You are invited you to join the Buckingham Law School – Book Launch: Beauty, Women’s Bodies and the Law: Performances in Plastic by Dr Scutt
In the absence of a better word with which to refer to the rabid activists who claim progressivism while demanding adherence to an increasingly prescriptive set of political beliefs, I call them “woke”. With its roots in Black American slang, the term originally denoted a person or a group who were enlightened on social justice issues and awake to the inequalities in America. As words do, it has evolved from a self-descriptor to more of a term the fed up masses use to describe the drivers of cancel culture and identity politics throughout the anglosphere and indeed most of the West.
It is time that society catches up and realises that wokeism is not the movement for the disadvantaged and oppressed. Wokeism is the establishment. It is inextricably linked to corporate politics and capitalism. Woke activists have disproportionate social power in today’s fraught world. They are the establishment in the culture wars.
If you can have people you disagree with permanently banned from social media sites for stating basic facts, you are the oppressor, not the oppressed.
If you can have Wikipedia pages deleted simply because the factual information does not suit your ideological position or hurts your feelings, you are powerful.
If you can threaten people with rape, assault, murder, and all manner of other violence and have these actions justified because your political beliefs are deemed more compliant than the person you are attacking, you are the establishment.
If America is anything like the U.K., the numbers of gender-confused children seeking clinical attention is likely skyrocketing. The main gender youth clinic in Britain saw fewer than 100 children in 2009 and around 2,500 last year. There also has been a 42-fold increase in the number of females seeking treatment. The British liberal press is reporting scandal after scandal at this clinic — whistleblower clinicians resigning, a parents’ lawsuit, the former governor of the trust that oversees the clinic being quoted in the Times of London that it is “not fit for purpose.” But the truth is that the scandals in Britain are nothing compared to the unreported gender experiment happening in America.
To be clear: “Affirming” a child’s “social transition” is a form of social-psychological treatment, one with very little research behind it, and one on which no school counselor, teacher, or parent should embark lightly. Some medical experts and researchers worry that this treatment might make it harder for a child to accept his or her body later on and might also put them on a pathway to irreversible medicalization.
How many more people must be needlessly hurt before we decide to dismantle activist tricks and “techniques”? Before we decide to tell them “No way,” “There’s no evidence,” “This isn’t safe,” “This isn’t science,” and, frankly, “This isn’t even plausible.” How will this issue magically resolve itself — our statutes, science books, and dictionaries having all been rewritten?
The prominent campaigner is teaming up with women’s legal services across Australia to launch a new five-step plan .
Excellent speech by Janet.
The system needs to be overhauled – but not by Pauline Hanson who seems to be driven by vengeance on behalf of her son.
I’ve lost count of the number of victimised parents, usually mothers, who’ve told me they are terrified to leave their violent relationships because they know that if they get drawn into the family law system, they cannot guarantee their children’s safety. They’re afraid their children will be at greater risk if they leave than if they stay.
When I first started hearing these stories I didn’t believe they were part of a pattern. Everyone knows someone who’s had a shitty time in the family law system. Besides, I knew that this system was actually biased against fathers, not mothers. I believed then, like 43% of Australians, that vindictive mothers routinely lobbed abuse allegations at their ex-husbands to stop them seeing their children.
But then I started reading their court documents and the research.
In 2001, a joint study by the family court and the University of Sydney found that the family law system had “tilted more and more against women, either by accident or design”. Even where serious violence had been proven, it found, supervised contact with abusive fathers was becoming much more common.
In 2006, despite this noted tilt against women, and after three years of what then-legal associate Waleed Aly described as “an incessant and often intimidatory campaign by father’s rights groups”, the Howard government introduced new reforms to the Family Law Act. They were, on the face of it, reasonable – judges should apply a presumption of shared parental responsibility unless violence or abuse was an issue. But there was a catch: if a parent alleged abuse, they could be labelled a “hostile parent”, unwilling to support shared parenting.
The punishment for hostile parents could be extreme: they not only ran the risk of losing custody of their children, they could be blocked from seeing or even speaking to them for months.
In 2007, Rae Kaspiew (now at the Australian Institute of Family Studies) found there were very limited circumstances in which a mother could challenge ongoing paternal involvement, “except in cases where the evidence of severe violence was clear-cut”. In his report, former family court judge Richard Chisholm called this trap “the victim’s dilemma”, a position later articulated by former attorney general Robert McLelland: “Do I report family violence to the court and risk losing my children, or should I stay silent?”
In 2012, after three research studies found that victims of abuse were not being protected in the family law system, then-attorney general Nicola Roxon announced another set of reforms to the Family Law Act – essentially, attempting to undo the harm done by the Howard reforms.
Magdalen Berns’ impact in raising awareness of lesbian women’s needs and interests cannot be overstated. A YouTube sensation, she has hugely influenced public conversations around sex, gender, and sexuality.
Update: Magdalen died this morning. We are told she died peacefully in her sleep, surrounded by family.
Magdalen Berns is a lesbian feminist warrior. A YouTube sensation, her videos have been accessed by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Magdalen’s powerful reminder that “there’s no such thing as a lesbian with a penis” cut through the layers of pseudo-scientific mysticism that declare gender as a fixed, innate quality. With a clear and precise logic, she picked apart the argument that biological sex is mutable.
The 11-14 July Security Council visiting mission to Colombia co-led by the United Kingdom and Peru. (Photo: United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia @MisionONUCol)
On Friday 19 July 2019, the United Nations Security Council held sessions and closed consultations to report back from the 11-14 July visiting mission to Colombia co-led by Peru and the United Kingdom.
Building on recommendations from meetings in Colombia with women-led civil society, government authorities, and community leaders, the discussion highlighted the importance of holistic and accelerated implementation of the peace agreement and action to address rising violence against human rights defenders and peacebuilders.
With 14 of the 15 Council representatives on the mission being men, if Council Members are to be taken seriously on gender equality, they must also strengthen women’s leadership within their own missions.