• Joan Smith at UnHerd:

    The Government has quietly broken another promise it made to women. Not the Waspi cohort this time, although that was bad enough. Now Anneliese Dodds, the laughably-titled Minister for Women and Equalities, has given a pat on the head to men who want to use women-only spaces. The announcement was sneaked out in a dry statement from the Government’s Office for Equality and Opportunity earlier this week, and amounts to nothing less than the acceptance of an informal policy of self-ID in shops, gyms and refuges.

    The change is buried in a report on the way organisations interpret the single-sex exception in the 2010 Equality Act. Earlier this year Dodds’s predecessor as women’s minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a call for evidence to discover whether public and private bodies were wrongly suggesting that people have a legal right to access single-sex spaces on the basis of self-ID. Badenoch takes a robust line on men who want to invade women-only spaces, but the responses have fallen into the hands of a government much more open to the unrelenting demands of trans activists.

    According to Dodds, the replies indicate that some organisations are operating a policy of allowing men to access single-sex spaces which “correspond with their self-identified gender”. But, she argues that this is not a breach of the law so long as they don’t “incorrectly suggest that this is mandated by the Act”. Companies can allow men into women-only toilets and changing rooms, in other words, as long as they claim it’s their own policy and not based on the act.

    It’s self-ID by the back door, as Sex Matters was quick to point out. “It’s a green light to any man who wants to get naked in front of women, in spaces that are supposed to be women-only,” the organisation declared on X yesterday. Dr Michael Foran, a leading expert on equality law, thinks it may not even be legal. “Important development on the govs [sic] position on single-sex services, suggesting it is lawful to operate a single-sex service on a mixed-sex basis determined by Self-ID,” he wrote online. “I don’t think this is correct,” he added with admirable restraint, pointing out that it might amount to indirect discrimination or harassment.

    It certainly appears to break Labour’s manifesto commitment to uphold single-sex spaces. It also contradicts Keir Starmer’s insistence, during the general election campaign, that it’s “very important” to protect them. Does his government care? Not likely. Labour’s eagerness to suck up to Stonewall and Pink News in Opposition hardly suggested the party could be trusted with women’s rights.

    Is anyone really surprised?

    From the Telegraph:

    The Government has said transgender women can use some single-sex spaces intended for females.

    Sir Keir Starmer previously said it was very important to “protect female-only spaces” in a debate with Rishi Sunak during the general election campaign.

    However, Labour has now been accused of breaking that pledge after releasing a response on a consultation, which confirmed that public and private bodies can write policies that allow transgender women into female-only places….

    Branding the response “deeply worrying”, Claire Coutinho, the shadow minister for women, told The Telegraph that this was “yet another promise” that Labour had “broken to the electorate”.

  • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In two minds about this. Surely it's been done to death by now, and all the interviewees know who she is. Seems aimed at the US market, who are just catching on – or not. On the other hand she's still funny: that line at the end with Brian Cox….

  • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • "A leading figure in feminism and gender studies, the thinker welcomes El Pais in California after being voted one of the most influential minds in the world". Yes of course, it's Judith Butler, and the interview's header sets out the core belief of this most influential of minds: "If you sacrifice a minority like trans people, you are operating within a fascist logic".

    The theme is embellished within:

    Q. Do you understand the concerns of feminists who think that gender could result in the erasure of women?

    A. Some feminists, I think unwittingly, have allied themselves in places like the U.K. and Spain with the far right when it comes to instigating this phantasm about gender. I understand those fears, but that doesn’t mean that I think they’re based on knowledge. Perhaps those feminists need a better understanding of who trans people are. Womanhood won’t be erased just because we open the category and invite some more people in.

    Her message would seem to be: people who disagree with me are far right fascists. Which is how first-year students tend to argue, though perhaps with less gravitas. She is – sorry, they is – in her sixties now, after all.

    Perhaps it's she – they – who needs a better understanding of who trans people are. Trans women are men. If you invite men into the category of womanhood, then womanhood loses its meaning as a category. And this is not just a philosophical point: it has real world consequences in women-only spaces, in sports, in rape centres, in women's prisons….in women's lives.

    Victoria Smith at UnHerd:

    The El País interview is disappointing — though, really, it shouldn’t be. As far as sex and gender are concerned, it rehashes the same tired, anti-feminist non-gotchas which appear in the fifth chapter of Butler’s most recent book, Who’s Afraid of Gender? If Butler didn’t change between the publication of Gender Trouble and that book, why should she be any different a few months down the line? It’s disappointing, all the same. There is something bewildering, not to mention enraging, about the utter lack of growth in Butler’s vision. If anything, it has become increasingly narrow. As more and more evidence piles up of the practical cost of denying the immutability and political salience of biological sex, Butler becomes more and more obtuse.

