British birth coach forced out of charity for saying only women give birth
No matter how many times women are hounded out of work, social groups, or organizations for saying that women are adult human females, I end up surprised each and every time. This latest shocker comes from the UK, where so much of this madness has fully taken hold. British birth coach Lynsey McCarthy Calvert was pushed out of the charity Doula UK, of which she was spokesperson, because she dared to say that “women birth all the people.”
The issue for McCarthy was that Cancer Research UK changed its advertising encouraging women to get routine pap smears, a basic gynecological exam, to advocating for the test for “everyone aged 25-64 with a cervix.”
In reaction to this, McCarthy took to Facebook, stating “I am not a ‘cervix owner’ I am not a ‘menstruator’ I am not a ‘feeling.’ I am not defined by wearing a dress and lipstick. I am a woman: an adult human female… Women birth all the people, make up half the population, but less than a third of the seats in the House of Commons are occupied by us.”
As we’ve seen so many times before, a few people got onto her feed, and made a lot of noise. They complained to McCarthy “…not only women birth children,” and took their grievance offline and into the real world where they disrupted her professional life. The complaints were that McCarthy was trans exclusive in her statements, that she was offensive.
Activists who are somehow delusional enough to believe that a woman who says she is a man and then conceives a child is a man giving birth as opposed to a woman, who imagines she is a man, having a child, sent letters detailing their offendedness.
The Board of Doula UK determined that the activists were correct and that the woman who has facilitated the birth of children on numerous occasions was incorrect. Doula UK has gone on to say that,despite McCarthy’s contention to the contrary, they had not “acquiesced” to activists or forced McCarthy out. McCarthy resigned, but it was either that or accept lies and defamation.
The only problem with ousting a woman from a pregnancy help charity for saying that “women birth all the people” is that, in fact, women do birth all the people. All the people who have ever been born on this earth since the beginning of time were gestated inside a woman’s body, and birthed from that body. Apparently it’s offensive to say so. Even if it is, it’s still true.
We’ve been at the point where it’s considered offensive to trans activists and trans people to say that only women are capable of having children via their bodies, even though they are. It’s offensive to say that women are the only ones who menstruate, even though they are. And it’s offensive to say that men can’t magically, surgically, and chemically turn into women, that women can’t turn into men, even though they can’t.
The entire thing where a few people’s hurt feelings are more important than actual facts and the right of women to speak the truth about their own bodies and the nature of reproduction continues to be baffling. More baffling is that women who know the truth, that biological sex is immutable, that gender is a lie, are afraid to speak out, afraid to challenge those men who would have us deny our bodies in favour of their made-up truth.
Women who speak out on this are silenced, and like so many other circumstances in which women are forced to believe a man’s interpretation of reality over her own, talking back only gets her hit. Whether personal or professional defamation, there is a big risk for women who refuse to be cowed into proclaiming lies as truth. It seems absurd, and trans activists deny that, but still, it keeps happening. These stories keep popping up.
It should not be shocking to anyone anymore that women who believe that women and men are distinct entities defined by their biological realities are considered bigots, phobic, or prejudiced. The more we are pushed to believe lies, the easier they are to believe, but that doesn’t make them any truer. McCarthy took a vocal stand about the fact that women are the ones who have female reproductive systems, that men do not need cervical cancer screenings because they are not, in fact, people who have a cervix.
Furthering the disconnect women have with their bodies by referring to them only as the summation of their biological parts will not help them overcome the embarrassment of seeking medical care for female only conditions. Ignoring the reality that women’s bodies are the only bodies that are capable of birthing children is cruel because women alone will still be the ones to do it.
Trans activists say that their goal is not to erase women or to deny their existence, yet with their continuing to be offended by the reality of women and their bodies, that’s exactly what they’re doing. If women can’t even maintain a medical definition, how will they access care, have considerate providers who understand the differences between male and female anatomy, or keep their children safe if we are not even able to name their bodies as their own? It doesn’t matter if it’s a kindness to ignore the fact that women birth all the people, it’s still a lie, and a dangerous one.
