Why J K Rowling must die

In the past 36 hours, thanks to the Twitter hashtag RIPJKRowling, a few hundred thousand people have expressed their opinion about whether or not J K Rowling is, or should, die.

J K Rowling isn’t actually dead, of course, but the people who popularised the hashtag are already firmly of the belief that material reality is subordinate to their fantasies, so pointing out her continued vitality may well count as a hate-crime.

J K Rowling, still alive, in violation of the human rights of thousands of people with anime cartoons as profile pictures

If you have a pre-2015 brain, which simply has J K Rowling filed as the author of a very successful series of novels about a boy wizard, then you may wonder why thousands of people, the majority of whom have presumably never met her, now wish her dead.

Those paying a little more attention to current affairs will know, or guess, that it’s down to her position on trans rights, although the detail is so widely and wildly misreported, misrepresented or misunderstood that it may be a little hard to understand exactly what she’s done wrong, other than fall into the catch-all sin of being “transphobic”.

Understanding how this happens requires understanding the business model of the trans rights activists, which on the surface looks like this (because the same people who constantly talk about things being non-binary or spectra also have a remarkably binary view of the world).

The first problem comes if you try to find out exactly what trans rights you’re supporting, because that whole field is locked in what we’ll call A Great Loyalty Oath Crusade spiral.

In Joseph Heller’s Catch-22, Captain Black starts the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade by having bomber crews sign loyalty oaths before getting essential equipment and briefings. He bullies other officers into following suit, claiming that if they were really loyal they wouldn’t mind getting their men to sign loyalty oaths, and loyal men wouldn’t mind signing them.

When other officers take his advice he ups his own campaign, to continually demonstrate he is the most loyal. Combat crews end up signing oath after oath, reciting the pledge of allegiance, singing The Star-Spangled Banner, and anything else that Captain Black can think of to make them prove they are loyal.

Without realising how it had come about, the combat men in the squadron discovered themselves dominated by the administrators appointed to serve them. They were bullied, insulted, harassed and shoved about all day long by one after the other. When they voiced objection, Captain Black replied that people who were loyal would not mind signing all of the loyalty oaths they had to. To anyone who questioned the effectiveness of the loyalty oaths, he replied that people who really did owe allegiance to their country would be proud to pledge it as often as he forced them to.

Joseph Heller, Catch-22

The trans rights movement, which one must believe was originally about making life a little better for a tiny number of people, has become a global talking point. It attracts the support of national press and presidential candidates, billion dollar businesses and A-list celebrities, each competing against the others to prove they are most loyal.

If you demand expression of religious faith from politicians you are just begging to be lied to. They won’t all lie you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever had to tell.

Arnold Vinick, The West Wing

The cycle repeats over and over, making what would have been fringe views only a couple of years ago mainstays of the rights that are being demanded.

The phrase “They don’t believe that transwomen are real women” is now uttered with the same horror and disbelief that was previously reserved for discussing those who didn’t believe the Earth was round or who thought that dinosaur bones were a trick of Satan’s, to fool people into believing in evolution.

As recently as 4 or 5 years ago it was quite acceptable to say that, while transwomen may be women, they were not female. Such a view is now heretical, although many of those who support trans rights haven’t kept up, and don’t realise that it is now biologically impossible to tell a transwoman from a woman.

This constant revision of what is being demanded means that our diagram from above is not a static model.

You’ll note there’s no route back from being a transphobe. Once you’ve been labelled you can never apologise enough, never be compliant enough, never escape the screenshots of past transgressions or the blocklists. This is a feature, not a bug. If you don’t sign the fifth loyalty oath, or sing all 4 verses of The Star-Spangled Banner, and then are reaffirmed as loyal, it gives permission to all others to waver.

There is one final addition to make to the diagram before you close.

That’s there because the biggest lie behind this whole thing is that it’s a women’s issue.

With very few exceptions, men who choose to speak out against trans rights activists are simply ignored by the activists themselves. Author James Felton demanded to know why the media had sought a man’s opinion on this issue, rather than a transwoman’s (pointing out that’s just asking a different man is enough to get you escorted out of Twitter). A tweet of mine was seen by quarter of a million people and my negative feedback, in full, was, “Oh do shut up you fool, you aren’t half as clever as you think you are.”

But, as the Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade carries us ever further from what’s rational and reasonable and we find ourselves in a society increasingly willing to sign every oath, recite every pledge and sing every verse, we must all take a stand.

In Catch-22 the crusade comes to an immediate stop when the fierce and untouchable Major _______ de Coverley refuses to take part and, with two sentence fragments, brings the whole edifice of nonsense crashing down.

And fear of just that is, of course, why those invested think J K Rowling must die.

Flying a pilot

blue end of the spectrum



Right, let’s get started! You’ll all remember Seb here…




What? Oh, yes, sorry…You’ll all remember Sab from his…



Sorry again. You’ll all remember Sab from xis inclusivity training course that he…



…that xe ran last zeek. Week.