    She dodges questions, feigns misunderstanding, or drifts into whataboutery. When Seisdedos attempts to pin down what is meant by “finding another way”, wondering where Butler would “draw the line for considering a minor ready to break these rules”, she waffles. When she is asked about “parents who are worried about their children making mistakes”, she recounts having “a man say to me in Chile that he didn’t want a gay or lesbian family living next door to him” — which is bad, but hardly related to whether or not an autistic 14-year-old should have her breasts cut off.

    Asked to comment on the role of the pharmaceutical industry in “gender-affirming” treatments, Butler notes that “hormone replacement therapy for women who are postmenopausal is a much bigger industry”. She then suggests that puberty blockers sit on a continuum with kids “questioning gender norms, including the version of masculinity that Trump represents”. On the topic of women’s objections to trans activism, she attempts to conflate “trans struggles” with women knowing “how difficult and necessary it is to struggle for autonomy”. Clearly not too much autonomy, though, lest one becomes Hitler-adjacent.

    It is all so terribly weak, and it’s difficult to believe Butler is not aware of this….

    Butler is 68 years old and has never grown up. On the contrary, she has regressed to the angry adolescent stage of calling any middle-aged woman who disagrees with her a fascist. It has been a good run — 35 years — but the gig is well and truly up.

  • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • More on Qatar (Seth Frantzen yesterday) from Yigal Carmon at MEMRI:

    Qatar is a big winner in the Syrian revolution, having supported the U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) and its leader Abu Muhammad Al-Joulani (formerly ISIS and Al-Qaeda and now Muslim Brotherhood) who has a $10 million bounty on his head. This is Qatar's classic game: support the Islamist terrorists and then present itself as a mediator, liaison, and even peacemaker – the arsonist playing firefighter. As in Afghanistan, as in Egypt in 2010, and as in every Muslim country.

    In every Muslim country where there is a battle between the Islamists and the secularists, Qatar supports the Islamists, as in Gaza supporting Hamas for years, building its military might and enabling October 7. And now, guess what – they are back in the saddle as mediators.

    Who brought them back to the negotiations after the secular pro-U.S. president of Egypt threw them away? The U.S. – the country that has suffered more than any country from Qatar's duplicity and hidden subversive, anti-U.S. activities, including the 9/11 attacks.

    While the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were mainly Saudis, recruited to Al-Qaeda as individuals, the mastermind of the attacks, Khaled Sheik Mohammad (KSM), was a former Qatari government employee at the Ministry of Electricity and Water in the capital Doha, who frequently was allowed to embark on terrorist missions in the world (see below). And when, in 1996, the FBI came to arrest him and told only the Emir, KSM disappeared within hours.

    All of this has been substantiated in American intelligence and judicial documents, including KSM's confession….

  • https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Omaha, Nebraska, 1910. "Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Locomotive CBQ 2867."

    image from www.shorpy.com
    [Photo: Shorpy/Louis A. Marre Rail Transportation Photograph Collection]

  • Interesting X thread reader from Seth Frantzen:

    Some people see Oct 7 as primarily linked to the Iran-backed axis. However, in my view it’s much more closely linked to the long-term goal of Ankara and Doha. Both host Hamas and backed Oct 7. Both are western allies which gives Hamas much more clout than Hezbollah or the Assad regime had

    Iran’s goal in backing Hamas was to exploit the Israel-Palestinian conflict to have a “foot” within what it believed was a popular Arab and “Sunni” cause. It already had PIJ as a proxy, it wanted to grow outside this narrow niche. To do that it promised to knit Hamas into its network of proxies

    The Houthis joined this because it was convenient for them and Hezbollah and the Iraqi militias did the same, against their own best interests probably. But for Ankara and Doha October 7 is THE cause. It’s not just an exploitation, it’s the main goal

    Hamas is a genocidal organization. We remember it grew into this via tutelage from Ankara and Doha, not primarily from Iran. Iran helped it build missiles, but the ideology of October 7 that led them to kidnap kids and massacre old people and the Nova festival is tied more directly to the ideology of Ankara and Doha.  […]

    The decline of Iran’s axis will leave Hamas with the same ideological foundation. Its genocidal foundation is primarily backed by Doha and Ankara whereas its missile and technological ambitions were a result of Iranian support (like Houthi missiles etc). The blending of the Iranian tech know-how with the ideological genocidal views is what made Oct 7 possible. To prevent another occurrence requires dealing with the ideological support

  • Whoops.

    North Korean soldiers have accidentally killed eight Russian troops after a misunderstanding caused by the language barrier, according to Ukrainian intelligence ..

    According to HUR, Kyiv’s military intelligence, the deadly incident occurred when “fearful” North Koreans opened fire on vehicles from Russia’s “Akhmat” Chechen legion in Kursk, which Moscow is trying to recapture from Ukraine..

    It said that Russia has faced problems commanding North Korean troops because of the communication issue.