Monday 1st of March 2021

Train sets or baby dolls?...


There is a tendency to be hasty in dealing with transgenderism. It has been described as a medical condition, when kids and adults feel that they live in the wrong sex-allocated body.


The psychology is complex. A passing moment in believing something or something else is part of learning. Becoming entrenched in our ideas and feelings can become obsessive. We learn to lie as much to others as to our self. 

So, has gender reassignment become an industry or a salvation? Are beliefs in god mucking up the debate? Should the question be asked of young kids below the age of reason? Is this a question of creating habits of playing with train sets or baby dolls? How much levels of aggression and violence in men can distort our feelings?
These are questions for the experts. Do we trust the experts? On many issue, opinions are divided and the question of gender reassignment is a difficult topic as this can involve irreversible surgery, then seen as a mistake or a personal liberation of indentity by the patient. 
In the long run, the process success is about the proportion of happy sex-transitions versus the number of unhappy ones — in which such process is probably more of an affluent country possibility than an eventuality in a poor country in which survival is precarious — not because of gender identification but simply because of lack of resources to contemplate the issue… Medical gender reassignment could be seen as a luxury. But is it? As well most poor countries could be the subject of dictatorial religious impositions that supress any “tendencies”.
At present, even major writers and politicians have entered the debate, especially in regard to fairness in sports competition, when former males now females have had a more muscular body than females born. Do female born female resent the competition?
The problem isn’t new. In centuries past there were the “castratoes” in which males abandoned their maleness voluntarily or under duress — either to become (funny) “monks” or high-pitched singers. 

Enters Lilith...
Democrat outsider Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has found herself at the center of another attack this week after introducing a bill that would limit participation in women’s sports to biological women.The Protect Women’s Sports Act, which Gabbard introduced with Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) on Thursday, seeks to level the playing field in women’s sports by recognizing that different sexes are born with different physical abilities.Gabbard’s bill alleges that the anti-discrimination education amendment from 1972, Title IX, has become misinterpreted over the years, allowing those who were born male to unfairly compete against biological females.She said the law had led to “life-changing opportunities for girls and women that never existed before” and must be protected.Gabbard said Title IX was being “weakened” by some states who were “misinterpreting” it and “creating uncertainty, undue hardship and lost opportunities for female athletes.”

Our legislation protects Title IX’s original intent which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex.

Gabbard was soon accused of transphobia by journalists and liberal commentators, who branded the Hawaiian Democrat a “bigot,”“scum,”“horrible,” and a “TERF” – or Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, a term which was also used against Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling after she expressed concern about children who were going through gender transitions.
Read more:

In an age where lies are worshipped and cowardice celebrated, Tulsi Gabbard is despised for her bravery and commitment to truth, while Kamala Harris is lauded for...what, exactly?Tulsi Gabbard, the four-term Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, is currently being attacked by liberals for introducing The Protect Women’s Sports Act, which seeks to protect women’s athletics by recognizing that different sexes are born with different physical abilities. Reasonable and rational people realize that men and women are biologically different. Reasonable and rational people also realize that on average, men are bigger, stronger and faster than women, and that just because someone born a male now subjectively “identifies” as a female, that doesn’t alter the objective fact that copious amounts of testosterone were pumping through their body as it developed, thus making their competing against biological girls and women in sport not only unfair, but dangerous. 
Read more:

Gender transition offered to children as young as 3 or 4

NHS facilities in the UK have started to offer guidance on gender transition to children as young as 3 or 4 years old and participation in gender transition programs has skyrocketed.

One center, called the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, says that compared with ten years ago, participation has skyrocketed, by 3,200%, with the rate for girls up by 5,337%.

With its records showing that referrals are more common than ever, the center suggests that cases of destransition will also rise.

In a statement, one trust spokesperson disputed Evan’s description saying:

"Decisions about physical interventions made in our care are arrived at after a thorough exploration process. While some of our patients may decide not to pursue physical treatment or drop out of treatment, the experience of regret described here is rarely seen.

However, some people think further research and more discussions are needed surrounding the topic of gender dysphoria, as well as potential alternatives to gender transition.

Source:'Hundreds' of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex. Sky News.