Now, as you’ll have heard, a body was found shortly after 4am this morning and, from the wounds and the general MO we’re working with initial assumption that this is the work of the Dockland Knifer.



What information do we have on the latest victim, sir?


Not a lot. As with the other victims, all forms of ID had been removed from the body and we’re waiting for DNA and dental matches and keeping a close eye on all new misper reports. The victim is a female aged approximately…


Isn’t it a little early in the investigation to assume the victim’s gender identity, inspector?


Thank you, Seb. Sab. Important to bear these things in mind. The victim is biologically female and aged…




The victim has female primary and secondary sexual characteristics?



From the victim’s appearance and manner of dress we’re assuming…


Getting worse, if anything.


We have reason to believe the victim was in possession of a cervix at her…




…was in possession of a cervix at their time of death.







Yes, they’re aged 20-25 years old.



As with the Knifer’s other victims, the body wasn’t moved post-mortem and pathology have put the time of death at no later than 3am. Given her place and time…




…given their place and time of death, and consistent with the Knifer’s MO, we’re assuming that this victim was also a prostitute, and we’ve circulated her photo to vice, to see if anybody recognises her.


Their photo, to see if anybody recognises them. Remember, inspector, good policework means not making any assumptions. Also, the term ‘prostitute’ has significant negative connotations, inspector. Didn’t you read the memo I sent around?


Sorry, sorry, old habits. We’re assuming she…xe…they are a sex-worker.


Sorry, Terry, I’m a bit lost here. Did they or did they not have a dick, and is it still against the law to be a Tom?


Why wasn’t that officer on my course, inspector?


I was off sick.


Well, while you were lying at home with a poorly tummy all you missed was everything you need to know about how modern, inclusive policing works.


I was recovering after being shot by a suspect!


Does that make it OK for you to endanger other people’s lives by throwing around transphobic questions, and acting like you’re some sort of expert on the laws of the night-time economy?


OK, Seb. Sab. Leave it! Susan, we’ll get you booked on the next course.



Consistent with the other attacks, this victim had more than a dozen frenzied stabs to her – to their – torso, from a single-edged blade, at least 18cm long. Almost certainly some sort of kitchen knife, so no leads there. She – they – also had bruising to their wrists, consistent with their arms being pinned down. No cuts to the arms, so we’re assuming that they were pinned down before they were stabbed.


Before the arms were stabbed?


No, “they” the victim, not “they” the arms.


Although, of course, all of this may have been consensual.


Sorry, are you suggesting that she might have consented to being stabbed to death?


If you’d bothered to turn up last week, Karen, you’d know that good police officers don’t kink-shame.


My name’s Susan, not Karen.


Let’s see if we can get you booked on the ‘Understanding cultural references’ course as well, shall we? If you’ve got time between being off poorly. Would you like that? It would be nice to understand what people are talking to you about, wouldn’t it?


Sit down, Susan! Anyway, as we’re linking this to the Dockland Knifer case, we can start with the profile that we have for them. The man we’re looking for is probably mid- to late-20s…


Why are you assuming that you’re looking for a man? Remember, “Assume makes an ass of U and me”. Do you remember that from my course?


For this kind of pattern of violent crime against wom…against cervix-possessors, the statistics suggest that…


The old statistics, which were based on “biological sex”, which we now know to be bigoted, factually incorrect, and scientifically illiterate. When we do the analysis correctly, by self-assigned gender identity, you see that females are far more violent.


I can certainly see why



Let’s all look at the facts of this case. We have a victim who may well have identified as trans or non-binary, was a sex-worker and was kink-positive. That’s a very specific victim type, and means that our killer is almost certainly a far-right radical feminist. We should get a car round to J K Rowling’s house.


I’m not sure frenzied 3am dock stabbing are her style, really.


Ha. Ha. Obviously I’m not suggesting that she did it personally, although I’m sure she’d like to, but there’s no doubt in my mind that our murderer was inspired by her hate-filled messages. Find out who’s been reading her tweets and we’ll find our killer.


That shouldn’t take long, she’s only got about 12 million followers.


Actually, it’s a lot less now. Most people disagree with her and have unfollowed her.


Twitter says 14.3 million. I’m sure we can eliminate most of them from our enquiries before the end of the decade.


I think you have to consider the large number of people who are following just to report hate speech and…



You’re going to want to hear this, sir, we’ve had a breakthrough. We’ve got a preliminary ID on this morning’s victim, from her mum, who came in to report her missing.




Not like the others, sir, she’s not on the ga…[HE LOOKS AT SAB] I Mean she’s not a sex-worker, sir, even though that’s Real Work and Nothing To Be Ashamed Of, sir. She’s an estate agent, but she has been getting threats from her ex-boyfriend. Who just happens to match the profile we’ve got for…




Spot on, sir.