Yet another woke record store has decided to ban British pop icon Morrissey from its shelves. This time, the Glasgow Evening Times reports that Glasgow’s “Monorail Music said it would continue to sell records by the Smiths but ‘like many of our colleagues’ would not be selling the singer’s 13th studio album, ‘I am not a dog on a chain.’”
This follows last year’s indie music store ban on Morrissey’s last album, “California Son.” Cardiff’s Spillers, which calls itself “the oldest record shop in the world,” declined to carry the record in retaliation for Morrissey’s political views. These views include support for Brexit, saying that the word “racist” is meaningless because it’s used so liberally, and that crime in London cannot be properly dealt with if the perpetrators are viewed as victims.
Morrissey responded to the last round of smears and bans by saying, “I straighten up, and my position is one of hope. The march backwards is over, and life has begun again. With voice extended to breaking point, I call for the prosperity of free speech; the eradication of totalitarian control; I call for diversity of opinion; I call for the total abolition of the abattoir; I call for peace, above all; I call for civil society; I call for a so-far unknowable end to brutalities; ‘No’ to Soviet Britain.”
Of course, the bans and smears don’t work. These kinds of actions will not stop Morrissey’s fans from buying the new album. The Guardian has consistently tried to smear Morrissey, and in response, Morrissey wore a t-shirt reading “Fuck The Guardian.” Fans know that Morrissey being able to speak his mind means that they are free to speak theirs, to hold opposing views, and to still listen to the new tracks Morrissey releases with consistent quality year after year.
Bookshops and record stores are not required to carry anything that they don’t wish to, obviously, but there is something sinister in the refusal to carry selections by such a popular, long-standing pop star, whose music on last year’s “California Son” was not political, and who lifts other artists through collaboration, simply because he’s not afraid to speak his mind.
Writer Fiona Dodwell responded to the ridiculous ban by tweeting: “How about businesses stock and store products and let customers choose what they want? This achieves nothing, Morrissey will still sell albums—with or without your company “banning” his records. People simply go elsewhere (and learn where NOT to shop next time!)”
How many pop stars have heterodox views but don’t say them out of fear of retaliation? Probably plenty, they just don’t say it, because they don’t want their work to suffer the same fate of being banned by distributors.
Morrissey has made his entire career out of being an iconoclast who “will not change and will not be nice.” So much the better for his fans, who strive to lead lives according to their own value systems, and not those imposed by a hypocritical society hell-bent on squashing free thought and individuality while claiming to uphold those very qualities they persistently deride.
When the new album drops on March 20, it will be interesting to see which other shops signal their virtue by refusing to carry it, and which ones instead cater to consumers and offer it for sale. Not carrying “I am not a dog on a chain” has more to do with the owner’s false sense of righteousness than punishing Morrissey. Time and time again, Morrissey has shown that he can’t be shelved and forgotten. His work is too essential and beautiful for that.
Students can now get paid to snitch on their peers at the University of Sheffield. The students will earn £9.34/hour to be “race equality champions,” and their training for the work will include teaching them how to “lead healthy conversations” on racism, microaggressions, and how to deal with those peers who commit infractions. Hours range from two to nine hours per week, like any part-time work-study job. But Sheffield University’s foray into “snitch culture” sounds alarm bells.
Following a report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission that cautioned about the “common occurrence” of racism for some students on campus, the University decided to combat the problem by weaponizing other students. Twenty, lucky kids will get this job, and it’s probable that plenty more would have done it for free, as have their authoritarian forebears.
This new job, such as it is, is rightfully being hailed as completely authoritarian and crazy. Anyone who has studied 20th-century history knows that the worst dictators and totalitarians of that era counted on citizens to report on one another, under threat of punishment if they did not.
Citizens in the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Spain, and other nations with brutal, paranoid leaders impressed upon their citizens how important it was that they rat out their friends, family, and co-workers.
Now that trend has some to the ultimate allied nation, the U.K. The students who take these jobs will undoubtedly think they are doing the right thing in carrying out their duties. But in trying to overcome racism, they are dividing them further.
