Athena Forum are in Brussels to talk about discrimination against women for protecting sex-based laws. At the same time, a Big Gender Conference for Genders will take place in the European Parliament
Dutch intensive care doc blows the whistle on gender interventions after rise in complications
The Council of Europe just just made it harder to opt out of queered sex education
France nearly messed up the gay gameplan in Geneva
The WHO confirms: trans guidelines are delayed again
A provision about stereotypes in the CEDAW convention offered an opportunity to undo trans damage to women’s rights, but it just got trooned up to hooha
Ukraine introduces queer concepts to national human rights plan to satiate the gender beast in Brussels
Programmed motherlessness is being openly advertised by the Dutch Prime Minister
Trouble in Paradyke: French app for lesbians is off to a very TERFy start
Who can we thank? Navi Pillay
Athena Forum conference featuring women punished for reality-based definition of women is running in parallel to official EU ‘gender’ week kickoff
Athena Forum, a Vienna-based organisation founded by former member of the Austrian Parliament, Faika El-Nagashi, is hosting its first EU event tomorrow (3 November) in a hotel right beside the EU Commission headquarters. The panel will feature a lineup of women who have been monstered in various ways for refusing to stop talking about women and girls being real phenomena (as opposed to sets of aesthetic and temperamental stereotypes who require “theory” in order to be decoded).
This cause that the panellists will defend — the retention of biological sex in law and public policy — does not get any airtime in Brussels, and the reasons for that are varied but it mostly comes down to: keeping your job. It is professional poison among the elite class to acknowledge the trashy reality of human sex. Email jobs in the “knowledge economy” make the fiction of chosen-sex identity claims easier to maintain. Men in party shop wigs sit stubbornly at the bottom of the privilege heap (or at least, beneath “cis women”) and any claim that they do not deserve to upend our fundamental understanding of nature for more satisfying wanks is seen as cruel and unsophisticated, and even (shudder) conservative.
The official line among the camp du bien in Brussels is that a woman is an open category, even in places like Cameroon where for some reason, eight-year-old girls aren’t taking advantage of the opportunity presented by sexswapism to avoid getting impregnated by their uncles and dying in childbirth because their pelvises are too narrow for a newborn head. Those girls are so dumb! What do they not understand? Their mothers would not need to delay their daughters’ sexual appeal by flattening their budding breasts with hot rocks if those kids just declared themselves to be little boys. Honestly, they deserve their funding cuts. Has nobody explained Genders to these people? Sometimes all it takes is a well put-together Genders pamphlet. Has nobody tried that?
Hélas, luckily for all the world’s female children, also taking place on Tuesday is an EU event dedicated to Genders. It is being hosted in the European Parliament, and it can be viewed via livestream via the link above (and via my X account) from 4:00PM CET. Perhaps the QR code for the livestream could be airdropped into the world’s most misogynistic shitheaps? Those alluring little children can finally understand that being a girl is just a performance. They can throw off their chadors and finally get a go on the swings. We live in hope!
The Athena event starts at 6:30PM (I’ll be there to live-tweet it), at the exact same moment that the European Parliament Genders event is finishing up. The two events are around the corner from each other, but their objectives couldn’t be further apart.
The European Parliament Genders conference has a stellar line-up of very-approved women who will talk about leadership and empowerment and other lean-in, nutrition-free gruel. It’s kicks off a week of similarly-themed Genders events. And you can tell already exactly what the content will be because it’s always the same.
In all my years as a culture-war distractor/anti-gender actor (as women like me are officially known in the academic literature) I have never attended a gender event that had anything new or interesting to say. The only fun you’ll ever squeeze out of a gender event is when someone accidentally skirts too close to the awkward fact that they have removed women from the law — oops! — and you can hear everyone’s sphincter bolting shut like a room full of mouse traps before someone steers the discussion somewhere safer.
I live for this tension. Squirm harder, you pricks.
Meanwhile, the Athena panellists will talk about a subject that officialdom in Brussels has done everything to ignore. They will talk about their experiences of being subjected to every kind of harassment you can think of for holding the line on a basic fact: female biology is central to female oppression — even if culture has a big influence on whether or not a woman is oppressed. You can be raped and impregnated in Kandahar and you can be raped and impregnated in Copenhagen. The social conventions that make this more or less likely to happen in a particular place have no effect on the basic hardware of men and women. Nor do your stupid theories. Rape and sexual assault statistics are directly connected to male biology in ways that even the most “cultured” culture can never negate. It is for this reason that it matters that what is recorded on everyone’s official documents as their sex is factual and not fantastical. This matters for women and children. You can all go on pretending that women and children are not uniquely vulnerable to male predation if it makes you feel better, but hands off our laws.