Right, I want everything we’ve got on him, and I want uniform round to his home, his work, his known haunts. I want him picked up and I want him picked up now! [TO SAB] You want to come on a ride-along?


For a cis, heterosexual woman? Fuck her, I’ve got memos to write.

A league of their own

I know nothing about Rugby, other than their labyrinthine one-way system ensures that first time visitors to the town get at least three passes by its famous school, before they’re allowed to pick a direction that involves leaving Rugby behind.

It was at that very school, the story goes, that rugby, the game, was invented when, during a game of football, one of the players picked up the ball and ran with it (literally and metaphorically).

No Wikipedia articles on rugby were disturbed in the writing of this blog

Could you have a better metaphor for the underlying causes of the current rugby battle – about whether trans women should be allowed to play women’s rugby – than that of an immature, privileged young man deciding that he could unilaterally change the rules of the game on the fly?

History, at least as far as I know it and can be bothered to research it (i.e. not at all), is silent on whether picking up the ball was the only change in that match. Were all the rules of rugby, which I understand to be quite different to football, made up in that game, on the fly, to suit the ball-handler?

“I say, Jenkins, can I throw the ball to Smythe Minor?”

“No! You have to throw it to me! ME!”

“But Smythe’s a lot near the goal.”

“I WANT THE BA…I mean, in this game you can only throw the ball backwards

Scenes from the first rugby match
The world’s first rugby player, pictured yesterday

“Haha, you’ve booted it over the bar, Jenkins, you idiot.”

“That’s what we have to do in this game, get it over the bar.”

“Riiiiiight. And that’s not because you’re a useless striker?”

“I no longer identify as a striker. You have to call me a hooker.”

“We already do, Jenkins.”

Scenes from the first rugby match

Obviously the other players thought the whole thing had potential, or there wouldn’t be a whole other class of sporting knowledge for me to be rubbish at in the pub quiz. I can certainly image the people on the same team as the guy was making up these new rules were generally well-disposed to it, that being the kind of thing that tends to lend your team an advantage. The other team, though, how did they feel?


“Oh, leave him alone. This new carrying-the-ball thing looks a lot more exciting than boring old football.”

“He’s just grabbed Fossington’s legs! Look at that! He’s gone and properly sent him arse-over-tit!”

“Well, can you blame him, with people like you shouting abuse and accusations at him?”

Scenes from the first rugby match

Whatever that first game played out like, and heaven knows I’m not going to look to find out, what does seem to have been decided fairly quickly is that it wasn’t football. People who wanted to take part in football weren’t suddenly told that they not had to change the rules, to accommodate this new holding-the-ball lot.

“Tell you what, Jenkins, that new game you invented was quite good fun. We should do football in Tuesday games and this new Rugby-football in Thursday games.”

“No! Just no! From now on we only play my rules! Every time! Everybody!”

“Steady on, old boy, a few of us chaps still enjoy a bit of kicking football.”

“Bigots! Why are you trying to erase my existence! I have a human right to sports!”

Scenes from (shortly after) the first rugby match

Maybe there’s some sort of lesson there. A lesson about not trying to replace something that already exists with something where you’re the one making up the rules.

Or maybe it’s just a load of balls. Who knows?

Faith and science

I have very few strong memories of my school days, and fewer still that I treasure, but there is one. It was an RE lesson, given by Mr McCoy (who, in the unkind way of schoolchildren, was known as Crater-face, because of his prominent acne scars). The topic was fundamental human rights, and one of them was freedom of belief.

My mum comes from an Irish Catholic family, two of her aunts had become nuns, and my brother and I had been baptised into the faith and had attended church every Sunday and, distressingly, every Christmas morning (back in the days before priests were trendy, and allow children to bring their new toys along to mass with them) since then.

I had even taken confirmation classes, from which my main learning experience was that nuns hate questions about dinosaurs and whether or not they had souls. Thus the large portion of my classes were spent standing in the corridor, thinking about what I’d done. Which was, invariably, asking questions to which Catholic dogma had no answers.

Up until that day nobody had ever said that I had the fundamental right not to believe the priests and the nuns and my mum and her aunts, who were also nuns, and the Bible. I was free to not believe it.

I didn’t go to church the following Sunday. I haven’t been to a Catholic mass since. I preferred science, which was cool with dinosaurs, soulless or otherwise. As XKCD says, science “…doesn’t ask for your faith, it just asks for your eyes.”

I think back on old Crater-face when I hear people saying that trans-rights do not cause a conflict of rights, because he taught me I have a fundamental right of belief – and I choose to have none – whereas those shouting loudest about trans rights demand that I accept their belief that a woman is defined by something otherworldly and spiritual.

It’s a religion, and it’s not even a good one. Plenty of other religions have the decency to offer you some kind of paradise if you adhere to their teachings. This one just offers you hell if you don’t.

