Taliban arrest warrant: queering crimes against humanity
EU funding for women’s organisations is being sucked up by “gender”
The EU just gave €3.5 million to hunt down “hidden” hate speech
Queering the Rights of the Irish Child
Where does the Right to Identity come from?
UN special expert on violence against women has something to say about Dora Moutot
“Feminist” member of the European Parliament has nothing to say about Dora Moutot
The EU Commission gives €4.6 million to the Dutch Protocol gender team
Norway: diplomat placed Epstein victims in his think tank
Paris Pride is full of perverts. Sue me.
Another beach junket for the EU Directorate General for Asterisk Lesbianism
Who can we thank? Jessica Stern
Taliban arrest warrant: queering crimes against humanity
Taliban commanders do not have a theory of gender. They do not operate according to a sophisticated framework derived from discursive constructs of perceptions of maleness and femaleness. To the degree that there is an ideology that animates the policies of the Taliban (a group of violent blackbeards with a mean IQ of a decent Scrabble score), it’s this: “Me Tarzan, you Jane”.
“You Jane” alone would probably suffice.
And yet the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court applied for arrest warrants, unsealed last week, against four Taliban leaders on gender persecution charges using a new expansive definition that abandons binary sex in favour of a moveable feast that requires the perpetrators to have an ideology or at least a perception of genderedness. The prosecutor used the following definition:
“Gender refers to sex characteristics and social constructs and criteria used to define maleness and femaleness, including roles, behaviours, activities and attributes. As a social construct, gender varies within societies and from society to society and can change over time.”
It adds:
“social constructs used to define gender include ‘sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.’”
But how did this get past the conservative states that have repeatedly rejected the gender-roles framing of sex in international agreements, including the Rome Statute (the text that establishes the ICC and defines its crimes)? The answer is that it didn’t.
When the Rome Statute was being drafted in 1998, women’s rights activists thought that a biological definition of gender didn’t do enough to capture the reason why women were targeted during mass atrocities, or why we are deprived of fundamental rights even during peacetime. They met resistance from conservative countries worried that gender was a vehicle for gay stuff. Qatar even worried there’d be claims about five or six genders (had their diplomats been reading about Anne Fausto Sterling’s herms, merms, and ferms?)
The definition of gender that emerged in Rome was a compromise:
“For the purposes of this Statute, it is understood that the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term ‘gender’ does not indicate any meaning different from the above.” (Emphasis mine.)
“Within the context of society” left open the possibility to further drive home, at a later date, the argument that the nature of society’s crimes against women is far more complicated than a binary sex understanding allows. I won’t detail their explanations here, but I will make an uncharitable speculation: I think at least some of the women who lobbied to force a gender “lens” on the Rome Statute (and elsewhere) really just wanted to have their academic theories about gender validated in important fora.
The academic discipline of gender is… weak on empirical claims. “You Jane” does not an impressive conference presentation or a captivating grant application make. It might describe exactly why women are targeted in Srebrenica, or Rwanda, or Darfur but it doesn’t require much faffing around, and it doesn’t flatter gender theorists’ notion of themselves as intellectuals.
But whatever those women had in mind in 1998 was nothing on the insane queer posse who started getting involved in international law about a decade later. By the mid-aughts, gender theory was no longer about having a go at gendered hierarchies. It was about exploding the notion that sex is a stable category at all.
When the Taliban arrest warrants were unsealed last week we learned that this little five-word compromise phrase “within the context of society” was finally being called into the service of the queer project. In issuing the arrest warrant, the court stated that the wording of the Rome Statute “necessitates an interpretation that goes beyond a purely biological conception of sex”. The judges also invoked “current developments in international law,” referring to all the other international instruments that have quietly been queered.
The Taliban warrants go further; the charge of gender persecution covers not just girls and women, but also “other persons non-conforming with the Taliban’s policy on gender, gender identity or expression”.
