surgery a mental health cure? The plastic surgeons fail to answer these questions. They simply sell-sell-sell, designing their sales pitch using the ideological language and core mantras that align with transgender values, and then they watch the money roll in.
The full piece is here:
https://www.theknownheretic.com/p/glamorization-of-breast-amputation?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
American Medical Association
Excellent piece on the substack for Parents with Inconvenient Truths About Trans:
AMA: More Harm Please!
Aug 27, 2024
Hey, AMA! Congratulations! Your endorsement of the gender affirmation model with all of its mind/body altering drugs and surgeries to treat children and young adults suffering from gender dysphoria has been an overwhelming success! Gender shops are everywhere! It's time to build on that success and start treating more psychiatric disorders with drugs and surgeries. Your abandonment of the oath “First, do no harm” opens up all sorts of possibilities!
Next up, anorexia! Why would you start treatment for anorexia nervosa with therapy first? You’ve got it all wrong. When someone suffering from anorexia walks into a doctor’s office, the doctor should immediately affirm the patient’s view that he/she is too fat, regardless of the patient’s weight! You can call this a very hip name - the “image affirmation” model. To help the patient with her image journey, doctors should prescribe diet pills and offer liposuction in the first appointment. The patient’s views about their body image must be affirmed! It’s true these treatments might leave the patient disfigured or dead, but the patient will finally be living her true life, as long as it lasts. Maybe anorexics can take their rightful place on the alphabet soup flag: LGBTQIAX - X for anorXia!
An obvious follow-up is the treatment of bulimia. Again, psychotherapy to help bulimics stop the binging and purging is misguided. Doctors must affirm the view that excessive food should be expelled! The solution? Clearly bariatric surgery is perfect. You don’t want patients suffering from bulimia to waste food. Limit what they can eat! It’s a win-win for everybody.
Hypochondria is a dream diagnosis - the treatment of this mental disorder offers unlimited possibilities! Just imagine a patient is convinced he has malaria. The doctor should affirm that self-diagnosis! The doctor can then inject the patient on the spot with the malaria parasite. You can call this the “disease affirmation” model. Business will be up because then the doctor has to treat the malaria! What are you waiting for?
The AMA’s embrace of off-label drugs with mutilating side effects opens up even more possibilities! It’s time for the AMA to introduce thalidomide for the treatment of morning sickness in pregnant women! Just because thalidomide was never approved for morning sickness by the FDA and caused death and horrific birth defects in babies in Europe doesn’t mean it’s not effective. The AMA never pays attention to what happens in Europe! Use the approach that gender shops use when describing sterility as a common side effect of cross-sex hormones. Gender shops often don’t use the words “sterility” or “permanently sterilized” - way too scary. Those shops use phrases like “You may not be able to get (or get someone) pregnant” after using these drugs. For thalidomide, doctors can just say “Your baby, if he lives, may have a unique presentation”. Problem solved! Let doctors know the good news!
Finally, the time for lobotomies has returned. Lobotomies are effective in treating such a large variety of psychiatric disorders. Just because lobotomies are inhumane doesn’t mean they aren’t effective. Surgeons will be lining up to perform this profitable procedure.
AMA, hooray for your elimination of that pesky oath, “First, do no harm”. Now, treatment options are limitless! Gender affirmation is just the beginning of a new age of treating, harming and mutilating patients based entirely on their thoughts! As the AMA has demonstrated, research and trials are for chumps - you can start these treatments immediately!
https://www.pittparents.com/p/ama-more-harm-please?r=7ogxh&triedRedirect=true
Section 28
EDI Jester again. He revives an excellent piece he did explaining the history and relevance of s28.
Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 stated:
Prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material
(1)A local authority shall not—
(a)intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b)promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
Behind The Looking Glass
Vaishnavi Sundar’s documentary about trans widows and the children involved was released yesterday. Despite me not being able to work out how to put on subtitles (since some contributors are not speaking in English) I thought it was excellent and recommend it.
Kiwi Day Of Visibility
My wife and I visited New Zealand some years ago and saw a Kiwi. Amazing!!
Endpieces by Dusty and Liz
My contribution is care of Mole at the Counter ( for those outside the UK, the Government are proposing to ban smoking in public places like pub beer gardens or smoking areas outside restaurants…but there are lots of other references here as well 😊 ):
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GWKTT1vXcAAVNmV?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
Over to Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
#XX
#SaveWomensSport
For new readers who are puzzled by the reference to Porcupines, here are the (Terf) Porcupine Parents defending their children from the (Gender) Leopard 😊
A brilliant round up of pieces as ever Dusty and this one update is a perfect illustration of the insanity of our times,let alone your whole back catalogue.
The trans widows video is really powerful and shows clearly that gender ideology is built on the male fetish of autogynephilia. And that’s what so many fail to understand because they can’t be bothered to look.
Fantastic end pieces too! While I was looking at the Python, I noticed their take on the Olympics. We should have thought of that a couple of weeks ago. A race for people with no sense of direction 😂
Thanks Dusty.