That’s it. That’s the entire argument that everyone has been studiously ignoring.
The reason this very basic claim is so contentious is because some men would prefer to be women, mostly for sexual reasons, and it makes them very angry that despite their elaborate costumes, reality keeps breaking through. They are forced to monitor the reactions of everyone around them as part of a permanent system of coercive control to see if their cosplay is “working”. It’s exhausting and infuriating, as you can imagine.
And guess who they blame for their predicament?
But of course, honourable mention: most institutional trans “allies” seem to be women, and I would guess it is in no small part due to something else that evolution bestowed on the female sex: whatever you do, don’t make the men violently angry, especially the ones currently trapped in a deep psychosexual delusion.
You might not give a shit about women — many do not, especially the ones who shout loudest about us — but you should care that a basic truth can so easily infect our truth-based institutions. And not least, you should care because the coercion required by institutionalised transvestism is totalitarian in nature.
It’s important to note that Tuesday’s Athena Forum event will not be the first time the issue of sex erasure has been discussed in Brussels; that honour belongs to Kellie-Jay Keen, who was invited by the right-wing Patriots party to talk about it in the European Parliament last year. She gave a brilliant speech. But because that party is MAGA/Orban-coded, it was easy for everyone to fob off the event. Indeed, Politico reporter Mari Eccles later called it a “toxic culture war”, and I’m still waiting for her to explain to me what that phrase means.
How much longer can the establishment pretend not to notice that *somebody* has legislated and litigated women and girls out of official existence? Even to defend it as a good thing? To be fair, Politico chief policy correspondent Sarah Wheaton once had a crack at pseudo-bothsidesing it via a despicable feature article about JK Rowling, in which she quoted an absolutely gross sexual deviant as an example of the poor-sad-transwoman trope (this was before the media had twigged that sad-trans tropes only works when you use the girly gays, not the autogynephiles or the testosterone-bloated tiny lesbians.)
Anyway, I’ll livestream the genderfaff conference and I’ll live-tweet my way through Athena Forum’s panel, to try to reach as many people as possible but especially the Official Cowards who follow me on X and on here all while pretending not to. Yes, I’m talking about you.
Dutch intensive care doctor blows the whistle on gender interventions after rise in complications
A doctor working in the Amsterdam UMC, home of the original Dutch Protocol, is speaking out about ideology-driven treatments taking priority over evidence-based science at the Netherlands’ university hospitals.
Armand Girbes is a professor of intensive care and a clinical pharmacologist. He wrote in a widely-discussed LinkedIn post that he routinely sees the “severe” physical complications of gender-related surgical procedures, but he had assumed that the specialists prescribing the procedures had done their due diligence.
He said:
As an intensivist you see the complications and the patients pass by regularly, but I had not delved into the literature and relied on what I heard from the practitioners. But now I know, and it’s seriously wrong.
Girbes was invited to take part in debates with gender doctors but he claims the latter pulled out.
Compare all this to another LinkedIn post from earlier this year, in which a private gender clinic (masterfully named “Gender Clinic”) boasted of its partnership with Girbes’ Amsterdam hospital. The partnership is intended to increase the number of “low-complexity, high-volume” surgeries performed off-site, while more complex cases can be carried out on the hospital site itself. One assumes these are the cases Girbes’ has been dealing with, though he may also be confronted with the outcomes of the “low-complexity” surgeries, too, which refers to phalloplasties without urethral reconstruction and vaginoplasties, according to a statement from the hospital published in January.
The Gender Clinic post was reposted by Thomas D Steensma (see post below), who is linked to the original Dutch Protocol team.
Girbes’ post reflects a phenomenon that Genspect’s Mia Hughes has written about, called the "broken chain of trust”. When one link in this chain fails, everyone downstream is misled. That’s happening all over the Western world right now. Professionals don’t want to believe they are on the receiving end of a flawed system. But history is full of this stuff (see this X post by Sama Hoole for examples).
