”Hey babe … take a walk on the wild side.”

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?”

JK Rowling tweeting after Judgment was handed down in the Maya Forstater  tribunal.


Not quite the same thing … but a good song nonetheless.

51 thoughts on “”Hey babe … take a walk on the wild side.”

  1. Good for her. Speaking truth to power. Now watch the progressives try to make her out to be some kind of ‘phobe or bigot. I tell you, this idiocy has to be faced.


  2. Can I be one of the ‘colored girls’ [sic], singing backup vocals…?
    (No. Get a grip).
    “Don’t you oppress me!”

    Incidentally, Ark, there were claims made relatively recently that Reed’s song was ‘transphobic’, and offensive to some in the trans community.

    Live long enough in this world, and you’ll see every craziness under the sun.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, but imagine what Reed — who, admittedly, long ago mastered the art of disaffection and being pissed off — would have made of such criticisms, had he lived to see them


    1. if you wait long enough, everything will offend someone, somewhere. We have somehow discovered the new Solitaire of the 21st century: Offensive Defense.


  3. (By “sex” does she perhaps mean gender?)

    Of course it’s real … it’s what makes the world go round, the oceans rise and fall, future taxpayers, and cannon-fodder for the priesthoods.

    Find me a someone who says otherwise and I’ve found you an animated blob. Hell, a schlogg of foam on the beach is more real.

    Dammit, I’m with her!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. This criminalization of opinion is insane and has to stop. The people who support it need to consider that they may not always be the ones who are in power and entitled to decide which opinions can get you hauled in front of a “tribunal”. The whole concept stinks of totalitarianism and thoughtcrime. In principle it’s the same as blasphemy laws.

    Transgender ideology is an issue people can legitimately disagree about. If it’s some judge’s opinion that recognition of biological reality is a “viewpoint” which is “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, fine, that’s his opinion, but his opinions ought not to govern what can and cannot be said. I don’t believe religious beliefs are worthy of respect, but I don’t want to see people banned from expressing them.

    For all the flaws and shortcomings of the United States — and they are many and profound — I am very thankful that we have the First Amendment here, which largely protects us against this kind of nonsense. If I lived in Europe, my blog would have run afoul of “hate speech” thought-control laws any number of times now, since those laws in practice are mostly used to harass people who tell the truth about Islam.

    We do have people who don’t understand freedom of expression. I’ve known any number of people who claimed to be for freedom of expression in the abstract, but for any actual specific instance of speech they didn’t like, they’d come up with “that’s not free speech, that’s ‘incitement'” or some such baloney. But the constitution ensures that free speech is protected in spite of such people.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. “In principle it’s the same as blasphemy laws.”

      That is the point exactly.

      It is a terrible idea to protect ideas that aren’t true. This is made worse when way too many people support undermining free speech when they assume speech contrary to the ideology (especially when it aligns with what is true) must be policed and protected from criticism rather than allow the ideology to demonstrate its superior value by action in the open market of ideas.

      It is even worse when far, far too many people police their OWN thoughts and do not speak truth to power because of fear of retribution. If this isn’t a huge Red Flag to anyone who has done this about the ideology, then I don;t know what else is!

      This willingness to stay silent and go along with the ideological mantra in spite of what reality demonstrates to be true reveals the depth of insidiousness of today’s ‘woke’ ideology in practice – self-censoring. This is the Red Guard – and the terror and depravity it brought into being – all over again. This self-censoring is the danger. And it works the same way as blasphemy laws do by protecting and coddling the very worst ideas that cannot stand on their own merit but must be maintained by those who participate in the bullying and defaminging and deplatforming and disinviting of critics while hypocritically hiding behind inverted terms like ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’ to excuse them.

      I have been especially disappointed in so many from the atheist community who usually understand why blasphemy laws are highly disrespectful and intolerant while utterly failing to grasp this accurate comparison to those who willingly play the role of defender and apologist for this ‘woke’ totalitarian ideology that targets and undermines women in every way. In the same way I cannot wrap my head around women who willingly become second class citizens under religious ideology, so too can I wrap my head around any woman who goes along with transgendered ideology. The same comparison applies.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s ridiculous. Before long someone will be telling moi that I can’t say anything bad about Manchester United – not that there’s anything good to say. of course, but you get the point.


  5. The BBC article doesn’t go into what exactly happened. According to the linked court documents, Ms. Forstater was a contract employee with an international think tank. Her contract went up at the end of 2018. In 2018, Ms. Forstater tweeted a lot about a specific trans policy. After her contract went up, the think tank didn’t re-hire her. She filed for sex discrimination against the think tank because she didn’t receive a new contract.

    I don’t think Ms. Rowling understands what went on, or if she does, then she’s misstating what happened. Ms. Forstater wasn’t fired or forced out of her job. She got to remain on until her contract was up, even when she went on her Twitter monologues.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. I talked with someone more familiar with what’s going on, and I don’t think the BBC article is necessarily fake news. It’s just something that struck me as odd that wasn’t getting clarified.

