It isn’t ‘cyberbullying’ to speak the truth - "Imane Khelif has some balls. Not content with fighting in the women’s category at the Paris Olympics, despite previously failing a gender-eligibility test, now the Algerian boxer is going after women who raised concerns about that sporting abomination. Well, one woman in particular. The worst woman. The woman feared as a witch by gender ideologues and their squeaking woke-bro allies. Yes, it’s JK Rowling. Khelif has named Rowling in a criminal complaint filed in France, accusing her of ‘acts of aggravated cyber harassment’. First Khelif takes down female boxers, now it seems it’s the turn of female critics of the sexist Olympics. Khelif’s complaint was filed with the National Centre for the Fight Against Online Hatred at the Paris Prosecutor’s Office. It names Elon Musk, too... Khelif’s case is a criminal one, meaning conviction could lead to two years in the slammer and a €30,000 fine. It is highly unlikely, bordering on impossible, that the world’s richest author and richest edgelord will find themselves in a squalid Paris cell for the blasphemy of saying ‘he’ about someone widely suspected of being a biological male. As the BBC notes, ‘French penal law doesn’t apply to acts committed outside of France against foreign nationals’. And yet Khelif’s case is still significant. It feels like a symbolic attack on those who dare to speak the truth about sex. It feels like an absurdist assault on reason that could have a horribly chilling effect on public discussion, especially in France... Khelif might not be ‘trans’, but this ill-advised criminal complaint borrows from the trans lobby’s tyrannical playbook. Just as feminism has pretty much been reimagined as ‘transphobia’, and women’s rights activists are breezily defamed as ‘TERFs’, now it seems criticism of men boxing women will be damned as ‘bullying’. There’s hubris here. As someone who also went through male puberty, my advice to Khelif would be to avoid accusing other people of ‘bullying’ when you’ve just been publicly fighting women and winning their medals. Khelif’s cheerleaders in the cranky gender clique are even worse. These are the kind of people who turned a blind eye when Kellie Jay-Keen was rounded on by a mob of feral misogynists in New Zealand. And who shrugged when the male ex-con turned trans nutter Sarah Jane Baker told a crowd in London to punch TERFs ‘in the fucking face’. And who said ‘So what?’ when a sexist pig held up a placard saying ‘Decapitate TERFs’ at a pro-trans rally in Glasgow last year. And who said nothing when sports presenter Laura Woods received a storm of death threats – against both herself and her unborn child – merely for making a positive comment about a newspaper article that discussed the Khelif scandal. And yet now they bleat about bullying. It’s so transparent. For these men’s-rights weirdos masquerading as progressives, when blokes in dresses insult and assault women, it’s ‘activism’, and when women push back, it’s ‘bullying’. A man exposing his cock in a women’s changing room is trans rights, a woman saying ‘Get the hell out of here’ is bigotry. Males invading women’s sports is ‘progress’, women standing up for women’s sports is ‘harassment’. That they cheered Khelif’s pummelling of female boxers and are now cheering Khelif’s criminal complaint against Rowling and others makes creepy sense – they love it when uppity women are slapped down, whether it’s physically or metaphorically. Whether it’s in the ring or in the courts. Whether it’s with a punch to the head or a gag to the mouth. Pipe down, bitches... This case speaks to one of the most troubling trends of our time: the Orwellian rebranding of criticism as a crime. That it is even possible people will be punished for using their voices to defend women’s rights is a testament to how far down the rabbit hole of gender lunacy we have tumbled. Let’s ring the bell on this crap."