This situation is not the same as “intersex” people. Gender transition is more of a psychological perception, while intersex is a physical condition of being born with both sexual organs, male and female:
“You go to the doctor, and the doctor says, ‘Okay, we’re just going to have a quick look now.’ What they were talking about was looking up your shirt for breast development or looking down your pants for development there as well, just to make sure everything was normal and okay.“It was always very invasive,” she says, “it felt very violating.”Suddenly, Cody looks upset and says: “Yeah, I can’t talk about this.”With what can only be described as courage, she takes a moment to gather herself and then presses on.“It just comes back to this idea of trust in the medical community, “ she says.“I never had the language to ask why it was happening. I never really understood the reasons why the doctors would ask me questions.”As a child, Cody believes she was treated like a “dumb kid” by medical staff.“There was no way to give informed consent to anything they ever asked of me, because they never presented the information,” Cody says.
Like many other Australian adults who are intersex, Cody was operated on as a baby. While she deeply loves her parents and believes they made the best possible decision with the information they had at the time, Cody still wonders if she was “turned into a woman, whether or not that was something I’ve wanted to be.”

Read more:

Either way, the choices if there are choices to be made are difficult and can affect personalities for life. I know people who regret the switch and some who are ever so pleased. One sticking point is the age at which a switch is being made… 

See also:

Clipping at top from 1960…

LGBT conversion therapy:

LGBT conversion therapy: Religious leaders call for ban to 'abhorrent' practice

Over 300 religious leaders have called for a worldwide clampdown on conversion therapy for LGBT+ people. Germany is one of the few countries to have introduced a ban. DW spoke to two survivors of the practice.

"We recognize with sadness that certain religious teachings have often, throughout the ages, caused and continue to cause deep pain and offense to those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex."

This was a rare admission from members of the clergy, but that is one of the key statements in a declaration signed by 370 interfaith religious leaders from around the world.

They came together this week for a conference calling for a global ban on the practice of "conversion therapy" — the practice by which LGBT+ people are subjected to psychological or physical efforts to "cure" them of their sexual or gender identity. It is based on the belief that cisgender heterosexuality is the norm and anything else is an illness or abnormality — a belief that the World Health Organization (WHO) has rejected.

Among the signatories to the declaration organized by the UK's Ozanne Foundation were high-ranking representatives of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Sikh faiths, including South African former archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu, and England's Bishop of Liverpool.

Germany among front-runners

Germany became the fifth country to introduce an outright ban on the practice for minors in 2020, following Ecuador, Brazil, Taiwan and Malta as well as several US states and Canadian provinces, according to rights group OutRight International. Bans have since been introduced in Albania, Switzerland and the Australian province of Victoria and have been proposed in many more countries, including France and the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson described the practice as "abhorrent."

But many countries are yet to introduce legislation, despite widespread condemnation of the practice by Western governments and human rights organizations.

It is difficult to determine if the law in Germany has made a difference, as there are no statistics but activists hope that it has set an example.

"We can be confident that the new law has created a lot of uncertainty among those who offer these 'therapies.' But no one knows for sure if there is actually less going on in Germany," Markus Ulrich, spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (LSVD) explained.

Two survivors of the practice told DW that wider bans around the world may be slow to materialize — and that Germany's rules do not go far enough.

Leading a 'double life'

Growing up in Cairo, Egypt, in a conservative Muslim family, Ahmed El Hady knew he was gay from a young age. He decided to come out to his family while an undergraduate at university as he no longer wanted to live a "double life."

"They were so angry. They took me to a psychiatrist to cure me of being 'deviant,'" El Hady explained. He was also encouraged by fellow students and professors to seek a "cure," and was questioned by campus police. When he refused to renounce his sexuality, he began to receive death threats.



Read more:


See also:

our modern socrates: alan turing...


“I felt I had to do something”

One 21-year-old woman who reached out to Evans said gender reassignment did not help her gender dysphoria and that she has therefore also detransitioned.

"She said she felt shunned by the LGBT community for being a traitor. So I felt I had to do something," Evans said.

The woman had identified as male since the age of 13. After taking testosterone therapy, her voice deepened, she grew facial hair and her body started to change. She was due to undergo breast-removal surgery this summer, but started to change her mind in May and decided to stop taking her hormones and to identify as female again.


Read more:

care for transgender children...

Puberty blockers give transgender children time to understand who they are, writes Simona Giordano.

In light of the British High Court’s decision that children under 16 are unlikely to be able to consent to puberty blockers, questions are being asked about the standards of care for transgender children, and the extent to which health services encourage transgender identity and transition.