Make no mistake that it is a religion. When trans-rights activist claim that the science is on their side makes me cringe, because science isn’t being able to pack together 800 book-learning words into an article. It’s about developing a hypothesis that fits the data. If you’re telling a story about SRY genes or brain-scans or DSDs, while ignoring primary and secondary sex characteristics, then you’re not doing that. You’re doing the very opposite of that, the antithesis of science; you’ve decided what the result is and are dragging in every piece of data you can find that might support it.

Freedom of belief works both ways, of course. Everyone has the right to believe that men can become women, in just the same way that they have the right to believe a piece of wafer becomes the body of Christ, but when they try to extend that right into demanding that others share their faith, that failure to do so is a reason to throw accusations of bigotry, to demand removal from jobs, to define hate crime, then a line has been crossed.

The freedom to believe what you want must entail the freedom to reject the beliefs of others. Mr McCoy taught me that, and anybody whose only counter-argument is to threaten you with a spell standing in the corridor isn’t worth a damn.

“As foretold in the Book of Rexelations!”

The No debating Society

What do we want?


When do we want it?


For literally longer than I can be bothered to look-up schools, universities and probably other places as well have had Debating Societies. Within these societies the biggest brains of their generations could go massive-head to massive-head over the pressing issues of the day, each demonstrating their mastery of the facts, their verbal dexterity, their insight into statistics, and their ability to build the edifice of an argument, from their opening statement right up until the pubs open. Magnificent.

The issue with debating societies is, of course, that they’re seriously uncool. No one can speak positively of them without a whiff of owns a selection of bow-ties, or the tangy high-notes of would really like to smoke a pipe, but the one time they tried it made them sick. This is why it’s been so good to see a trendy new alternative arise in our universities – the No Debate society.

A lot of people have questions about how no debating works, which shows that they’ve failed to grasp even the basic meaning of the name, so there’s probably not a  lot of hope for them. There do, however, have to be basic rules, presented here for any of you keen to get into the fashionable world of no debate.

empty debate hall
The Oxford No Debate Society, pictured yesterday

Rule 1 – No debate!

OK, rule 1 seems a little redundant, but it’s important to understand that ‘No debate’ means NO debate. It’s all too easy to get drawn into answering innocuous-sounding questions, like “What rights do you actually want?” or “What is a woman?” and then, suddenly, you’re pressed up against the issue that nobody knows the answers, because rule 1 says the No Debate society can’t get into a discussion of such with other members of the No Debate society, which would make a mockery of the whole thing.

Instead, the message has to be simply We want what we want, and that’s the end of it. No debate. Hopefully it will turn out that everyone was refusing to debate about the same thing.

Rule 2 – No empathy!

In debate, understanding your opponent’s point of view is essential. You must understand the cornerstone of their belief, in order to attack it. If you can understand their arguments then you’re half way to seeing how to destroy them.

Yeah, fuck that for a lark.

It is not for the advocate of No Debate to have even the slightest empathy towards those debased bastards who want a debate. They are wrong. End. Of. Story.

Avoiding empathy is also the only way of never asking yourself, “What if the other side did this to me?” It’s vitally important that you never for a moment consider what would happen if women’s groups said, “No, they’re men. No debate!” or, “OK, the line is that if you’re willing to have your todger whipped off then, yes, you can be a woman. No debate!”

Nobody wants to lie awake at night wondering which they fear more, being misgendered or a guy in scrubs coming at them with the surgical garden shears, so no empathy is a must!

Rule 3 – No truck with democracy!

Historically, most of the people who’ve demanded massive societal change without any debate have had the decency to show up with guns. Modern No Debate societies have nothing more than stumpy pee-shooters, but wave them they will.

Rightly so, they argue, for what could be more demeaning that placing some sort of reliance on other people validating your belief that you’re absolutely right about everything? No Debating societies have found their home in universities, which means that they’re peopled by students, who are the intellectual cream of society. Why, then, should they give time to whether lesser mortals think they’re right or wrong?

No Debate offers the purity of fighting tooth and nail for an ill-defined collection of goals, without sullying that fight with the requirement that a majority validate it. They can make themselves useful validating other stuff instead. There’s a list.

Rule 4 – No foresight!

Debating a proposal, a new law, or a change of any kind forces you to think, What will happen as a result of this? It may be that you want to support the proposition, by painting a picture of the positive changes that will radiate throughout the world as a result, or oppose it, by making it the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of the end. My good man, if we extend suffrage to women then, before you know it, it will be legal for dogs to ride velocipedes!

No Debate cuts through all of that nonsense, and lets you live in an eternal Now, where what you want is everything you want and always will be, and not getting everything you want is simply unthinkable (and absolutely unspeakable).

Best of all, the no foresight rule means that you never have to think what happens once one issue is deemed too important to debate, once the precedence is set that people can be afforded new rights without even entertaining the possibility of opposition. What will be the next issue that’s above debate, transmoot, if you will? Who will decide? How will you stop them?

Rule 5 – No end!