Leaked medical report ‘proves Imane Khelif is biological male’ - "Imane Khelif’s sex-test results from the 2023 World Championships have been published for the first time, with the medical report appearing to indicate that the boxer is biologically male. Just 36 hours after World Boxing ruled that Khelif, a hugely controversial Olympic champion in women’s boxing at last summer’s Paris Games, would need to undergo sex screening to be eligible for any future appearances in the female category, the document at the heart of this extraordinary saga was released into the public domain. Alan Abrahamson, the American journalist who disclosed in Paris how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had been warned more than a year earlier that Khelif had the DNA of a “male”, produced the result of a test carried out on the boxer in New Delhi in March 2023, triggering the boxer’s disqualification from the championships that year. The document published on the 3 Wire Sports website summarises the findings on Khelif as “abnormal”, stating: “Chromosome analysis reveals male karyotype.” A karyotype refers to an individual’s complete set of chromosomes, which in Khelif’s case has been reported by the International Boxing Association (IBA) as being XY, the male pattern. The test results carry the letterhead of Dr Lal Path Labs in New Delhi, accredited by the American College of Pathologists and certified by the Swiss-based International Organisation for Standardisation. This directly challenges the account of IOC spokesman Mark Adams, who in a tense news conference at the Paris Olympics described the results as “ad hoc” and “not legitimate”. Thomas Bach, the IOC president, has gone even further, claiming that the results are the product of a Russian-led misinformation campaign. He pointed out in an interview earlier this year that the IBA, headed by Russia’s Umar Kremlev, had been stripped of IOC recognition in a row over ethics and financial management. The official authentication of the Indian laboratory that conducted the tests on Khelif increases the pressure on the IOC to explain why it believes the results are illegitimate... The governing body, provisionally approved to run Olympic boxing in LA, has announced that all athletes in its competitions over 18 years old must undergo a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) genetic test to determine their sex. The test detects chromosomal material through a mouth swab, saliva or blood. Khelif, who was allowed to box in Paris because of female passport status, has failed to provide any evidence of having female chromosomes in the nine months since the scandal erupted. World Boxing’s tougher stance on the issue comes in response to widespread outrage at the scenes in Paris, where both Khelif and Taiwan’s Lin Yu-ting swept to Olympic titles, despite having been banned by the IBA the previous year on the grounds that they did not have XX chromosomes. Italy’s Angela Carini, the first opponent beaten by Khelif, described how she had been punched so hard that she feared for her life. Mexico’s Brianda Tamara Cruz, who fought Khelif in 2022, said: “I don’t think I had ever felt like that in my 13 years as a boxer, nor in my sparring with men.” Latin American federations ultimately proved highly influential in persuading World Boxing to prioritise the reality of sex, in order to uphold fairness and safety for women. In correspondence seen by Telegraph Sport, the Honduran federation told the Women’s Rights Network that “necessary measures should be taken so that only women by birth can compete in women’s competitions”. Their Peruvian counterparts also strongly urged the “protection of women”."
Weird. The left wingers kept claiming that it'd been proven that he was a woman. But they also said the same about Caster Semenya. Even just before this, they were going on with the usual cope and hatred
Big surprise that the IOC had been lying all along. Once again "misinformation" is anything that obstructs the left wing agenda
How violence against women became an Olympic sport - "This is now the second report that appears to confirm Khelif’s male biology. Last year, French journalist Djaffar Ait Aoudia reported that Khelif has 5-alpha reductase deficiency – a condition that only affects biological males. The test, commissioned by the International Boxing Association (IBA), led to Khelif being banned from the IBA’s women’s category, alongside Taiwanese boxer Lin Yu-ting, who also failed a sex-eligibility test, a few months before the Paris Olympics. But instead of enforcing fairness, IOC president Thomas Bach brushed off those bans as part of a Russian-led fake news campaign. Meanwhile, the IOC’s position is, if your passport says ‘female’, that’s good enough. As developmental biologist Dr Emma Hilton tells me: ‘Medical evidence points to Khelif being male with a disorder of sex development that provides male sporting advantage. Despite knowing this, the IOC allowed Khelif to compete in Paris 2024, ignoring the serious risks of mixing male and female boxers, and showing a heartbreaking disregard for female safety and fairness.’ Of course, anyone who hasn’t had their common sense knocked out by gender ideology didn’t need a chromosome test to spot what was plain as day. Slim-hipped, flat-chested, broad-shouldered Khelif didn’t only appear to have masculine features, he boxed like a man, too. And when he took gold in Paris, his all-male coaching team hoisted him on to their shoulders in celebration. In Algeria, where physical contact between unrelated men and women is culturally taboo, such a gesture would be unthinkable if they actually believed Khelif to be female. The sight of a man battering his way to a women’s Olympic title was stomach-turning enough. Yet the conduct of those who enabled it was, in many ways, worse. Human-rights organisations and sports NGOs didn’t just look the other way – they also actively smeared anyone who asked questions. Amnesty International’s Stephen Cockburn claimed Khelif and Yu-ting were being ‘hounded by hatred’, framing public concern as ‘toxic, sexist and racist’. Minky Worden of Human Rights Watch dismissed sex testing as ‘abusive’ and ‘unscientific’. Meanwhile, with a characteristic lack of irony, GLAAD issued a ‘fact check’ decrying all criticism of Khelif as ‘transphobia and misinformation’. None offered a word of concern for the women in the ring. The media, of course, played their part. From the BBC to the Associated Press, most outlets dutifully referred to Khelif as ‘she’, presenting him as a victim of conservative backlash or of a sinister Kremlin plot. Predictably, the Guardian went one further, publishing a spectacularly unhinged piece that framed concerns about Khelif punching women as the rantings of tradwives and MAGA trolls. Perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy came from boxing pundit Steve Bunce. Last year, he said of Khelif on the BBC, ‘Despite what you’ve read in the newspapers, she has always been a she’, while condemning the IBA’s sex testing. Yet this week, he attempted a feint. He claimed he supports reliable sex tests while dismissing criticism of Khelif as a ‘witch hunt’ based on his appearance. It’s fair to say, he was bested on social media"
Meme - J.K. Rowling: "You really need to be more careful with those Freudian slips. Khelif isn't trans, but by casually equating him to a trans women you admit that you know the latter, too, are men. According to the rules of your favourite game, you've just been extremely transphobic."