I kid you not: what is being reported as some kind of coup for women and girls refers to not just gay men and cross-dressing men, but also men who don’t grow beards, and men who don’t grow their beards to the Taliban-required length. It also covers any behaviour or features of a person that departs from a regime or warlord’s “criteria” for maleness and femaleness. How is the court supposed to prove that? (See Women’s Declaration International’s submission to the ICC on the topic).
Furthermore, this legal framing relies on stereotypes as a way to identify gender persecution!
The main harm with this development is far-reaching. With this expansive definition, the ICC has handed a concrete judicial precedent to activists who can point to it as evidence that gender has departed from its biological meaning.
This is a slow-moving disaster for women’s rights.
When the roving hordes of Hutu rape gangs chose who they would rape and impregnate, they were not enacting a set of norms that discursively constructed the category “Tutsi woman”. They were not enacting a gender hierarchy and using vaginated persons as a site for the production of gendered difference. They were not policing the boundaries of acceptable gendered personae. You Jane. Or, more accurately, you Tutsi, and you Jane, were enough.
Is that a theory? Did the Hutu perpetrators have a guiding philosophy about whose bodies they saw as sexual prizes? I think the gender goblins give them far too much credit.
Funnily enough, the Rome Statute doesn’t require any “lenses” to decipher the frameworks through which race and ethnic group are enacted. Both are grounds in the Rome Statute, and as far as I can tell, they are far more nebulous than sex. Indeed, the Hutu perpetrators had to seek out various context clues to determine which women belonged to the unstable Tutsi population group that they wanted to assault. Why is there an extra layer of faff added to the definition of “woman” and not to “Tutsi”? And yet sex is far more straightforward.
Bosniak boys and men were singled out to be killed in Srebrenica during the Bosnian war. To state the bleeding obvious: they were murdered because they were male. No theory, no wig, no gayface, no inner identity, no declaration or administrative certificate, no pronoun badge would have let any of those men escape their fate in Srebrenica.
The logistical exercise to sort the men took a couple of days. During this time, Serb forces were raping and otherwise sexually abusing the women and girls who were being kept apart in camps dotted around the town of Potočari. I heard about one woman who rubbed dirt on her young daughter’s face to try to make her look less attractive to the prowling rapists in the popup camp. I think about that improvised disguise often.
But like her brothers and her father, the girl could not escape her sex. A mucked up face didn’t help her, and elaborate gender theories wouldn’t have helped her either. Yes, even if Ratko Mladić’s soldiers had been indoctrinated via comprehensive sexuality education from a very young age.
You do not theorise your way out of a warlord’s determination to execute potential enemy combatants. And you do not need a framework to explain a celebratory male bonding ritual over the sexual spoils of war. And we are all only ever a military commander’s finger-click away from savagery. We are still in the jungle, even if your current comforts create the illusion that we are not.
According to the ICC’s new framing of gender, mass graves of men’s bodies is not the primary proof of “gender persecution”. The gendered regime of rules is central, and the sex (or perceived “gender”) of the dead bodies is merely the evidence that the gender regime was in place. This is pure queer theory. Sex is given a cursory and reluctant nod in the new definition, but only in the form of “sex characteristics”. This suits the queer theory that bodies are random assortments of meat lego bits squished altogether with a rule book attached about how they should look and behave.
When sex is the criterion for committing the crime, it’s clear what the prosecutor needs to prove. But an expanded definition risks totally obscuring the victim group. And in case it wasn’t obvious: a man can grow his beard, and make sure he makes it the right length. He can stop wearing makeup and take off the dress. He can still go outside and go to school, as long as he stops disobeying the rules. Even a homosexual man can refrain from doing homosexual things, and retain his ability to get an education. Women and girls have no such escape hatch.
And are the countries that repeatedly rejected gendershite in international treaties likely to carry out an arrest warrant for crimes based on definitions they have steadfastly said they refuse to recognise for decades?