Transgender children are not a recent phenomenon, nor are the therapies provided to them. The first standards of care were published in 1979, and the eighth revision is on its way. Clinical practice internationally has evolved in this time, from initial psychoanalytic or behavioural therapy that tried to fix the ‘‘mismatch’’ between ‘‘the body and mind’’, to today’s approach, where established gender identity clinics try to help children find out their identity in a non-judgmental way.

Children are seen by a multidisciplinary team. Intervention includes psychotherapy, social intervention and family work; puberty blockers are only recommended to those whose gender dysphoria is significant after the onset of puberty. They are not recommended for gender non-conforming adolescents, only for those who experience significant distress because of pubertal development, after careful consideration of the alternatives and in most cases with parental involvement and support.

Intervention at this stage is not ‘‘gender affirming’’: if anything, it is ‘‘gender nonaffirming’’. The masculinisation or feminisation is paused and will restart as treatment is interrupted; the child gains time to explore their gender without the stress of the developing body, and there is robust evidence, based on more than 20 years of clinical practice, that this intervention reduces distress and improves psychosocial adaptation. Only older adolescents who are highly likely to transition (partly or fully) may be offered testosterone or oestrogens.

If someone is tempted to see the provision of this clinical care as risky or dangerous, we must remember how risky life was for transgender youth before the establishment of child gender identity services. Many would buy hormones from friends or on the street, because remaining without medical treatment was not an option. Injecting hormones without medical supervision at unregulated dosages exposed them to serious health risks.

Facing employment discrimination and unable to access healthcare services, trans people found sex work was often the only way to raise money for treatment. Violence, trauma, HIV, sexually transmitted infection and entanglement in the justice system were all too common.

Denying healthcare to gender-diverse youth is not being cautious; it is leaving them without recourse. Those who question whether adolescents can give consent to treatment must remember they do not consent to their developing bodies either. While many gender nonconforming children do not transition, others find pubertal development distressing. Trans boys may not tolerate breast development, and binding is painful and harmful; they often experience the appearance of menarche as humiliating. Trans girls may not tolerate the growth of facial and bodily hair, the masculinisation of their bodies, the spontaneous erections, the deepening of their voices.

These experiences might cause psychological disintegration and are a well-known risk for these young people. Suicide attempts are very high in this group, even in those with supportive families, and evidence shows that suicide attempts are reduced significantly when clinical care is provided.

Omitting treatment at the right time is neither a ‘‘cautious’’ nor a neutral choice: it means exposure to predictable, serious and preventable risk. Limiting the clinicians’ rights to provide treatment is forcing them to violate their duties towards their patients, and is to deny gender minorities the fundamental human right to identity and to health.

The biggest threat to the health of gender diverse people is not the provision of medical care

– thinking it is borders on absurd. As the World Health Organisation, the Council of Europe and the UN have repeatedly stressed, the biggest threat to the health of gender diverse people is the barriers to medical care.

In Australia those barriers are high. Only Melbourne has a fairly well resourced gender service for young people, and it can barely meet demand. In most areas in the country, young people do not have any access to gender care. In NSW, there is one small regional service doing its best and a tiny clinic at Westmead Children’s Hospital in Sydney with a huge wait list.

Growing numbers of referrals are not the sign of a problem but a sign of success. It is to be welcomed that young people feel safe enough to express how they feel, and we should take pride in the fact that young people can access medications more safely than ever and that these are prescribed by specialists who can offer quality assurance and follow-up. We should be careful not to do anything to prejudice that safety.

Simona Giordano is a professor of bioethics at the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester Law School.


Read more:


SMH 20/12/2020



Read from top.

when the guardian is worse than news corp's jesus...


Why I had to leave The Guardian

If you were bullied by 338 colleagues, what would you do?



It is March 2020. For several months now I have been trying to write something — anything — about the so-called “trans debate” in my Guardian column. But if I ever slip a line in about female experience belonging to people with female bodies, and the significance of this, it is always subbed out. It is disappeared. Somehow, this very idea is being blocked, not explicitly, but it certainly isn’t being published. My editors say things like: “It didn’t really add to the argument”, or it is a “distraction” from the argument.

Distraction has always been a triggering word for me. In a good way. My PhD supervisor told me I was “a woman of too many distractions”. This was because I was venturing into journalism, frustrated by the dead language of academia. She also asked me whether having a grant made any difference. It turns out that my distractions were paying the rent, as they have been ever since.