Gabriel (he/him/they/any) @GLGWrites: "The temporary anti-trans bigotry will eventually be overturned. Unfortunately, the damage done to trans athletes competing now will last forever. Shame on you"
ICONS on X - "🚨BREAKING: Algerian boxer Imane Khelif has appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to compete in the upcoming women’s @RealWorldBoxing championships without undergoing genetic sex verification. That request was denied, but the appeal remains ongoing."
Riley Gaines on X - "To all those who swear Imane Khelif is a woman: Explain to me why he refuses to take a sex verification test required to compete"
IOC’s Kirsty Coventry announces ‘scientific approach’ to protect ‘female category’ - "Kirsty Coventry has said there is now “overwhelming support” among International Olympic Committee members to protect the female category in a significant shift in its gender eligibility policy. Coventry, who was chairing her first meetings as the IOC’s new president, said that a taskforce of scientists and international federations would be set up within weeks to come up with a new policy. It follows the controversy around the Paris 2024 boxing tournament after two athletes – Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting – won gold medals despite having been disqualified from the previous year’s World Championships for allegedly failing to meet gender eligibility criteria. World Boxing, which has since been recognised by the IOC as the sport’s international federation, has introduced mandatory sex testing and said Khelif would not be able to compete in the female category until she undergoes the test"
Leigh Ann O'Neill on X - "Girls high jump state championships happening now in Oregon. One brave girls steps forward, knowing she is about to compete against a male, and proudly shows her XX shirt. They shouldn’t have to tolerate the hostility of competing against a male. Go get ‘em girls!"
HeCheated.org on X - "This is what is currently being celebrated as the "peak" of high school female athleticism and achievement. Outside of the unfairness for the female athletes, the stripping of their opportunities, and the violation of their privacy, what makes me angriest is the fact that this is what we are supposed to pretend is "athleticism" and "talent." It's not."
JK Rowling is right about the Guardian’s pro-trans propaganda - "The Guardian has long been celebrated for its typos. The other day, however, it ran a headline which appeared to have an entire word missing. It read: “One in three across UK are overdue for cervical cancer screening.” One in three what? Mothers? Midwives? Marchionesses? Members of Bananarama? I scanned the article’s intro to locate the mislaid noun. Unfortunately, though, I ended up even more confused. Because the answer turned out to be “people”. “A third of people across the UK,” reported someone with the unusual job title of health and inequalities correspondent, “are overdue their cervical cancer screening, while in parts of England some are at greater risk of the disease than others due to a low uptake for the preventive vaccine.” Naturally, I was alarmed. Because “a third of people across the UK” includes me. In all my 44 years on this Earth, I’ve never had a single screening for cervical cancer. Am I in danger? Should I ring my GP and demand a detailed inspection of my cervix as soon as possible? Then again, there is another way to interpret this story. Which is that the poor old Guardian is so desperate not to offend trans activists, it’s got itself tied up in knots. Any sane newspaper, after all, would simply have used the word “women”. But The Guardian daren’t do that. Because then it would be besieged by horrified ideologues, irately reminding it that trans women are women but don’t need cervical cancer screenings – while trans men are men but do need cervical cancer screenings. To use the word “women”, therefore, is hateful and trans-exclusionary. Sadly, there’s just one drawback to The Guardian’s wonderfully inclusive approach. Which is that other readers will be baffled. They’ll think: “Does it mean a third of women? Or a sixth?” As JK Rowling put it on social media: “This is what happens when you erase the word ‘woman’ from your reporting: you disseminate inaccuracies and falsehoods. If you prioritise an ideology over giving clear and accurate information, you aren’t journalists, you’re propagandists.” To be fair to The Guardian, however, it doesn’t always get it wrong. Less than a month ago, it ran the headline: “New AI Test can predict which men will benefit from prostate cancer drug.” So they are clear about the difference between men and women sometimes. When the cancer only affects men, anyway. Still, it would be nice if they and other progressive outlets could be consistent. In an important medical context, such nonsense is enough to give you a thumping headache. JK Rowling is right. Trans propaganda is bad for your health."