The woman behind the new gender policy and its definitions, Lisa Davis, is a they/them who was hired in 2021 by the ICC prosecutor, Karim Khan. If you watch Davis speak about her gender victory at the ICC on YouTube (and her current work queering a new crimes against humanity treaty), you’ll quickly notice a bizarre kazoo-quality in her voice. It suggests that she is doing what many short-haired women of her social class are doing: taking testosterone in a futile effort to escape womanhood. She probably thinks the Taliban would spare her.
The cherry on the cake? In July, ICC member states voted to remove Karim Khan from office over multiple allegations of sexual misconduct he allegedly committed against his junior female colleague. A second woman subsequently came forward claiming Khan subjected her to a constant onslaught of sexual advances.
In case you didn’t catch that: the definition of crimes against women has been rewritten by a woman who thinks being female doesn’t make you a woman, and she was put there by a man who is alleged to have committed sexual violence against his female subordinates.
For many activists in powerful positions like Davis, the personal quest to escape her sex is more than a minor character in the story. But no matter how many discursive bunches o’ words she puts together, no matter how much dirt she rubs into her face in a vain effort to be invulnerable, and however much harm she causes to women living out there in the real world, the fact is that She Jane, and no overthunk cope is ever going to change that.
EU funds for women are being sucked up by “gender”
Apropos of all of the above: last week I was allowed to tag along with a group of NGOs from the project MOTERIS as they lobbied MEPs in the European Parliament for dedicate funding for women’s organisations. The project participants claim that “gender” has sucked up all the oxygen, and “gender-based” bullshit is taking money away from actual services that women around Europe need.
They let me come with them to some of their meetings with MEPs.
The glorious thing about it was that the MEPs saw the word “woman” on the invitation and accepted because they saw no grenades in their path. The conversations turned slightly uncomfortable, however, when the elected officials realised that the women didn’t have a beef about gender funding, they had a beef about women’s funding. It was funny to watch the penny drop. Some of them walked into the meetings pretending to be saviours of the female sex but their jowls dropped as they realised they were being TERFed. Uh oh! The conversation you’ve been trying to escape for a decade somehow found its way into your ivory tower! It was so happy to be there, for the historical record.
One of the MEPs lost her shit when she realised what was going on: the Spanish/Dutch Liberal, Renew MEP Raquel García Hermida-van der Walle. I asked her: do you really believe that men can be women? Yep. Even when they’re in women’s prisons? Uh, yep. Even when they rape female prisoners with their male penises, in female prisons? She stumbled over that one. But she got really mad when I said the reason she believes all this nonsense is because she’s a fancy elite who has no idea what real life is like outside her regime feminist bubble. She did not like that one bit.
Another telling vignette: a journalist from the EUobserver came to interview one of the leaders of the project, and I asked if I could listen in. The EUobserver is pure shitlib copypasta and I knew the journalist was there because she heard the word “women” and assumed the same thing the MEPs did: she thought it was a standard intersectional genderfaff.
I watched her face as the representative of MOTERIS got to the point: diluting everything in gendershite has been bad for women. Another uh-oh! But but but what about Andrew Taaaaaaaaaaate and the manospheeeeeeeeeeere you could almost hear the wires in her brain scramble. When her article came out later that day, it did not contain the project’s very crucial central message. Of course it didn’t. That would require addressing the topic the Brussels media has also spent a decade ignoring.
All in all, a great day out. Very insightful. Every receipt packed away for the reckoning. It’s coming for every single one of you.
The EU just gave 3.5 million for an AI project that will hunt down “hidden” hate speech
The European Commission has granted €3.5 million to ten universities to work together to build a tool to uncover hidden hate speech in online spaces. That will include memes, irony, and coded language. The project is being led by someone whose forte is linguistic justice.