While debates are normally time-limited, no debates can continue forever. Indeed, in 10100 years, when all the stars have burned out, black holes evaporated and every last drop of energy spent, the no debate will be the only thing happening.

Hopefully, before then, there’ll be consensus on what rights they actually want, and what it is that they’re refusing to debate but, for the moment, we won’t talk about that.


Definitions are hard.

For example, this is a car.

ford focus

And this is not a car.


They have a lot of similarities; they’re both mechanical devices, they’re both intended to be used as personal transport, they’re both designed to be operated on public roads, by suitably licensed people, they both operate by means of an engine of some kind, etc.

So what makes one a car and one not?

The obvious place to start is with the number of wheels, but if we definitively say, “A car has 4 wheels,” then we hit problems.

This car only has 3-wheels.


And this has only has 3 wheels and can be driven with a motorcycle licence, but is still a car.

reliant robin

While this also has 3 wheels, but is not a car.



Ah, perhaps its something to do with bodywork, or a roof, then!

But this car has no roof, and very little bodywork.


While this has a roof, but still isn’t a car.

BMW C1 125

And look at all the bodywork here. Not a car, though.


Something more technical, then? Something to do with the controls, perhaps?

That gets us into problems as well.

old car

And that’s before we consider that cars can be adapted, for drivers with disabilities for example, to use hand controls, but that doesn’t stop them being cars. If you start with a car then you can chop and change all the bits you like and you’ll end up with something that is still a car…or a wreck.

Nor do this and this…

Prove that there’s a spectrum from this…


…to this.

ford focus

How could there be? A spectrum is a continuum, not a shit-brown blur of different factors mulched together.

It can’t be a spectrum, because there’s no way of saying which of these is most like a car.

And where would this fit on your spectrum?


Is that more car-y than a “normal” car?

As I said, definitions are hard, and if you try to isolate just one thing that distinguishes A from B then often you run into problems.

All you really need to remember is that this…


…doesn’t mean that this…


…can ignore this.


And that, at least, is easy.

The ocean and the candle

The sad, mad Things in the Dungeon Dimensions have no understanding of the world but simply crave light and shape and try to warm themselves by the fires of reality, clustering around it with about the same effect—if they ever broke through—as an ocean trying to warm itself around a candle.

-Terry Pratchett, Eric

There’s a time and a place for the question, “What is a woman?”

For example, in my Star Trek fan-fic, where Kirk finds himself stranded on some idyllic alien planet and resigns himself being stuck there for the rest of his life, and then asks one of the natives, “Say, where are all the women?”. As a reply, “What is a woman?” is going to be pretty devastating.

kirk khan

Or maybe at the WI, that time that Liz got her boiled sweets mixed up with her medicinal marijuana, and the whole group are into their third hour of eating jam straight from the jar, chatting shit, and making up dirty lyrics to Jerusalem.

On Twitter, though, where replies are limited to 280 characters and 4 pictures, it’s not such a great question, and perhaps that’s why the people so intent on redefining the term haven’t come up with a good answer yet.

If you’ve spent any time debating this, or watching others debate it, you’ll know the re-definers’ attack on the definition of womanhood is supported by a debating tripod – a compound of ‘trip’ and ‘OD’, two terms meaning to be out of your fucking skull.

twaw diagram

Obviously, not every definition fits neatly into just one of these categories, many of them also fit into the much larger, overarching, category of ‘Absolutely irrelevant’

irrelevant crap
Here shown to scale


Take, for example, the claim that trans women’s brain scans show them to be more similar to women than men. This claim would seem to lie mainly in the sphere of biology, but when you think about it it’s also circular reasoning.

Why? Well, if brain scans, and not any other factor, is what splits men and women, then how do you have a control group that contains people you know to be men or women? You can’t, without a brain scan. At best you end up with two groups, A and B, with each group being defined by some common similarity, and which you can arbitrarily label ‘Men’ and ‘Women’, but you wouldn’t know which was which.

You could resolve this by saying that the men are the ones with penises, except that’s exactly the kind of rational thinking that you’re trying to get away from, by paying all this money to rent a brain-scanner (Also, I don’t know if penises show up on brain scans. My guess is that if they do you’ve probably calibrated something incorrectly)

What then makes it irrelevant is that the anti-sex league don’t want to use brain scans to determine who’s a woman and who isn’t, any more than they care what chromosomes a person has, or whether gender dysphoria is a mental illness, or what sea-horses do in order to get little sea-horses (sea-foals?). If some genius announced tomorrow that they’d come up with a scientific, 100% accurate test to determine if someone was trans or not then, by the end of the day, their weighted-down body would be being slung into deep water somewhere remote by the nobble committee.

Their goal is that everyone who says they’re a woman is a woman, therefore any definition of women that doesn’t include everybody is (or will be) a TERF position.