Council of Europe just made it harder to opt out of queered sex education
A couple of weeks ago the ministers who make up the main decision-making body of the Council of Europe (a Strasbourg-based human rights body, not related to the EU) adopted a new soft-law, non-binding “recommendation” on the contentious topic of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). A provision in the text — for which no vote rollcall has been made publicly available — will make it harder for national governments to create opt-outs for CSE, which, when designed according to the official guidelines, contains queer theory precepts that are utterly bizarre.
The text states:
Member States should adopt the necessary legal or policy basis for the inclusive and accessible provision of this education to all children. De jure or de facto exemptions to comprehensive sexuality education undermine the protection of children from various forms of violence.
The explanatory memorandum also encourages making CSE available for all children, “including by making it compulsory.”
As per usual, the recommendation has been itself infused with queer theory by including in it a call for special attention to be paid to “children with diverse sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, or sex characteristics”. Of course all children, no matter who they are or what they believe, should be protected from violence. On the other hand, there’s no such thing as a transsexual child. It’s not real, folks.
This damaging nonsense is not new for the Council of Europe. What’s new is that the particular body that voted for it is the most influential one in the system. They are representatives of member states’ sitting governments. It is hard to understand how the ministers (or their deputies) think that teaching boys and girls that they can reject their sex, override the objection of their parents, and put their trust in these matters into the hands of unrelated adult “CSE providers” would lead to less grooming by creeps and freaks, an objective that is also part of the same recommendation.
The first question everyone always wants to know about these kinds of ‘instruments’ is: does it matter? If it’s not binding, who cares? The answer is that its utility is in the eye of the beholder. Governments can (and do) ignore non-binding gendershite declarations from Strasbourg (and Brussels and New York and Geneva). But ultimately, it depends on whose good side you’re trying to get on. These international bodies, at least on this topic, seem to do little more than churn out activist advocacy materials.
If, say, the Irish government introduced a law declaring that no parent can opt their child out of lessons about child transvestitism, there would be uproar. But this mysterious and somehow all-powerful and regal-sounding Council of Europe told the Irish government to do it — well Irish officials can shrug and pretend they’re just following orders. Even though it was their own reps who flew to Strasbourg to negotiate and vote on the thing, and it’s their own funding that they have given to the NGOs that will subsequently use it for lobbying them to make sure the ‘instrument’ gets implemented.
At any point, member state governments could just refuse to implement the recommendations. But then what would be the point of membership of the Council in the first place? And what message would it send to other members about ignoring rules they don’t like?
Most notable for me is that the entire transification of law in Europe ran on the steam of exactly the same type of “recommendation” from the same body: a 2010 recommendation on sexual orientation and genderfaff. Activists dined out on that for years (even more so than the Yogyakarta Principles — it had more legitimacy in the sense that the CoE ministers have a mandate to invent all this stuff) and yet it was essentially worth no more than the paper upon which it was written. Except in the eyes of national governments who wanted to be seen to be obeying the “democratic” institutions they had signed up to be a part of.
Anyway, I hope your kids enjoy having their brains scrambled by the Genderbread Person.
France nearly messed up the gay gameplan (gaymplan?) in Geneva
France arrived at the human rights council in Geneva early last month planning to table a resolution that would call for the decriminalisation of same-sex relationships in the countries where it’s still illegal. The draft resolution claimed that criminalising consensual same-sex conduct between adults is “contrary to international human rights principles”. It would have encouraged states to “review and repeal such laws”.
But the plan got dropped.
It was obviously not popular with the usual suspects (conservative Islamic states) but it also faced opposition from those who you would assume would be allies: a group of 140+ progressive NGOs. France ended up withdrawing the resolution and issued a statement instead, which was signed by 52 countries. It was all very weird.
To understand why it happened, why France’s “allies” would disapprove of a plan to decriminalise homosexuality, you need to upgrade your understanding of gay rights activism. Things have changed.
Gay does not exist in the places where homophobia is worst. I’m not saying homosexuality doesn’t exist, or that same-sex relationships don’t exist, I mean the identity of “the gay man” as a cultural trope is not happening and probably never will. A gay guy just going around being gay? With a boyfriend? Never going to happen. It is seen as a foreign idea/import, and the people working on the ground do not benefit from globogay swooping in in a rainbow cape telling their governments to decriminalise sodomy. France was a colonial country, and a lot of the places where homosexuality is illegal were colonies (though it must be pointed out: the French have long been cool with gay stuff, to their credit, and most ex-French countries where it’s illegal made it so after independence. It was mostly the British who got the severe ick about local homo arrangements. Check out what the puritanical Brits thought about Hijras, those “habitual sodomites and unnatural prostitutes”).
