This’ll be funFebruary 14, 2020 Tim WorstallFeminism20 CommentsThe families of three female high school runners filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to block transgender athletes in Connecticut from participating in girls’ sports. previousAre WAGs really this important these days?nextAhh, business as usual 20 thoughts on “This’ll be fun” Patrick February 14, 2020 at 8:54 am Just define male / female race eligibility as being defined by sex rather than by gender. Who could possibly object? 😉 Bloke in Germany February 14, 2020 at 9:02 am American prudes (not that I need to specify “prudes”), who don’t like the word s-x. DocBud February 14, 2020 at 10:22 am This will destroy women’s sport. Who wants to watch a deluded bloke beat proper women? Steve February 14, 2020 at 10:33 am BiG – Dunno tho. I remember the good old days when Yank progressives solemnly warned about the “Religious Right” to whom the Busheses and Raygun were merely simpleton catspaws, and who were gonna institute the Atwoodian Patriarchtopia any day now… Never actually panned out. Are there any Wee Free like sexyphobes left in America, if they ever really existed at all? Modern American culture is notoriously shameless. The days when Laura Branigan was considered too hot for MTV are long gone. The President is a notorious shagger. The most popular reality TV slebs are a family of wealthy skankwhores. Sure, they don’t have soft porn shampoo ads like on Italian telly, but Italy probably doesn’t have that many popular drag queens. I spose the Mormons are still rather straight laced, but they also screw like rabbits. It’s progressive, sex-positive Millennials, with their sex toys and funky new pronouns, who seem to have trouble putting penii into vagoos. They like talking about sex, but not actually doing good old-fashioned how’s-your-father activities. John B February 14, 2020 at 12:38 pm The solution is simple. Any women’s race/sport in which a biological male is to participate, all the biological female contenders withdraw. Bloke in North Dorset February 14, 2020 at 12:49 pm And on similar theme, I can’t find this on the BBC website: A 13-year-old girl is suing Oxford County Council over its decision to allow trans pupils to choose which dorm they sleep in and which toilets they use, and the questions it raises go way beyond her own wish for privacy. “I am very surprised that the council never asked the opinion of girls in Oxfordshire about what we thought before they published the toolkit,” the teenager, whose name has not been disclosed in the media, said in her statement as she announced her legal action against the Oxford Country Council’s decision to implement its Orwellian-sounding ‘Trans Inclusion Toolkit’. Jason Lynch February 14, 2020 at 1:04 pm BiND, The BBC are wisely and intelligently denying a platform to vile transphobic hate speech, of course… Rob February 14, 2020 at 2:00 pm “I am very surprised that the council never asked the opinion of girls in Oxfordshire about what we thought before they published the toolkit“ Welcome to Progressive politics, dear. Your group is no longer “top of the tree” so the council doesn’t give a fuck for your opinions, assuming it ever did. JuliaM February 14, 2020 at 2:02 pm With Harry Miller’s win for freedom of speech today, do you get the feeling the tide is turning? Surreptitious Evil February 14, 2020 at 3:46 pm Are there any Wee Free like sexyphobes left in America, if they ever really existed at all? I’m not sure about the sex-phobia, because I can’t bring myself to talk to them long enough to utter the word “sex”, but the US Air Force is full of ultra Calvinist / Baptist / Presbyterian nutters. It can’t be the only place – they must have to select them from society rather than merely podding them at Lackland or Colorado Springs. Tractor Gent February 14, 2020 at 4:40 pm Julia: Nope. I looked at the judgement. Basically the judge said the Hate Crime Operational Guidance was fine but the police were being complete idiots in the way they dealt with the guy. I don’t see it having one iota of effect in the way Plod behaves in this respect. Jim February 14, 2020 at 5:55 pm “Basically the judge said the Hate Crime Operational Guidance was fine ” Mr Miller has been given leave to take that part of his case to the Supreme Court though. My feeling is that no lower court judge is going to dare to overturn a ‘progressive’ rule/regulation/law on his or her own, even if they wanted to. The grief factor and black mark it would put on their career makes it just not worth it. So they rule against the plaintiff and give them the right to appeal, thus throwing it onto someone else’s shoulders, in this case the Supreme Court. Who being at the top of the tree already have a bit more leeway to act as they see fit, rather than looking over their shoulders all the time. Bloke in North Dorset February 14, 2020 at 6:18 pm If its up this Supreme Court all is lost. tex February 14, 2020 at 7:34 pm Finally, MSM, the WSJ, has published an article saying there are only 2 sexes. John Galt February 14, 2020 at 7:49 pm This will destroy women’s sport. Who wants to watch a deluded bloke beat proper women? I don’t know, the amusement value sounds quite high to be honest. TERF wars becoming turf wars. What’s not to like? Pcar February 14, 2020 at 9:35 pm @JuliaM February 14, 2020 at 2:02 pm I expect police and Home Office will appeal it at our cost and another crowdfund to fight Gov/plod appeal. Public pays twice. Until costs come out of state employees’ pay packet, abuse of power will never change John Galt February 14, 2020 at 9:58 pm I expect police and Home Office will appeal it at our cost and another crowdfund to fight Gov/plod appeal. Public pays twice. Why not? It costs them nothing (personally / professionally), it is the legal equivalent of a Mulligan. Steve February 14, 2020 at 10:09 pm With Harry Miller’s win for freedom of speech today, do you get the feeling the tide is turning? It is, Julia. SE – the US Air Force is full of ultra Calvinist / Baptist / Presbyterian nutters. Wing Commander The Lord Flashheart wouldn’t approve. Jim February 14, 2020 at 10:25 pm Another example of my theory of judicial judgements can be seen in this case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51508974 Appeal Court make the entirely obvious (based on law) decision that people who haven’t had been the registry office to formally register their ‘Islamic’ marriage aren’t legally married. Overturning a High Court Judge’s decision that an Islamic marriage held in a restaurant was entirely the same as those conducted under the laws as passed by Parliament. A decision that can only have been reached by someone who was more interested in virtue signalling than applying the law of the land. How anyone can think that the judiciary are ‘independent arbiters of the law’ escapes me. They are (at the lower levels certainly) mere political hacks, and should be treated with the same reverence we give politicians. BniC February 14, 2020 at 11:10 pm Feminists are worried about Sharia law applying in the Islamic divorce cases and being prejudiced against women already….wonder how long before it sinks in with the LGBT crowd that Sharia law isn’t too friendly to them either. Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.