Even though I’d been writing for them for decades, editors consistently try to steer me towards “lifestyle” subjects for my column. One even suggests that I shouldn’t touch politics at all. And yet I won the Orwell Prize for political journalism the year before. This was for articles on Brexit and war remembrance, among other things.

Maybe they were steering me away from certain subjects because they thought they were dealing with some mad old bint, or maybe they were scared and had been indoctrinated into the cult of righteousness that the Guardian embodies. At its best, the paper deserves to see itself as a beacon of the Left, but lately it has been hard to define what the Left consists of beyond smug affirmation. During the Corbyn years the paper had a difficult job to do: support Labour but to be honest about Corbyn and his cronies’ monstrous failings.

Of course, not every editor is nervous; but the anxiety around certain issues remains tangible. It has often been this way and none of this is new to me. Bad columns don’t come from bad opinions, they come from a lack of conviction. Readers know that instinctively, so to steer writers away from what they want to write about is a strange thing for an editor to do.

But, then, journalism has been in a strange place lately, unsure of itself and what it should be doing and giving itself away for free. A case of low self-esteem one might say, but not in my paper which makes journalists redundant even as it pays moderators to delete comments calling me a cunt under one of my columns about Scottish independence. Have I got issues? More than enough to go round.

My relationship with the paper has always been slightly odd, I guess.

So, I finally get to write a piece on trans issues. And 338 “colleagues” write a letter of complaint to the editor, alluding to that column.

Strung out to cry

Now, six months on, I have resigned. And I am still trying to work out why I have been treated so appallingly.

My hurt is obviously minuscule compared to so much of what has happened in the world. It’s a flesh wound and I shouldn’t make a fuss. But, do I look like a doormat with Welcome written on it?

There were no such upset letters organised regarding the various hot Tory takes about difficult subjects that we sometimes publish. Seumas Milne even reprinted a sermon by Osama Bin Laden. What about that? Not a word. So what did I do that was so terrible? I stepped outside the orthodoxy.

Perhaps I need to put my denunciation into a larger context. At the end of the year one reflects, right?

When I was first at the paper, in the 1990s, there were no women on the Comment pages. My column featured in the “Women’s pages”, which was seen as Features. The editor at the time, Peter Preston, took me out for an awkward lunch after I won Columnist of the Year at the British Press Awards and said: “It must be nice to be a lady columnist. You can write about painting your toenails.”

I had been meaning to raise the idea of an actual pay rise, but I had no idea how to do it. I don’t understand middle-class people and money (not that Preston was middle class but certainly his environment was totally bourgeois). So when he asked if there was anything he could do to make me happier, I just blurted out: “Give me more money.”

Preston’s power lay in silence. He had, after all, spent time in an iron lung. His ability to not speak was quite something, and I admired his refusal to make others comfortable. In one way. But I may as well have just farted loudly. I had made some awful faux pas: asking to be paid the same as men who were not as good as me. That was the end of the meal.

The thing is, I had found out I was being paid less than half what my male counterparts were earning. So I got an agent. She wore very short skirts and had a way of rattling her BMW keys that seemed to unnerve men. The one and only time Preston ever called me was to frantically beg — no uncomfortable silences — that he would never have to see her again. Result.

Another part of not knowing my place was that I also asked to be moved from the Women’s pages to the Comment pages. They offered a Monday slot which would mean I had to work on Sundays. As the only woman in the section, and single parent to boot, I asked them if they had ever heard of equal opportunities. Again I was not only unclubbable but unspeakable. No movement was possible. Madly, I suggested that Hugo Young be moved. I didn’t even realise he was Jesus in the hierarchy, floating above us all.


Read more:



Read from top.


Se also: 

conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth. —JFK...



the army of liberal citizen dictators...


forgive me if I don’t wear a pink pussy hat...

By Joanna Williams, the founder of the think tank Cieo. She is the author of Women vs Feminism, Why We All Need Liberating From the Gender Wars and is a regular columnist for Spiked. Follow her on Twitter @jowilliams293


Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have done more damage to women’s rights in one day than Donald Trump managed in four years with their misguided Executive Order on Gender Identity Discrimination.

Back in January 2017, just one day after the inauguration of President Trump, millions of women in countries all around the world took to the streets to protest against the incoming administration. Although Trump had not yet passed a single piece of legislation, the pink pussy-hat marchers were adamant his regime would harm women’s rights.