As such, the NGOs have chosen to frame decrim as a decolonisation project. And for that to work, Macron needs to stay the hell away from it. Read the letter they wrote to him about it.
Sure, they want decrim, but this is not your uncle’s gay rights movement. This is a new beast. If you read through the letter, you’ll notice that there is no mention of what, exactly, the activists want decriminalised. As far as I can deduce, and this is just my very educated guess, strategists are trying their luck to re-normalise precolonial third gender identities. Because while “gay” will never (ever) fly, the more culturally familiar third-gender workarounds for too-gay men are homegrown, and they might be an easier sell in their culturally-specific milieus.
These identities were right there before evil Christian colonialists outlawed male-on-male sex (nobody cares about the lesbians innit). So the strategy of the NGOs is to try to rewild the old homophobia of pretending gay men are a type of half-woman (under the neo-colonial labels of “trans” and, importantly, “intersex”). This might indeed improve the lives of gay men, but it certainly won’t do anything to increase support for regular old homosexuality without the elaborate ornamentation and narrative-weaving. What’s worse, the idea is going back up the tube in reverse, and flooding back into the countries where being gay is (relatively) okay. We in the West are importing this backward notion, because globohomo is, well, globo.
Look at the names of all the NGOs that supported the NGO letter to Macron, and where they’re based. Those vague human-rightsy names are not specifically about homosexuality. Their demands have to stay vague, and if you look into them, you will notice they are often inordinately invested in the T and the I, not the G.
The letter to Macron was blunt: the NGOs support the goal of decriminalisation but oppose the strategy, and they thought a high-profile Geneva resolution would strengthen the “foreign agenda” narrative. They were also miffed that France didn’t consult them.
France has an election coming up and I suspect Macron’s people are scrambling for scraps to offer to the gay gods. But they desisted on this long-standing gay rights priority, and the gender gods breathed a sigh of relief.
The WHO confirms: no release date for (delayed) trans guidelines
The WHO is supposed to be working on a set of guidelines for the clinical treatment of “trans people”, and the document was expected to be released sometime this year (early announcements said the meetings would begin in early 2024, with the process taking about 2 years). Much controversy surrounded the composition of the drafting group, which subsequently went through some light changes.
Last week I wrote to the WHO units responsible for the guidelines (HIV/AIDS and the gendershite department) and they confirmed: no guidelines are forthcoming, no date is known. This may be because the drafting committee can’t agree on what the guidelines should say.
To understand why this is happening (again, this is just my informed speculation), you can listen to this very long conversation with Stephanie Winn where I explain the problem that lies at the heart of the alliance of people who want to pretend trans is real. The unlikely collab can be broken down into two broad categories: one is public health officials who think that mainstreaming third-gender gay men is the only way to get them on HIV drugs (see France/UN story above) and the other is what I’ll just call the Judith Butler Perverts.
The public health people know in their heart of hearts that acceptance of “gay” is never going to happen in the places where HIV is worst. But what might happen is pre-colonial workarounds for gay men could get resurrected and gain more acceptance than the Village-People Western notion of the gay man identity. The JBPs, on the other hand, just want to change sex but can’t. Most of them are women from upper-class Western academic backgrounds, and some of them are STEM-type autogynephiles.
Why can’t they agree? As I found out in an undercover interview with one of the drafters, they ultimately have different “clinical endpoints”. The HIV guys want to know that transing away the gay actually works to achieve a public health goal. The JBPs just want their identities affirmed. Hormones-in-hand is the clinical endpoint for the JBPs. They do not want to wait to gather “evidence” that transing is beneficial to anyone for any reason (the evidence does not point in the direction they would like, especially for young people).
So we wait, with popcorn at the ready.
The stereotypes provision of CEDAW was once seen as a way out of trans madness. Not anymore
One of the most infuriatingly dumb things about transgenderism is that it’s based on bundles of stereotypes of the sexes. Women are like this/feel like this, so you can be one too. It’s incredibly retarded.