I have long thought that once the Borg bans Twitter and/or Substack, or forces us all to comply with speech codes that outlaw any criticism of trans mania, we TERFs would simply have to invent code words for autogynephiles and all the varieties of transvestites, pooners and assorted swivel-eyed loons who are queering everything that moves. Then we would just have to outrun the euphemism treadmill, and I was almost looking forward to it for the creative writing it would unleash.
But the Commission is literally planning to outmaneuver even that.
Queering the Rights of the Irish Child
There’s an effort currently underway to copy-paste the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) into Irish domestic law. But what does that mean? The Convention itself is nothing to worry about, but the “general comments” that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has issued down through the years are open to endless innovations.
To give a live example, the Committee is starting work on drafting a general comment on AI and children’s rights.
The one to worry about on the gender front is General Comment No. 20 which was tacked on in 2016, at the beginning the the great entrooning of everything.
Paragraph 34 stresses all adolescents’ right to respect for their “gender identity and emerging autonomy”. Paragraph 39 states that age limits should recognise adolescents’ right to make decisions about health services or treatment, and that an adolescent’s informed consent should be obtained whether or not a parent’s consent is required.
If Ireland incorporates the CRC into its law, its articles become legally actionable and its general comments become guidance for interpretation (that’s the case already in Scotland). It will become more than just activist fodder (on a more general note: who wants the laws about kids in their country to be made by elites in Geneva?)
The right to identity is contained in the Convention itself, but in the trans era, that has drifted from kinship to self-perception. You can see where all this leads.
Here’s me chattin’ to Sandra Adams about it.
Where does the right to an identity come from?
Something a lot of people don’t realise: the “right to an identity” that appears in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (and other international conventions) was the result of the work of women in Argentina whose grandchildren had been abducted by the military junta.
Women who had been kidnapped while pregnant (or who had very young children) were killed, but their kids were taken and disappeared off the radar. Hundreds of children were being raised by families that were not their own.
Their grandmothers demanded forensic research to find their genetic heirs. They claimed that existing rights — to a name and nationality — didn’t quite cover what they were trying to establish, which was their missing relatives’ and those individuals’ right to know who they are and who their people are.
So it’s not at all a coincidence that the first sex self-ID law in the world was introduced in Argentina (2012). The “right to an identity” of these children, who were known as “desaparecidos”, was a cause that was innovated upon by travesti and trans activists, notably Mauro Cabral Grinspan, a trans-identifying woman who was a signatory of both versions of the Yogyakarta Principles.
It’s bleak: the abuelas’ desperate search for their grandkids was refashioned to make it easier to challenge parents’ efforts to stop their children from undergoing life-changing medical interventions like castration and mastectomy.
In other words: Argentinian grandmothers fought for the right to a “true and genuine” personal, legal and family identity, not inauthentic self-perception-based identity that has no basis in reality.
According to the paper linked above: “...the Grandmothers’ discourse and work strengthened the trans and travesti activism’s claim to the right to gender identity, as they were the ones who made identity a matter of public concern. There, they argue that the human right to identity created the conditions for the approval of the Gender Identity Law, which led to inclusion, historical redress, and childhoods free from discrimination and violence, among other benefits.
The Grandmothers politicized biology and made identity a matter of undeniable ethical implications and consequences.”
UN special expert on violence against women has something to say about Dora Moutot
On 2 October the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, expressed concern over the conviction of journalist and author Dora Moutot.
Moutot was condemned by a Paris tribunal for the following sentence: “As women, we are obligated to be wary of people with penises.” Dora was using polite physiology-first language that she assumed would keep her safe from the highly litigious activist mob, but she was misguided. The association of trans women with penises, and by extension with male-pattern violence, was found by the court to be a public insult.
Her defence is that she wasn’t saying be wary of trans women because they are trans women. She was saying be wary of them because they are men.
Reem Alsalem said that the contrast between the way Dora has been treated over these benign comments, versus the way the way the authorities have handled the threats against Dora raises concerns about equality before the law in France.