Stephen Fry says JK Rowling’s been ‘radicalised’. I’ve got just one question for him - "Sir Stephen Fry, the renowned psychoanalyst, says he believes that JK Rowling “has been radicalised”. I must say that I for one was somewhat taken aback by this diagnosis. Because, if Ms Rowling has indeed been “radicalised”, that means she harbours beliefs that are “radical”. In which case, would Sir Stephen be so kind as to tell us which of her beliefs he has in mind? Take, for example, Ms Rowling’s belief that women don’t have testicles. Or her belief that men can’t give birth. Is either of those beliefs radical? Extreme? Wildly at variance with established medical science? Perhaps he’s thinking of her belief that biological males should not be entitled to enter the female changing room at their local swimming pool and strip naked in front of small girls. Or her belief that confused children should not be pumped with drugs designed to prevent them from going through a normal, healthy puberty. Or her belief that we should not grant a convicted rapist his wish to be placed in a jail full of women merely because he’s suddenly taken to sporting a blonde wig and pink leggings. Does Sir Stephen consider those beliefs to be radical? I do hope he’ll let us know. It’s urgent. Otherwise, there’s a serious risk that innocent members of the public will become radicalised, too. In the meantime, I’m anxious to ascertain how exactly Ms Rowling came to fall for the outlandish notion that women are female and men are male. Who radicalised her? Sir Stephen reckons it was “Terfs” (i.e., trans-exclusionary radical feminists). But I wonder if she was brainwashed at an early age – by, say, an O-level biology teacher. Or perhaps some appallingly irresponsible school librarian gave her access to a dictionary. Whatever the source of her indoctrination, I dread to think what crazed ideological nonsense this dangerous woman will pollute our children’s minds with next. The Earth is round? Water is wet? Members of the family Ursidae typically defecate in arboreal environs? Then again, I suppose there is an alternative way to look at this story. Which is that the beliefs Ms Rowling espouses have been completely mainstream since the dawn of humanity – and that it is, in fact, her opponents who have been “radicalised”. Just a thought."
Having beliefs that the majority of the population has makes you extreme. Clearly most people must be thrown into re-education camps
The British Medical Association has just shown its contempt for science - "The British Medical Association hasn’t gone out of its way to court public affection lately – the 11 strikes the BMA has held since 2022 resulted in about 1.5 million cancelled appointments, though they also resulted in an astonishing increase in its members’ pay. And it’s a safe bet that patients won’t be edified to learn that they’re now “energised” at the prospect of yet another strike. But if the doctors’ union is disastrously out of touch on strikes, it turns out that it’s even more remote from public opinion on the contentious trans issue. The Cass Review recommended an almost complete ban on puberty blockers for children. Well, the man who led the BMA’s opposition to the Report, Tom Dolphin, has now been made chairman of the BMA’s council, its governing body. The appointment followed what looks like a coup by the 69 member board which ousted the previous incumbent, Professor Philip Banfield. Dr Dolphin tabled an emergency motion last July that led to the union rejecting the Cass report. It announced it would be publishing its own review instead. But alas, nothing has so far appeared. Let’s remember that Hilary Cass, the author of the report, found that “there is no good evidence” that puberty blockers for young people are safe to use and that “it is unusual for us to give a potentially life-changing treatment to young people and not know what happens to them in adulthood”. And it seems that in fact many doctors agreed. When the BMA council bypassed debate to reject the Cass review after it ran out of time to discuss the motion at the annual meeting, there were four attempts by members to have an open debate on the review. More than 1,500 doctors, the majority of them BMA members, signed a “Not in Our Name” open letter to the BMA council, criticising the “very undemocratic” decision to reject Lady Cass’s findings. But rather than respond to members’ concerns, the BMA council has now elected Tom Dolphin to lead the organisation"
Nicholas Decker 🏳️🌈🌐🇺🇦 on X - "I wish people would understand that puberty is an irreversible harm too. We shouldn’t privilege the ordinary progression of events."
elizabeth bennett on X - "So puberty is actually how your brain matures into an adult brain. Among other problems with “blocking” puberty is a significant, permanent loss of IQ points (demonstrated in studies). This is why pediatricians like me learned in training that puberty blockers should only be used for brief periods and ONLY in children with significant, documented precocious puberty. The reason given at the time was multiple and concerning side effects of puberty-blocking drugs."