        Still, the case is ongoing, and some bigger issues appear to be coming up for later hearings. And really, the BBC seemed to be a little quieter on the bigger news that Ms. Forstater couldn’t claim belief discrimination. There was a little blurb by a legal analyst in the middle of the article talking about those consequences.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The ruling couldn’t properly address things that are true and factual as argued by Forstater (and rather central to the issue, unfortunately for her) but, rather, had to rely on law concerned about protecting a philosophical belief… that is to say, a presumption that does not equate with reality but an ideological assumption. By adhering to reality, Forstater’s case met a judge who presumed biological sex was unfounded! I mean… seriously.

          That is batshit crazy.

          If it’s the case biological sex isn’t a philosophical belief – and who could have known that facts and reality were secondary in this judge’s opinion to the ideological belief that biology is to be properly measured by a ‘woke’ philosophical belief metric – then the judge’s ruling becomes stupidly and blatantly circular and falls apart. This doesn’t stop him from claiming Forstater’s reliance on reality is ‘incompatible with human dignity and (the) fundamental rights of others.’ This little and irritating detail called reality that puts this ideological idiocy to the test and finds it lacking any factual substance other than an ideological insistence it must be true (just like religious belief) might well be worth an appeal, donchathink?

          To paint this issue as if the BBC is somehow reluctant to suggest reality should play a role in legal cases concerning beliefs about reality is hardly insight; it’s a subtle smear SB is using to paint those like JK Rowling who think the wrong issue is in the dock – a philosophical belief contrary to reality that is receiving legal protection from honest challenge – and that reality and the facts of biology should trump ideological beliefs that the idiotic and batshit crazy ‘woke’ laws this judge has helped to promote presumes that they can be then be used to justify discriminatory actions against those who respect reality and who allow it – rather than our batshit crazy ideological counter-reality notions – to arbitrate our beliefs about it. The judge has in effect called reality incompatible with human dignity… when in fact his ruling about protecting certain woke beliefs is what’s incompatible with reality.


          1. Actually, the judge had to refer to Ms. Forstater’s beliefs as philosophical because they weren’t grounded in fact. The scientific testimony given during the tribunal (and quoted in the opinion) directly contradicts any factual basis for her belief.

            Try again.


          2. No.

            The judge used the ‘Grainger criteria’ (see Grainger plc v Nicholson, 2010) to establish whether a philosophical belief constitutes something worthy of protection. In this particular case, that approach presumes sex-based biological differences in reality (and the physiological evidence for these physiological differences is overwhelming, which is what Forstater’s case is based on) are merely a contrary ‘philosophical belief’. To then meet the criteria of ‘harassment’ by exercising her free speech about these facts, the judge switched gears and presumed her belief was not open to compromise. Hence the ruling. What’s not of central importance is whether or not facts, reality, and the preponderance of evidence of what is most likely true matters a tinker’s damn. Apparently not. This is concerning.

            For you to suggest that Forstater’s recognition of what is true is “not grounded in fact” – and the same recognition of reality used by Rowling in her tweet – demonstrates a clear willingness on your part to misrepresent reality not just about this case in general and Rowling’s defense of its fact-based merit but to dismiss out of hand the factual basis of sex-based differences that is true in reality but under attack by ideologues you sympathize with. What you are in fact doing is an underhanded method of dismissing reality on the one hand while misrepresenting and suggesting some lack of knowledge/honesty by those who rely on it to defend their exercise of free speech on the other.


          3. Why does any of this matter?

            Sirius Bizinus claims that someone like Forstater gets the science wrong – gets the facts wrong – when they operate as if sex-based differences are real and set physiologically. He then claims this is the case here because scientific ‘testimony’ backs up this warped version of reality and so Forstater’s contrary ‘belief’ is intolerant.

            No, the biological science behind establishing sex-based difference does no such thing and, no, it doesn’t change reality in this kangaroo tribunal by dressing it up with a pseudo-sciency wardrobe. Furthermore, NOT going along with the self-defeating ideology does not make someone intolerant or bigoted.

            The testimony presents this as if it is (in Sirius Bizinus’s explanatory view) “legitimate” scientific testimony that sex-based differences can be altered by wardrobe and so it is not just reasonable but compulsory to expect Forstater to correctly guess which name on which day of the week to use for this ‘scientific’ example of sex-based fluidity.

            Look, this is the real issue here: the Woke’s insistence that it’s somehow okay to demand compulsory adherence to this ideological framework over and above what’s true in reality or suffer legal consequences. Furthermore, Sirius Bizinus goes along with the idea that such consequences are okay if they are legal. This argument is no different in principle than using blasphemy laws to compel religious acceptance by vilifying and misrepresenting anyone who steps off this razor thin acceptable and virtuous version of the ideology and going along with the framework that using a contrary ‘belief’ like reality (because, hey, we all have our own truth donchaknow) while waving away any science that has been arbitrated by it if it is convenient to do so. That’s why we need more people like Rowling to step up and confront this totalitarian censorious nonsense rather than meekly go along with its ideological promoters and apologists and good little virtue soldiers like Sirius Bizinus.