France is infamously bad on free speech, but prosecuting someone for making a statement that not only matches sex-based statistics but also aligns with the sex-based framing of French policy on violence against women? That’s insane.
Feminist member of EU Parliament has nothing to say about Dora Moutot
Mélissa Camara is a member of the European Parliament representing France. I bumped into her at Paris Pride last weekend and asked if she had any comment on the case of Dora Moutot. She had no comment.
She was full of things to say last year when she said on the floor of the plenary chamber that men are raping women they find online, and that this rape culture must be stopped. Who’s doing the raping, though, Mélissa?
So engorged are the French elites on gendershite that they would tell you that Gisèle Pelicot’s rapists were only men because they identified as such.
Well done, you treacherous weirdos!
The EU Commission gives €4.6 million to the Dutch Protocol gender team
The European Commission has dedicated €4.6 million in funding to a project about “diverse hormone transition” coordinated by Amsterdam UMC and it is a thinly-disguised effort to normalise gender affirming care. The project claims to be about hormonal transitions generally, and it bundles medical gender transition in with puberty and menopause as just another stage-of-life “change”.
The project aims to study “biopsychosocial factors on gender during diverse hormonal transitions, including variations in puberty and menopause”, with specific attention to trans and gender diverse people and those with variations of sex characteristics. The project will also produce clinical guidance on these “diverse” hormonal transitions.
Gender InSight is just gender butchery hidden under the gloss. And the lead institution, Amsterdam UMC, is the home of the gender team whose predecessor clinic designed the dodgy Dutch protocol.
Norway: diplomat placed Epstein victims in his think tank
Norway is knee-deep in Epsteinery.
Hearings started on 30 September into the foreign service elites’ wheeling and dealing with Jeffrey Epstein over the years. Prompted by the extensive paper trail between the deceased financier and senior diplomats (and royal family), the committee wanted to know how the ministry goes about distributing aid, its internal controls, and whether personal connections have been influencing decisions.
But the suspicion is about corruption and influence, not sex crimes.
Former diplomats Terje Rød-Larsen and his wife Mona Juul — major players in the secret deal that produced the 1993 Oslo Accords peace agreement between Israel and the PLO — are under investigation. Rød-Larsen made plans to visit Epstein’s island in 2011 with the fam, and he visited Epstein’s New York apartment repeatedly. He called Jeffrey Epstein his “best friend”. Epstein left $5 million each to the couple’s two children.
The suspicion is that Epstein wanted access to diplomatic channels, presumably as part of the favours he was doing for others, and Terje Rød-Larsen wanted money. Epstein placed young (sometimes wholly unqualified) Eastern European and Russian women in the New York think tank, the International Peace Institute, which Rød-Larsen ran. In some cases, Rød-Larsen gave visa assistance to the young women as a favour to Epstein. Some of the young women were allegedly abused by Epstein. It’s not clear yet whether their relationship with Rød-Larsen or others in his orbit was anything seedier.
The investigation is ongoing.
Paris Pride is full of perverts. Sue me.
Last week I reported on the plans of the Paris authorities to take anyone to court if they said negative things about Pride. They didn’t like people saying that Pride attracts perverts and paedophiles. So I went there and I can safely report: Pride attracts perverts and paedophiles.
I bought a headband off the roving gypsy family who were making a roaring trade off rainbow tat. I was trying to blend in. How did I do?
While I was there, I saw the regime feminist NGO, Nous Toutes, who drank the gender koolaid long ago. They had a trans-coloured PROTECT THE DOLLS sign on their Pride float. I asked them “Who are the dolls? Does dolls refer to feminists?” They didn’t know. One of them said “dolls” means trans kids. The only person who seemed to know the answer (it means girly gay trans women, not the Bricks) slunk off so he didn’t have to answer.