Fast forward to this weekend. The knitted hats will remain boxed up and the feminists will stay at home. With Joe Biden in the White House and – even better – Kamala Harris as the first elected black/South Asian woman vice president, the sisters no longer feel any need to protest. They got their wish.

And yet, within hours of taking up the post, Biden has done more to set back women’s rights in the US than Trump did in his entire four years in office. One of his first acts was to sign an Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.

The pink pussy-hat brigade purr at the order’s mention of “respect” and “dignity.” They swoon at talk of the right for all people to “be able to live without fear, no matter who they are or whom they love.” This is a far cry from Trump’s crude and offensive locker room remarks. But make no mistake. Combating discrimination on the basis of gender identity is disastrous for women and girls.

Unlike sex, gender identity is a made-up concept. It’s the bizarre notion that regardless of the biological reality of our bodies, we all have a feeling, deep down inside, about whether we are really male or female. This feeling, the gender identity champions tell us, overrides our hormones, chromosomes, and genitalia. How we feel about our gender is more important than whether or not we have a beard, breasts, penis, or ovaries, when it comes to defining us as men or women. Anyone can now be a man or a woman, and the onus is on the world to accept us for who we say we are.

The language of Biden’s executive order is warm and inclusive. It is hard to argue against statements like: “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports.” But when gender identity overrides sex, what’s being said here is that children should be able to use changing rooms and join sports teams depending upon whether they feel like a boy or a girl. For young children this is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever. But for adolescents it matters enormously.

You don’t need to assume the worst of teenage boys to acknowledge that teenage girls might want privacy when using the toilets or getting dressed after sport. Puberty changes both male and female bodies. Boys become, on average, taller, heavier, stronger, and faster than girls. Biology never claimed to be fair. But what’s really unfair is to allow these stronger, faster boys to compete alongside and against girls on the running track and on the football pitch. Biden’s executive order might sound nice, but it signals the end of girls’ participation in sports.

Sad day for women’s sports. Women must compete against biological males at the risk of injury and loss of title, thanks to a new Biden executive order. Don’t ever tell me this is “pro-woman.” It’s not. It’s destructive and malicious.



When it comes to adults, outlawing discrimination on the basis of gender identity is just as dangerous. There are good reasons why prisons, domestic violence refuges, certain health services and even some beauty salons are exclusively for females. This is not to discriminate irrationally against transgender people but to protect women who, in these specific circumstances, are particularly vulnerable.

Biden’s executive order opens the door for men to access women’s private spaces. It makes it more difficult for medical professionals to direct advice about cervical smear tests, contraception and abortion provision, or breast cancer checks, at the women they are intended to help. It puts low-paid women who offer intimate beauty services at risk. And it makes it far more difficult to measure accurately whether there are sex-based differences in rates of pay or access to employment.

That the new president has moved so quickly to place the rights of transgender people above women should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone. Today it has been announced that visitors to the White House website will be allowed to specify their pronouns. Kamala Harris and other progressives within the Democratic Party have long since taken to declaring their pronouns at every available opportunity.

The obsession with pronouns shows that modern feminism is so caught up in virtue signalling inclusivity, it fails completely to defend women’s rights – which should surely be its primary objective. And, tragically, far too many campaigners were so single-minded in their desire to see the back of Trump, they turned a blind eye to the problems with Team Biden.

We are now being bombarded with gushing news stories swooning over the new vice president’s fashion choices and women, apparently, wearing pearls and Converse sneakers in honour of Queen Kamala. Meanwhile, stories of the girl who pulls out of the athletics team, or refuses to use the school toilets, or the woman who misses a medical appointment because she didn’t realise she was a ‘cervix-haver’, or the woman attacked while incarcerated, go untold.

I did not join in with the women’s march against Trump four years ago. But with the Biden regime there is already something to protest against. Just forgive me if I don’t wear a pink pussy hat.



Read more:


Read from top.


readings to old kiddies...


Melbourne-based bookstore Readings has apologized for programming radical feminist author Julie Bindel, who stands accused of transphobia. The statement came in response to an apparent complaint by a queer book author.

In a statement released on Tuesday, the bookstore apologized for “any hurt caused by highlighting the work of an author whose current stance is to divide our community,” and said it “regrets programming Julie Bindel in 2018.”