Part of the job description is for students to call out their peers for microaggressions.
If a fellow student says to another “Stop making everything a race issue,” that’s considered a microaggression and is a reason for reporting under this new plan. If a student says “Why are you searching for things to be offended about?” That’s considered “not okay,” and that peer must be punished. The question “Where are you really from?” is apparently out of bounds, and other geographical infractions like “I don’t want to hear about your holiday to South Africa. It’s nowhere near where I’m from” is a reason to call out a kid for being racist.
Students complained about the microaggression of “Being compared to black celebrities that I look nothing like,” which would be pretty annoying for the kid who got that wrong, but is it a reason to be reported?
The University of Sheffield claims that they are just “opening up a conversation” by paying students “to help their peers understand racism and its impact.” In 2018, the University suffered some racially motivated incidents, with racial slurs found written on a whiteboard, and slurs yelled at games.
Of course, there’s no place for racism on campuses, but the way to root it out is through education and conversation, not monetized McCarthyism. Call-out culture, snitch culture, and the reframing of the conversation around how to control our thoughts does not alleviate racism; it buries it where it can fester.
Fighting racism is a positive project, but it’s not done through dividing us, through pitting peers against each other, but through a culture of egalitarianism and equality. Knowing that we are different is not as important as recognizing all the ways in which we are the same.
Progressives affected by Trump Derangement Syndrome will say that Vince Vaughn’s career died several years ago, which prompts me to wonder why his appearance last night with President Trump is making such a stir. Clearly, Vaughn’s still relevant, and no amount of fraternizing with the Don is going to change that.
The actor, best known for his roles in Wedding Crashers, Swingers, and Dodgeball, is facing a round of outrage after video of him meeting with President Trump emerged last night on social media in a post by former Deadspin writer Timothy Burke.
“I’m very sorry to have to share this video with you. All of it, every part of it,” wrote Burke, seemingly gleeful at the thought of cancelling the actor.
Vaughn’s crime, apparently, was to speak to and shake hands with the President. How dare he? The outrage he now faces is similar to the anger Ellen DeGeneres sparked after she was spotted mingling with former President George W. Bush at a football game last year. Does anyone even remember when that happened? Clearly not, because the outrage brigade moved past her—just as they’ll move past Vaughn—well within a week before moving on to some other target.
When that happened, DeGeneres acknowledged the outrage mob (even though she didn’t need to) and shared what remains perhaps some of the wisest words to come out of this election cycle: “We’re all different. And I think that we’ve forgotten that that’s OK that we’re all different.”
Nevertheless, all eyes are on Vaughn now, and multiple outlets have published articles to cover the outrage—many of which are chiding the actor for audaciously treating the President of the United States of America with dignity instead of yelling in his face as many of these people wish to, if they could get within 50 feet of him.
Never one to fall in line with the rest of the Hollywood flock, Vaughn has been out and open about his divergent political beliefs. From as far back as 2012, Vaughn, among several other celebrities—including Snoop Dogg—openly endorsed libertarian and Republican congressman Ron Paul. Unlike Snoop Dogg, whose politics have in recent years move farther towards the left, Vaughn has remained a staunch and steadfast libertarian, even doing an interview with the Ron Paul Institute late last year. Vaughn is also a good friend of Rand Paul, having introduced him at a libertarian event in 2011.
It’s impossible to say who Vaughn voted for in 2016 given that he still keeps some things about himself private—not that it matters—but it probably wasn’t Hillary.
For all the talk of “cancellation” and unpersoning of Vaughn among cultural and entertainment commentators on mainstream publications, his career in Hollywood hasn’t taken much of a dent as he continues to build film credits as both an actor and a producer with seven new projects in the works.
Unlike DeGeneres, Vaughn is unlikely to respond to the outrage brigade. These people don’t watch his movies anyway, and those who’ve already had him on their personal blacklists decided he was a verboten subject given his continued friendship with Mel Gibson, who’s persona non grata to liberal keyboard warriors on social media.