Look at how many thousands of words have been written in the sphere of biology about intersex people. Textbooks worth of arguments about what disorders of sexual development are and aren’t, PhD mocking PhD across the swamp, high profile cases dismantled…and yet nobody’s saying that you have to have a DSD to be trans, or that everybody with a DSD is trans.

This is why the sphere of irrelevant crap is so huge, because every battle is being fought exclusively in the no-woman’s land, remote from the TRA’s position of “Women are whoever we say they are.”

The problem with that position is that it makes women everyone. Like making the VIP section in a posh club inclusive, by opening it to everyone, making everyone potentially a women destroys that which is coveted.

when everyones a woman
When everyone’s a woman, no one is!

There are men who genuinely want to be women. Who want to live as women. Who want to be seen as women by the world. The trans-rights movement is working counter to their interests, by pursuing a course that will render the term ‘woman’ meaningless. A term crouched in pseudo-biology, endless circular logic and unfalsifiable claims of gendered souls and such. All supported by people who desperately want to believe that the cause they’ve sided with is, somehow, grounded in rationality.

It is not. Intentionally or otherwise their cause is to destroy womanhood. Because the ocean can’t warm itself around the candle.



Pole opinion

Dashing this off quickly because I was interested in the thread below, but didn’t fancy stringing together my answer over 30 tweets.

Because it’s a quick one, please excuse me if my proofreading is even more slapdash than usual.

Two things about me first; I have been a senior manager within the data function of polling & market research companies for over a decade now, and have personally worked on polling in public opinion into trans rights. Secondly, I am on the gender-critical side of this argument, although I have tried to be unbiased here.

If you can’t be bothered to read the thread linked above then it’s between Helen Staniland (@helenstaniland) and an anonymous tweeter, who I’m assuming is called Sharon, based on her Twitter handle (@24shaz). My apologies if that assumption is incorrect. Basically, the sub-thread is about the validity of the results of polling when the party paying for the poll has an interest in getting a particular result.

Obligatory link to Yes, Prime Minister has to be included here.

First off, let me say that Sharon is absolutely right – the way in which questions are asked can have a huge effect on the outcome. The polling company they’re discussing, Populus (who I have never worked for, btw) is a member of the British Polling Council (BPC), which attempts to address this issue by insisting that questions are asking a neutral manner and are free of bias.

This can be very difficult to achieve. I once worked on two polls, running their fieldwork at the same time, both matching the UK general population, in terms of percentages, by sex, age, social class and region. One asked “Should 16 year-olds be given the right to vote in general elections?”, while the other asked, “Should the voting age be lowered to 16?” The former saw 60% approval for 16-year-olds voting, the latter 60% opposed. Neither of those questions seems ridiculously biased or unfair, yet the difference between them is sufficient to make 1 person in 5 change their minds about the answer.

The BPC solution to this is to make all members publish, in full, the questions asked and data tables for all results that are made public by the commissioner of the poll, plus the same for any other questions which are deemed to have a material effect on the result.

This is precisely to get around the issue that Sir Humphrey highlights in the video clip, and means that a poll can’t get away with:

Q1. Which of the following scandals, involving the sleazy and dishonest government, have you heard about (please tick all that apply)

Q2. If a general election was held tomorrow, how would you vote?

…and then only publishing the 2nd question.

If, however, the poll swapped them round then the person who commissioned it would be perfectly within their rights not to publish the scandals question, because the voting question wouldn’t have had an effect on it, and until they make a question’s results public they own the data, not the polling company (this protects the vast amount of money that political parties spend on their own private polling in the run-up to elections).

So far, so good. The way the BPC works is specifically designed to prevent those who commission polls from begging the questions, so you don’t end up with this sort of mess (from a poll by the Trump campaign in 2016)


Where this gets complex is with relation to trans-rights. Polls asking whether trans women should be allowed access to women’s spaces get an overall ‘Yes’, but the poll that’s been questioned in this thread gets a strong ‘No’. What’s the difference?

The most glaring difference is that the No result comes from a question that explicitly states that trans women may be people who were born male, still look male and have had no surgery or drug treatments to alter their male physique, whereas the more positive results come from surveys that simply ask about “trans women” and leaves interpretation of that term to the respondent.

In my professional opinion, both surveys have problems.

If you leave the interpretation of “trans woman” to the respondent then you have no idea if they:

  1. Know what is meant by that term in the current context, or
  2. Do know roughly what it means, but assume that it involves some level of trying to “pass”, or
  3. Are confusing it with older, more established terms, such as transsexual or transvestite, or
  4. Think that trans women are women who are transitioning to men, which would reverse the question, or
  5. Have no idea at all what is being asked, and have picked an option at random.

If you think any of these options are a stretch, then you might want to have a look at how confused people got around the common terms heterosexual and homosexual in a survey that Edward Lord was using data from…

Meanwhile, the other survey, in presenting only the most extreme definition of trans women is, undoubtedly, biasing the question. There’s an argument to be made that it’s reasonable, because it does factually describe a situation that could occur but for my money it’s a bit, “Given that a baby born in the UK today could grow up to be the next Hitler, would you support making abortion easier?”