The UN’s dedicated women’s treaty — known as CEDAW — contains a provision specifically about stereotypes that had been touted as a potential vehicle for challenging stupid and regressive gender identity where it has replaced sex-based protections in laws all over the world. Indeed, For Women Scotland wrote to the CEDAW committee to make this point, and Sall Grover publicly linked the stereotypes provisions of CEDAW in the context of her Tickle v Giggle case.
Article 5(a) of CEDAW requires signatory states to take appropriate measures to
modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women.
Their argument is essentially that gender identity treats stereotypes as evidence that you are one sex or another, so it entrenches them rather than help eliminate them. But hopes that the CEDAW committee might come to understand this point have been dashed, because a new interpretive General Recommendation on “Dismantling Gender Stereotypes” has now been sewn on to the CEDAW treaty that treats resistance to gender identity claims as a manifestation of stereotypes. “LBTI women who are perceived to defy social and gender expectations face violence and discrimination rooted in stereotypes.” This treats any “No” directed at a man in a dress as a manifestation of the stereotype that men shouldn’t wear dresses. He can of course wear the dress, but he can’t join the women’s football team. This interpretation sees the dress as the reason, not the man. Human rights lawyer Claire Methven O’Brien’s argument is simpler: she says the CEDAW treaty is only for actual women, not for boys or men who say they are girls or women.
Allies like this ex-UN gender looper are celebrating it as a win for transvestites.
Ukraine human rights strategy gets queered to feed the Brussels gender beast
On 12 October, war-weary Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky signed off on an overhaul of the country’s national human rights strategy which, for the first time, mentions LGBTIQ+ people as a group at higher risk of human rights violations.
It says that sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics need to be more clearly reflected in Ukrainian law, and it covers all the bases: bias/discrimination, hate speech, social services, health, education, legal aid, public awareness, and police and judicial training. It tells the government to prepare “develop an operational plan” within 6 months.
Decree No. 1038/2026 approving a new National Human Rights Strategy replaces a 2021 version, and it is now in effect. It is not binding, but it’s a start. It’s part of Ukraine’s EU-pleasing strategy to speed up its membership bid. Ukraine does have the old-school psycho-medical transsexual model of legal gender recognition, and there is pressure (though no plan) to ease up on the requirements. A civil law bill that passed first reading this year firmly declares that man-woman is the only legally recognised marriage type, which I think tells you which way the cultural wind blows, despite what the bureaucrats in Brussels would like to push through. Box half-ticked, I bet they’re hoping the beast will be satiated for now.
Programmed motherlessness is being openly advertised by the Dutch Prime Minister
Mothers matter to children. It’s right there in the word: the word matter comes from the same latin root as mother. Materia means the substance from which something is made.
This material mattering is one of the reasons why surrogacy — where the womb of a woman is used to incubate a child on behalf of someone else — is not legal in most EU countries. The other reason is that commercialising the practice of breeding someone else’s children falls only to desperate and poor and/or unwilling women, and it is open to a myriad of abuses.
There are a few countries in Europe currently where there is an effort underway to develop this commercial industry, and the way it’s being done is by focussing on the dilemmas that currently face people who go ahead and purchase children in other countries and then bring them back and then face administrative mess.
The Prime Minister of the Netherlands is currently going through that process, and his government really wants to reopen the official debate about it, so a draft bill that eases the rules on surrogacy will be discussed in the legislature in December. I interviewed my beautiful and ferocious TERF friend Lydia Daniel about it.
Ultimately, there’s going to have to be a choice made about which state makes people sadder: childlessness, or motherlessness? Yes we have to pick one.
Trouble in Paradyke: French app for lesbians is off to a very TERFy start
A French company launched an app called Gouindr (a play on the word Gouine, which is French slang for dyke), and it ran into some trans-shaped problems immediately upon launch. The app features a report button that allows users to signal that the profile they are perusing is not, in fact, that of a woman, but of a man. The trouble is — get this folks — some men pretend to be women and there’s actually no difference between those men and other men who pretend to pretend to be women. Did you catch that?
Here’s the message that pops up when you click on the report button:
This profile doesn’t belong here?
Gouindr is reserved for women, cis and trans, and non-binary people. If you think that the profile of (INSERT AGP NAME HERE) is that of a cis man, alert the moderators: they will check carefully.
(INSERT AGP NAME HERE) will not know it was you. Trans women are welcome: this reporting feature concerns cis men only.