I spotted another float with social media posts plastered all over it; they were the comments that are now the subject of hate speech investigations. I interviewed one of the men manning the float about it:
Another beach junket for the EU Directorate General for Asterisk* Lesbianism
They’re taking the absolute piss, these gals. Not long back from their most recent Greek island jaunt where they now hold their annual assemblies (and where they seem to be building themselves a holiday home!) the conceptual-lesbians-with-an-asterisk went on a trip to what France’s idyllic overseas territories in the Caribbean. While there, they walked in a Pride parade.
But it’s not all fun and games. Here’s a recent publication they produced, called “A crip (cripple) and lesbian perspective on disability rights”, which is you, the taxpayer’s contribution to queering the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Aren’t you glad?
Who can we thank? Jessica Stern
Jessica Stern is an American lesbian over-achieving activist who pops up all over the shop. Here’s a rundown of her achievements in the sex-erasure project over the past decade. She’s quite the operator:
She was the executive director of OutRight International (formerly the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) for about ten years. It’s the biggest global LGBTIQ NGO and she was the one who secured them UN observer status. She also co-founded the United Nations LGBTI Core Group (and ran the secretariat), and she was involved in a bunch of UN human rights council resolutions around the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. She also gave the first LGBTIQ testimony at a UN Security Council (in a private meeting).
She was Biden’s Special Envoy to Advance the Human Rights of LGBTQI+ Persons, and she directed American Globohomo foreign policy during her term. She also spent time at Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, taught the first LGBTIQ rights course at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and is now a Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights focused on global LGBTIQ equality (the same place all the Power Gays seem to be spending a stint at).
She is also married to Lisa Davis, the gender goblin mentioned in the first article.
What a team. Here she is. Say thanks to Jessica.
In other news…
Brussels: Athena Forum is coming to the European Parliament for an event on 3 November
Brussels: Alliance Defending Freedom investigated the men behind Forbidden Colours, who have been granted €117k in EU money for two projects (REBELS and PRIDE), one of which is about the “anti-gender movement”
Ireland: Paddy O’Gorman wrote this account of the conversion therapy event hosted by Free Speech Union in Belfast, for Genspect:
Germany: surgeons have operated on the genitals of nearly 300 minors (research by Athena Forum)
Poland: Abortomat decorated like a bordello pops up near Polish parliament in Warsaw
France: Catholic feminists mobbed the pope because they want a feminist church
Brussels: I think I know why Euractiv (now Rapporteur) will never comment on genderfaff
France: they tried to pass a resolution (with Albania) at the UN on decriminalisation but they withdrew it. Apparently they screwed up the international LGBTIQ strategy.
Norway: cancelled TERF Tonje Gjevjon has a Substack and it’s good. Here’s a recent article about their domestic swivel-eyed loonytune gender chief, who she calls the Protect The Dolls Minister
Norway: I’ve been invited by Norwegian feminist professor Kamilla Aslaksen to come speak at an event in Oslo @Litteraturhuset on 19 November. Get tickets!
Morocco: Morocco gets a female leader. Reports are mixed about how people feel about it.
Sweden: Agnes Wold (finally) got fired from her radio job. Twas inevitable
Lithuania: What’s the point of the European Institute for Gender Equality? Seems like a massive money sink
Germany: EU-funded Transgender Europe hired a T4T femboy as their new communication officer. He calls himself a “doll” as well as “female” and does thirst posts for GAMPs on Instagram
Germany: Women want a free menstrual products
Serbia: New lesbian leader doesn’t want to be known for being a lesbian
Switzerland: man who tried to live as a woman for about 30 years “What I wouldn’t give to get my body back”
Switzerland/Germany: Anti-torture body Association for the Prevention of Torture got Transgender Europe to draft its prison guidelines
Send me your stories, I’m all (t)ears: roisinmichaux@gmail.com. I’m also on X/Twitter: https://x.com/RoisinMichaux
Do you think it matters that sex is being replaced by self-declaration of something called ‘gender identity’? I do, and I was fired for it. I made a bet that other people care about it too. So this newsletter is my new job. If you think my work is important, please take out a paid subscription.