The truth is that both surveys suffer from the same problem. To get a genuine answer you need to define terms and provide information to the extent that you can no longer be said to be surveying the general population.

At the moment comparing data from the two polls makes it appear that if the general public fully understood the term trans woman then they would be less supportive of granting them additional rights to access women’s bathrooms and sports, but that brings us up against the iron rule of polling; You only get answers to the questions you’ve asked.

Truly understanding what the general public think would require a much better designed (and probably significantly more expensive) survey. Until we have that, neither side can claim to be correct.

Perhaps the TRAs and the GCs could pool their resources to make it happen.

duck for cover


Georgina Orwell writes…

georgina orwell


Newspeak was the official language of the United Kingdom and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Malcent, or Male Centring. In the year 2024 there was not yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication without the risk of denunciation. The articles in Pink News were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a shameless man. It was expected Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2030. Meanwhile it gained ground rapidly, all public and private institutions tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in use in 2024 was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed.

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Malcent, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Malcent – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. It’s vocabulary was so constructed as to give inexact and imprecise definitions to all words, so that they could mean whatever the Malcent speaker intended. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by extending the meaning of existing undesirable words. To give a single example, the word woman still existed in Newspeak, but only insofar as it could be applied to anyone, irrespective of physical traits, mannerisms, mode of dress or any secondary characteristics which would otherwise have prevented one from being described as a woman. It could not be used in its old sense of female since that term no longer existed, even as a concept.

Newspeak was founded on the English language, though many Newspeak sentences, even when not containing newly-created words, would be barely intelligible to an English-speaker from as recently as 1984. Newspeak words were divided into three distinct categories, known as the A vocabulary, the B vocabulary (also known as compound words), and the C vocabulary. It will be simpler to discuss each class separately.

The A vocabulary. The A vocabulary consisted of the words needed for the business of everyday life — for such things as eating, drinking, working, putting on one’s lingerie, going up and down stairs, riding in vehicles, gardening, cooking, and the like. It was composed almost entirely of words that already exist, words like hit, run, dog, tree, sugar, house, field — but in comparison with the standard English vocabulary their meanings were greatly expanded. For example, the verb to bully meant not only to maliciously harm someone, but also to disagree with them. Other words, such as threaten, had also been expanded, to extend to disagreement, as had murder, harm, hate, and so forth.

All of these words could be strengthened with the prefix literal, or, for still great emphasis, actual literal. While this may seem verbose to those accustomed to Oldspeak, it allowed for simultaneously excusing the actions of an advocate of Malcent, while increasing the enormity of the actions of those opposed. A Malcent hitting someone could be cast  as just a slap or only one punch, while any denunciation of them that resulted would be actual literal violence.

In addition, any word could be negatived by adding the affix anti- and, along with the expanded definitions of words, allowed for negative traits to be couched in positive-sounding euphemisms. A Malcent, for example, who opposed all disagreement with their position – which was, itself, a defining feature of Malcentism – could legitimately describe themselves as anti-violence.

The expanded definition of woman made it impossible to describe someone as being anti-women, as the class women included – theoretically, at least – everyone. To accuse someone of being anti-women was no less than to accuse them of sociopathy, and would always be viewed as actual literal violence, and attract retribution in line with such.

The B vocabulary. The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them. Without a full understanding of the principles of Malcent it was difficult to use these words correctly. In some cases they could be translated into Oldspeak, or even into words taken from the A vocabulary, but this usually demanded a long paraphrase and always involved the loss of certain overtones. The B words were a sort of verbal shorthand, often packing whole ranges of ideas into a few syllables, and at the same time more accurate and forcible than ordinary language.

In most cases, words in the B vocabulary were made by affixing trans- or cis- or girl- to existing words, although by 2024 there was already an ideological push to carefully and precisely define when the affixes should be written separately, as their own words, and when they should and should not be hyphenated. Thus, in the time period we are concerned with, it was already common to write trans woman as two words, with the prefix now functioning as an adjective, and ciswoman, as a single word, was becoming more frequent. One could, therefore, have women – a group without boundaries – trans women, who were a special subclass of women, and ciswomen, who were external to the class women. Although these distinctions can seem arbitrary, each was carefully designed to match the principles of Malcent, so it was natural that transwomen should evolve to trans-women, then trans women and, by the time of the final edition of Newspeak, simply women, while females should be relegated to being ciswomen or transmen.