Soon after launch, a “clarification” post came from Gouindr HQ that trans women are women. How will you test?, asked allies. What about trans women who don’t pass? they pleaded. LOL, said the TERFs.
So I created an account (photo of “me” in a burka) and I reported the first loonytroon I came across, a bloke calling himself “Maïwenn” whose bio says he’s “ready for the revolution”.
The site was offline while it got sorted out, but it’s back up. Makes you realise just how bad English language skills are in France. How did they not know this would be an undoable nightmare?
Who can we thank? Navi Pillay
Navi Pillay, a South African judge, just won the Nobel Peace Prize and a lot of people are upset for various reasons (Gaza, but maybe also the Uighurs and Kashmir?).
But you don’t hear much about her role in the great entrooning.
Pillay ran the UN human rights office from 2008 to 2014, meaning she was in charge when globohomo really got off the ground. In fact, you could say that 2008 was when the “international community” got really serious about what came to be known as SOGI rights, and by the time Pillay finished her term, Bruce Jenner was hiding his man-arms on the cover of Vanity Fair.
As high commissioner, she was there for the very first SOGI UN Human Rights Council resolution (2011) which formally put gender identity alongside sexual orientation on the UN human rights agenda. She commissioned the first UN report calling for member states to “facilitate legal recognition of the preferred gender of transgender persons and establish arrangements to permit relevant identity documents to be reissued reflecting preferred gender and name”, and she launched the “Free & Equal” campaign to educate people out of their transphobia.
In a video message to the European Transgender Council in Budapest in May 2014, she made a statement in front of the UN logo saying that “the T in LGBT should never be silent.” She flagged “forced sterilisation” in Europe (the newly-introduced activist term for what is, in other contexts, called bottom surgery, sex-reassignment surgery, or gender-affirming care). She also praised Argentina’s gender identity law and the Indian Supreme Court’s recent recognition of third genders.
The 2011 report criticised the requirement in many countries for legal gender recognition to be open only to those who are unmarried. This ultimately trapped people in (legally) same-sex marriages that they never consented to. But we never talk about those people.
Here she is. Say thanks to Navi.
In other news…
Germany: Berlin hormone house for “dolls” gets raided. They were allegedly giving out medicines for gender-affirming care on Sunday evenings. The raid took place during a “dolls” meetup. Anabolic steroids were also seized (T, innit).
Ireland: Men who ran the Dublin marathon under women’s bibs to be given a lifetime ban
Ireland: (current prez of EU Council) has proposed cutting the NGO budget and the NGOs are not happy. Not many people turned up to protest about this.
Ireland: A big multi-day Irish government-sponsored LGBTIQ event was kept very quiet but everyone posted about it afterwards on LinkedIn. Reams of posts.
Hungary: Sooooooo… all sides are just pretending to have won in the Hungarian LGBTIQ showdown?
Norway: Council of Europe issues report on Norway and urges medical interventions for “non-binary” people, despite authorities’ report of high detransition rates
US: The Ford Foundation, the biggest funder of women’s studies and then gender studies, is restructuring its funding priorities to “fight autocracy”. Gender will be part of this anti-autocracy fight (genders and “LGBTQ people”) as a building block of democracies. Be afraid.
Slovenia: After Finland, it’s the Slovenes who are cutting the NGOs off
Germany: What do you lesbian moms think of Alice Weidel’s answer about the man-woman-father-mother question? Send me your thoughts
Brussels: No transvestites (so far) in this year’s European Parliament “priorities” document for the UN women’s meeting in New York (though the usual nutters are trying their best). Remember last year?
Ireland: Armagh man carried out “opportunistic” sexual assaults on young girls in a leisure centre’s showers
UK: Richard Dawkins deleted his tweet calling transvestites delusional. Booooo.
Sweden: Bernard Lane’s gender clinic newsletter: “the current situation for young transgender people remains catastrophic” and represents “the biggest medical scandal Sweden has ever seen”.
World: We should definitely decolonise honour killings. It’s the right thing to do
Ireland: Everyone freaked out about the consent ad. But then Brenda Power drew attention back to the real consent problem
Brussels: Increasing talk of nuking paperwork-heavy gendershite policies in the next EU research budget
Brussels: I went to this event in the European Parliament. Bunch of bastards.
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.