          4. The justice can only rule on the arguments presented. In this case, the claimant contended that “her gender critical views are a philosophical belief and that she has been subject to direct discrimination because of them; or has suffered indirect sex discrimination as such view are more likely to be held by women than men.” — so those were the only items under consideration.


          5. Only because the law has no provision for protecting people for stating material facts.

            Because Forstater’s contract was not renewed referencing her ‘intolerance’ towards ‘binary’ people – aka stating material facts – her only option was to regard the intolerance shown to her for her willingness to state material facts as if facts as a philosophical belief. The judge simply presumed denying sex-based differences – aka stating a material fact – was therefore a philosophical belief of intolerance BECAUSE she would not change her mind. And ruled accordingly!


          6. The facts of the matter are that her consulting contract ended in December 2018 and was not renewed. So the only relevant question here is whether or not she has the moral right to force her previous employers to remain in an involuntary relationship with her. I submit that the only plausible answer to that question must be no, she does not have that right.


          7. Your point would be a slam dunk if her work productivity was found wanting, but it wasn’t. In fact, she was considered very highly in work reviews. Her contract was not renewed BECAUSE her tweeting that biological males become transgender males and not ‘women’ was used to justify suddenly ending the 5 year employment. That’s why her only option was the tribunal to establish workplace discrimination… she was let go for stating facts.

            And it’s a huge deal because stating facts vs being compelled to go along with only ideologically acceptable positions at work that are contrary to reality should not be toxic to one’s professional life! The inmates are in charge of the workplace and are being legally supported to create an insane asylum!

            Being compelled or to go along with contra-reality ideology or face punishment in the workplace should be a clear cut case of discrimination (if not blatant insanity) because the issue is the mandatory acceptance of an ideological position or being let go. This ruling is wrong (if not crazy) from every angle and certainly discriminatory. This is an abject failure of the legal system to stem the rising tide of imposed ideological idiocy that is factually incompatible with reality. So that job falls to the rest of us like Rowling to decry this batshit crazy-but-legally-defensible coercion the ideology requires to survive.


          8. It doesn’t really matter why the contract wasn’t renewed. The overriding principle remains the same: no one has the moral right to force others into doing things that are against their will.


          9. Just to clarify: You consider it is wrong to force (oblige) someone to refer to an individual whose sex is male as female and vice versa?

            Correct any faulty details: I am thinking of the doctor that was fired because he refused to refer to a bearded man as a woman.


          10. No, because Ms. Rowling is factually incorrect in saying that Ms. Forstater is being forced out of their jobs for stating that sex is real.


          11. From an article by the BBC

            A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex has lost an employment tribunal.

            This seems to be what Rowling was complaining about, yes?


          12. The same article states:

            “Maya Forstater, 45, did not have her contract renewed after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans to let people declare their own gender.”

            Not having your contract renewed is not the same thing as being forced out of a job. But it’s a moot point because each party retains the moral right to terminate a relationship that no longer meets the individual party’s needs.


          13. I can’t answer because I wasn’t privy to their negotiations. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter because there’s no moral obligation for either side to renew the contract if they decline to do so.


          14. Yes, it does matter as the Tweet was cited as the reason for non-renewal. otherwise what on earth was the point of the tribunal?

            So it is incorrect to state that the Tweet was not the reason for her contract not being renewed.

            Furthermore, biologically her Tweet is correct. How could it not be?


          15. According to the tribunal judgement:

            The Claimant contends that her gender critical views are a philosophical belief and that she has been subject to direct discrimination because of them; or has suffered indirect sex
            discrimination as such view are more likely to be held by women than men.

            . . . and the justice found this was not the case.

            But again, it’s a moot point because the fact is her contract expired and there is no moral (or legal) obligation for either party to renew it.


          16. Just to clarify, getting fired for refusing to be compelled to refer to a man as a woman by an employer is not discrimination… you’re saying it’s the employer’s right to compel… but that it’s not a moral right (just a legal one, I guess).


          17. According to the facts presented, her contract expired and wasn’t renewed. thus relieving her of any obligations to follow company policy. So where is the compulsion in that?


    1. I don’t think Sirius Bizinus understands what went on but is first in line to ‘suggest’ the problem cannot possibly be with the ideology used by both the contractor and the judge to justify denying Forstater’s case.


          1. If you read the court documents, the judge was ruling on preliminary facts, not the whole case. As it is, my comment was about Ms. Rowling and the BBC’s characterization of Ms. Forstater’s employment, not the underlying issues of what she said. Those are still at issue, and they’ve yet to be fully litigated.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s