harrop ciswomen

Some of the B words had highly subtilized meanings, barely intelligible to anyone who had not mastered the language as a whole. Consider, for example, such a typical sentence from a Pink News leading article as Transphobes, we won’t debate our existence. The shortest rendering that one could make of this in Oldspeak would be: “We will not allow those who hatefully pretend to believe that there are material differences between men and women, and that men’s access to women’s spaces should not be automatic and backed by the full force of the law, to force us to live in a state where our ideological beliefs are not automatically accepted, without deviation.” But this is not an adequate translation. To begin with, in order to grasp the full meaning of the Newspeak sentence quoted above, one would have to have a clear idea of the principles of Malcent. As only a person thoroughly grounded in Malcent could appreciate the full force of the word transphobe, which implied not only an irrational fear, but was inextricably mixed up with the concepts of wilful hatred, racism, lack of education and an antediluvian world-view. Or of the word debate, which indicated not a rational discussion of ideas, but a violent desire to impose your will on others. But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which transphobe was one, was not so much to express meanings as to destroy them. These words, necessarily few in number, had had their meanings extended until they contained within themselves whole batteries of words which, as they were sufficiently covered by a single comprehensive term, could now be scrapped and forgotten.

The C vocabulary. The C vocabulary was supplementary to the others and consisted entirely of scientific and technical terms. These were medical terms in use today, but very few had currency either in everyday speech or in political speech. While they were useful in a clinical setting, the words in the C vocabulary – vagina, cervix, menstruation – carried with them an air of excluding men, directly counter to the principles of Malcent, and if required in everyday use were replaced by euphemisms drawn from the A vocabulary, such as front-hole.

From the foregoing account it will be seen that in Newspeak the expression of unorthodox opinions, above a very low level, was well-nigh impossible. It was of course possible to utter heresies of a very crude kind, a species of blasphemy. It would have been possible, for example, to say Trans women are men. But this statement, which to an orthodox ear merely conveyed a self-evident absurdity, could not have been sustained by a reasoned argument, because the speaker would already have been banned from any platform and dismissed from their job.

When Oldspeak had been once and for all superseded, the last link with the past would have been severed. History had already been rewritten, but fragments of the literature of the past survived here and there, imperfectly cancelled, and so long as one retained one’s knowledge of Oldspeak it was possible to read them. In the future such fragments, even if they chanced to survive, would be unintelligible and untranslatable. It was impossible to translate any passage of Oldspeak into Newspeak unless it either referred to some technical process or some very simple everyday action, or was already orthodox in tendency. Take for example a well-known passage from  The Book of Genesis:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It would have been quite impossible to render this into Newspeak while keeping the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up into the single word transphobia. A full translation could only be an ideological one, whereby Genesis 1:27 would become a treatise on gendered souls.

A good deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being declared problematic by 2024 and work was underway to ban most of it. It was only the volume of this endeavour that led to the date for the final adoption of Newspeak being placed as late as 2030.

With apologies to George Orwell, who was too dead to ask if this was OK


I’ve been involved in the trans rights debate for a little over 4 years now. I often write about it here, normally in quite a light-hearted way (I hope). There is, however, a serious point, so I thought it best just to get it out of my system.

If you’ve been following the debate, such as it is, you’ll know the pattern. Somebody makes a statement, which supports one side or the other. The other side pile on. There are insults (some of them high-brow and flowery, some more base). Blogs are exchanged, the heavy artillery of entrenched warfare. Thousands of words are written; making arguments, refuting arguments, debunking the rebuttals. TERFs say this…trans rights activists believe this…the evidence says X…the evidence says Y.

Both sides draw new followers into the argument, but converts are rare, because this isn’t a battle over who has the best information or presentation, it’s a battle of belief.

gender belief

Like all such battles the terms of reference constantly shift. In the same way that an argument about whether there is a god can become about dinosaur bones, the big bang, or the exact translation of ancient Hebrew texts, so the trans-rights debate can take in degree-level biology, comparisons with other civil rights movements and the nature of feminism.

Sometimes it helps to cut aside all of the extraneous arguments, and get to the core of the belief. Take a moment, settle yourself down, and read the next paragraph.

I believe that any man can, at any time, say they are a woman. At that point they will become a woman (or will always have been a woman) and, irrespective of any other factors, will shed any privilege they have enjoyed by having the world see them as, and treat them as, male up until that point in their life, and will, by becoming a trans woman, become a member of an oppressed group. Their past or current behaviour will not be a factor.

Do you believe that? You don’t have to write your answer, or even say it aloud. You just have to give yourself a moment to be honest. Read it again. Does everything in there sound right to you, and aligned with equality and feminism?

That paragraph is the whole ball game. Everything else is a side-show.

If you don’t absolutely believe that paragraph, in its entirety, then you will always be living with the fear of being named a transphobe.

We saw that this week, when a trans-supporting natal woman called out a trans woman for sending her unsolicited dick-pics and was immediately accused of (and ended up apologising for) “transmisogyny”. We see it when an author is pilloried for saying that sex exists. We see it when another institution caves in to volume rather than reason, and denounces a woman.

There are only two choices, you either absolutely stand for that statement of belief or you don’t, and if you don’t then only one side of this argument will welcome you.

Your choice isn’t my business, only yours.

Think carefully.