Naturally, some leftist commentators have been quick to downplay the burgeoning outrage against Vince Vaughn. Posting on Twitter, Vox reporter Aaron Rupar wrote: “Democrats aren’t mad about Vince Vaughn chatting with Trump. Nobody cares. Fox & Friends and Hogan Gidley are making stuff up.”
If that were truly the case, one might wonder why so many media outlets are eager to write about his oh-so-unacceptable interaction with President Trump. Is it all just a bunch of fake news, then? Or does the liberal media just make things up as they go along? After all, they can’t issue stern condemnations of Vince Vaughn well after every conservative commentator predicted it—at least, not without looking like the easily manipulated schmucks that they are.
The result of the constant barrage of trans ideology and inclusion is that the media talks about periods way more than they used to. Once the purview of women’s medical journals and whispers, the state of modern menstruation has taken up lots of pixel space, but only in the context of trans men’s experience with it. The new claim is that periods are more painful for female-bodied trans men than they are for female-bodied female persons because, in addition to the physical discomfort, they experience mental anguish as well.
A new report by NBC News speaks to the conundrum of women who believe they are men but are still saddled with women’s reproductive systems. In addition to not wanting to deal with menstruation, trans men find it troubling to use tampons and pads in men’s public bathrooms. There’s concern about the sound of the packaging, where to wash hands, and where to dispose of the used materials. While an easy solution would be to use the women’s bathroom, this, too would be a problem for trans men who would be viewed as men, not women. No matter where they use the washroom, there are problems.
Kenny Ethan Jones, a transgender model and activist, found that having his period after his transition was remarkably difficult, and wanted to speak out to help others who experience the same problem. He told NBC “I didn’t believe that having periods would be a part of my lived experience. I felt isolated; everything about periods was tailored to girls, yet me, a boy, was experiencing this and nothing in the world documented that.”
It’s interesting how much more dialogue there is about periods now that people who present as men are having them. Period products are changing to be more accommodating to people who don’t like pink, and products are being made available in more locations. What’s missed in all this inclusivity is that there are loads of women who loathe the pink buttercup infantile quality of women’s menstrual products. But companies never asked or cared to find this out, so women had no choice but to buy the overly girly products for a condition that feels anything but feminine.
Jones notes that trans and gender non conforming people can feel alienated by the menstrual products currently available on drug store shelves. And while this is undoubtedly true, it’s also true for most women. No woman likes buying menstrual products. Walking up to the register and proclaiming that you are now or will soon be bleeding feels humiliating. The same is true for use of public washrooms. No one wants to be heard ripping the plastic off a tampon or caught red-handed at the sink. It’s embarrassing all around, not just for women who have beards. But it’s only since women with facial hair and six-packs started talking about it that anyone is the least bit concerned about how uncomfortable this is.
With an interest in normalizing menstruation for trans men, Jones helmed an advertising campaign in 2018 for Pink Parcel, a subscription service for period products. In doing so, he said that “During my transition I did have to deal with experiencing periods each month and many of the negative stereotypes that can come along with it. Assuming periods are inhibiting to people tends to perpetuate period shame even more, and makes people even more reluctant to talk about them.” Jones had attended an all-girls school, came out as trans at 14, started socially transitioning at 16 by shaving his head and changing his name, and began hormone treatment at 17.
His outspoken words on periods and their discomfort, however, apply equally to trans men and to women, because despite the rhetoric saying that periods are so much worse for those who present as men and don’t want them, periods are literally just as awful for everybody who has them, because no one actually wants to experience them. The division between trans men and women with regard to period pain, body dysphoria, and the difficulty in dealing with the logistics of it is entirely arbitrary. All this language does is isolate women into a category where it’s assumed that they like all the weird things that happen to their bodies, simply because they know they are things that are supposed to happen to healthy bodies.
Women and trans men are not different when it comes to experiencing menstruation, and all this division does is box women in cutesy pink packaging of acceptance. Separating trans men who bleed from women who bleed reinforces gender stereotypes, and while trans men may feel lifted by new period products with trucks and rifles on them instead of bows and duckies, this does nothing but further ghettoize women who accept the inevitability of their femaleness.