Meme - Stats For Gender @statsforgender: "The largest U.S. study tracking kids on puberty blockers for 2 years found no improvement in depression, emotional health, or behavior."
i/o @avidseries: "So, on top of reduced bone mineral density, fertility impairment, and growth and development issues, there's no improvement in emotional and behavioral health?"
Clearly, they're literally life saving and if you oppose them, you're murdering children
Amber Duke (Athey) on X - "Immediate disqualification for this: "But if children are too young to consent to puberty blockers, then they are definitely too young to consent to puberty." We don't "consent" to any natural biological function, it just happens. This is like saying kids don't consent to smell, taste, or see. It's a completely irrational way of viewing the human body."
Our craven universities have been captured by the woke students who pay their bills - "As if managing the identity politics fever-dreams and social justice posturing of their students was not discombobulating enough, universities now have to contend with reality as well. Earlier this week, the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), for failing to uphold freedom of speech in regards to transgender policy. The university’s plans to challenge the ruling reveal not how they have been captured by an ideology that is finally unravelling under scrutiny, but how they have been captured by the students themselves. As well as physical encampments and occupations by self-obsessed radicals, the students have imposed their mental and emotional fantasies on these institutions. Desperately short of funds and facing ever more cuts, universities are beholden to those who can afford to pay to attend and, once you discount the thousands of Chinese students gladly paying double, the most reliable revenue stream comes from young Britons raised on the mother’s milk of 21st century progressive orthodoxy... It’s progressive extremists who most often incite violence – death threats and rape threats used to shut down and scare away. These are the kinds of people who would have been tempted to man the guillotine in 1792, cart off Kulaks in 1933 and put a dunce’s hat on their teacher in Beijing, 1976... It’s not a thought I imagined I would ever have had back when I was a student, but I feel sorry for conservatives on campus today. It must be rough being called a Nazi or fascist just for the crime of believing in a market economy. Freedom of speech is the first among equals when it comes to the rights that underpin a civil society. The collective hounding of people who politely disagree with you, not so much. Sussex says the OfS ruling would leave institutions “powerless to prevent abusive, bullying and harassing speech”, ignoring the fact that it has been their students doing the harassing. It is not much of a stretch to interpret all this gymnastics as expressions of desperate doublethink. The bullies are the real victims. Free speech is oppression. Absolutism is true freedom. You can see why higher education institutions are terrified by the precedent set by the fine imposed on Sussex. They must keep their customers happy and their most vocal customers are habitually drawn to the very attitudes the OfS wants to proscribe: censorship, ideological conformity and the persecution of heretics. Simply put, they don’t believe in freedom of speech. Stock was this week surprised and delighted to be labelled a “Left-wing feminist” as opposed to a “gender critical philosopher” or simply a “transphobe”. Small mercies."
Christian artist reported to police over gender-critical views - "A Christian artist was reported to the police and banned from her own exhibition because of her gender-critical beliefs. Victoria Culf also claims a council worker wrongly accused her of being under police investigation when she was not. Mrs Culf launched legal action against Watford borough council last year on nine grounds, including breach of contract, discrimination and harassment... While making a cup of tea, the council official revealed that her child was “socially transitioning” and that they had tried to get puberty blockers from the Tavistock gender identity clinic. Mrs Culf claims to have politely said that owing to her Christian beliefs and her experience working with children and young people, she believed transitioning to be harmful. The artist claims to have also said the Tavistock clinic should be shut down, reasoning that “children are too young to properly assess risk”. “I wouldn’t be being true to myself if I agreed with you,” she claims to have said. While Mrs Culf believed the conversation to have ended “calmly and amicably”, she later received a call from the council informing her of “harassment” allegations and decreeing that she must give 24 hours’ notice before entering her exhibition. According to court documents, Mrs Culf’s accuser wrote to Paul Stacey, the council’s associate director of environment and communities, in the aftermath of the conversation, claiming the police had “recorded it as an incident”. The police logbook, however, revealed that the police told her accuser they were not recording it as an incident or investigating it and described what she had said as “free speech”. The council worker is said to have nevertheless emailed her boss at the council to say: “The Hate Crime Officer called me. It has been logged as an incident.” The employee is also accused of inventing a crime number."
Left wingers consider disagreement to be "harassment" and bullying, so
1977 : Richards, from man to woman - "Richards vividly criticised the over-opening of tennis to transgender players in official competitions. “I was over 40 years old when I became a professional player. I couldn’t beat players like Chris Evert or Tracy Austin, who were just 20,” she said in Slate in 2012. “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. So, I’ve reconsidered my opinion.”"
TRAs were bashing Martina Navratilova because she had a trans coach. Ironic