Bindel is an English feminist, a researcher and long-time campaigner for women’s rights, who makes a particular focus on protecting sex workers from abuse. She authored several books on the topic, and one of them, ‘The Pimping of Prostitution’, was the subject of her July 2018 appearance at Readings.

The event drew criticism at the time from people unhappy with Bindel’s anti-prostitution stance or her views on gender reassignment surgery, which she sees as a modern version of ‘gay conversion therapy’.

we are disgusted & disappointed to learn that @ReadingsBooks is actively giving a platform to Islamophobia, transphobia, biphobia, whorephobia by hosting an event with Julie Bindel tomorrow. we implore publishers to pull their books & readers to boycott Readings

— Subbed In (subbedin) July 25, 2018


Her controversial politics were widely known by the time Readings hosted her and didn’t prevent the event from happening – which even won the bookstore some praise for bravery in the face of online critics. But now the retailer evidently believes the invitation was wrong.

Thanks to some misogynist whinging on Twitter, I discovered this was on and had the chance to go and see the fabulous Julie Bindel at Readings. And max respect to Readings for not being bullied out of hosting a important writer on a critical subject.

— jo smith (Trottydog) July 26, 2018


The statement appears to come in response to a complaint from Alison Evans, who restricted viewership of their tweets, making their words unavailable to the public. Evans, a queer young adult fiction author, is a self-described genderqueer, who “wrote” themself “into existence.”

Apologies, here's our public statement regarding the event: Readings prides itself on ensuring everyone in our community feels safe, respected and considered. We apologise for any hurt caused by highlighting the work of an author whose current stance is to divide our community.

— Readings (ReadingsBooks) February 9, 2021


The apology angered Bindel, who went on Twitter to demand an explanation. She described her recollection of the “packed” event at Readings and the wide representation of members of minority communities attending it.

Thread: During a book tour in Australia I was invited to do one of those 'an evening with' events during which I read from my book (on the horrors of the global sex trade) and conversed with the women and men in the audience. Almost three years later......

— Julie Bindel (bindelj) February 9, 2021


“There were loads of feminists at that event, on account of it being about the hideous abuse of women and girls world-wide, and in particular, in Australia, NZ & across Canada, indigenous females. Many of those feminists are lesbians, on account of the fact that we have done much of the heavy lifting when it comes to countering male violence,” she said.

Please would @ReadingsBooks tell me where they fit in your vision of ‘community’? Shame on you.

A later tweet from Bindel apparently shows a screen-saved post by Evans conditioning her appearance at a scheduled Readings event on the bookstore apologizing.

Wonder if this is anything to do with Reading's apology? Scratches head...

— Julie Bindel (bindelj) February 9, 2021


Judging by the reaction to Readings’ statement, its belated cancellation attempt didn’t go over well with the public.

If you are attempting to "cancel" an author three years after they did a book launch at your shop because of commercial pressure, this does not help "everyone" in your community feel safe. It shows a lack of commitment to academic and intellectual freedom, and a lack of courage.

— Rachel Rowles Davis (RowlesDavis) February 9, 2021


Who demands an apology from a bookseller for a talk three years after the fact. Are people coming out of the woodwork who had their lives ruined by these readings? What in the fresh hell?

— Medium Mye (scarletwalking) February 9, 2021


I went to one of those events and was glad to do so. I go to Readings all the time. No more. It is not Julie Bindel creating division, it is actions like this - discouraging the free flow of information and discussion. What are you afraid of?

— Alex K (AlexK_pondering) February 9, 2021



Read more:



Read from top.


As a man, should I have no idea about what's going on in the @realvagina? Or the #babybumpers? Unless we move on a notch to "goatsaremything" which would offend everyone, or read only blank porn magazines, as to not offend anyone? Should everyone learn how to knit?

apologising about the apology...

Melbourne bookshop Readings has backtracked after being pressured into making an apology over a 2018 appearance by feminist author Julie Bindel. The apology was demanded by a non-binary author before a Zoom reading.

Readings managing director Mark Rubbo acknowledged he’d made a mistake in hurrying to apologize for Bindel’s event three years ago, telling the UK Times that “bookshops should be homes to all ideas.”

While he admitted that “Julie Bindel has done amazing work for the women’s movement particularly in the area of violence against women,” he nevertheless insisted that “her views on transgender people are particularly controversial and have caused distress in that community.” 


Read more:


Read from top (especially above)... Note that transgenders are causing distress in the @realwomen community... Take a deep breath, accept each other but don't run against each others at the Olympics.