cross-posted from: hexbear.net/post/7011204

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1298…

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

---

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

thelastaxolotl [he/him]

2025-12-11 17:16:07

EHRC trans ban: arguing over who is a ‘true trans’ won’t save us

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1298…

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

---

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

Alex/Rose Cocker, Author at Canary

Articles by Alex/Rose Cocker for Canary

^{Alex/Rose Cocker (The Canary)}

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1298…

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

---

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

rss

2025-12-11 15:22:07

EHRC trans ban: arguing over who is a ‘true trans’ won’t save us

On 3 December, the Women’s Institute announced its “sincere regret” that it will no longer accept trans women as members. The next week, on 8 December, Good Morning Britain (GMB) aired an interview with a trans woman expressing her upset at being expelled.

However, she — Rowena Purdy — also argued that the Women’s Institute should allow “fully transitioned” trans women to join as members. This article is about why this line of thinking is dangerous, regressive bollocks at a moment when trans people’s rights are on the line.

GMB tweeted:

A trans woman, who has been a member of the Women's Institute for nearly 10 years, is being forced to leave after the organisation decided it can no longer offer trans women membership. The W.I. will restrict membership to only those born female from next year, because of a… pic.twitter.com/lyo32So26c

— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) December 8, 2025

Discriminatory and voluntary

As the Canary’s HG previously reported, Melissa Green — the chief executive of the National Federation of Women’s Institutes — said it made the decision to ban trans women with the “utmost regret and sadness”. She stated that:

To be able to continue operating as the Women’s Institute – a legally recognised women’s organisation and charity – we must act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and restrict formal membership to biological women only.

She added:

But the message we really want to get across is that it remains our firm belief that transgender women are women, and that doesn’t change.

Since the Supreme Court’s ruling on sex in the Equality Act in April, many organisations have either willingly or under pressure from TERFs been excluding trans women and girls. The actual legal pressure to do so is, however, dubious at best.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took down its interim trans guidance from its website on 15 October. This was the document which held that trans people should be excluded from spaces aligned with their lived gender.

Further, equalities minister Bridget Phillipson hasn’t written EHRC’s trans code into law. As such, there’s absolutely no legally binding basis to exclude trans people.

However, that hasn’t stopped organisations like the Women’s Institute from pre-emptively moving to obey whatever they think the law might be. That they firmly believe that trans women are women is immaterial. Their actual actions are discriminatory and completely voluntary, all in fear of getting sued by some transphobe with deep pockets.

Transmedicalism 101

Anyway, enter Rowena Purdy who argued on GMB that:

We all know that there are men who put dresses on and go around and call themselves women and think that they may now be trans women, but they’re not. To be a trans woman you’ve got an awful lot of medical things to go through. […] And on my behalf, I’m now fully transformed, fully transitioned, and so I go to WI.

As a good rule of thumb, if your argument at any point sounds like a slight variation on something a bigot who wants you to stop existing would say, it’s probably a good idea to reconsider. ‘Men in dresses trying to get into women’s spaces‘ is transphobic shit. Purdy went on to say:

I think the waters are very muddied by people who literally do put a dress on and try and get into womens’ ‘spaces’, if you like, and I think that’s wrong.

Now, regarding Purdy’s argument, presenter Richard Madeley said:

I’ve not heard someone in your position say this before

The problem is that most trans people will have heard this from someone within their communities before. Its a position called ‘transmedicalism’. It’s an ideology that used to be more dominant, but has thankfully waned in recent years.

As Pink Newsexplained:

Often, self-proclaimed transmedicalists will, falsely, claim that a portion of the community are “legitimate” trans people, under a vaguely defined list of requirements such as gender dysphoria or desire for surgery. Anyone who does not fit that criteria, to a transmedicalist, does not have a true trans identity. […]

The belief has since spawned a long list of exclusionary sub-beliefs, such as the idea that non-binary people do not exist and are not valid, and that over the past few years some influencers have begun identifying as trans to keep up with a “trend,” insultingly called “transtrenders”.

We can’t abandon one another

Transmedicalism is harmful for a number of reasons. First and foremost, to transmedicalists like Purdy, it reduces trans identity from something one simply is to something that’s done to you. ‘True’ transness becomes a reward reserved for people who can play the medical establishment game and access HRT and surgery.

As a reminder, the government is desperately trying to restrict access to trans medical procedures. The waiting list for even a dysphoria diagnosis is measured in years. And outside of the NHS, transitioning costs tens of thousands of pounds, which many trans people don’t have.

As such, hinging who gets to be a True Trans on ‘whoever the government allows to transition’ is a non-starter.

Some trans people don’t want surgery because they would like to have children one day. Others can’t have surgery because of healing disorders like keloid scarring. Some people can’t afford surgery, or can’t spend months inactive for recovery because of family commitments.

We’re at an extraordinarily dangerous moment for trans rights in the UK. However, the answer to that — as trans people and allies — cannot be to start throwing each other under the bus. If one portion of the community gets to keep their rights but everyone else lost them, that’s a loss for all of my trans siblings.

I can’t believe I actually have to say this

I don’t want to jump through smaller and smaller hoops for a state that hates me in order to receive a scrap of validation. I’m trans because I am trans. It’s no more complex than that.

Beyond that, I’m going to try to put this as simply as I can:

I don’t think a trans woman’s ability to join an organisation best known for jam and knitting (among many other wonderful endeavors) should hinge on her willingness to allow herself to be sterilised. Would you people fucking listen to yourselves?

Feature image via Unsplash/Norbu Gyachung

By Alex/Rose Cocker

---

From Canary via This RSS Feed.

Alex/Rose Cocker, Author at Canary

Articles by Alex/Rose Cocker for Canary

^{Alex/Rose Cocker (The Canary)}

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1330…

“This intellectual decline has reached its lowest level in the persons of the political leaders in Europe. They have led this once mighty continent straight into a morass of economic, cultural and military decline, reducing it to a state of complete impotence.

I wrote those lines in an article entitled, The meaning of Donald Trump: a Marxist analysis, which we published on 21 March 2025. They accurately describe the situation that exists at the present time. I do not have to change a single word or comma.

The reason for the present article was the publication of the US National Security document and Pete Hegseth's speech, which is basically the same thing.

This has confirmed everything we’ve been saying, even before Trump came to power, concerning his fundamental strategy. We wrote about this extensively twelve months ago, and I refer you to this material. The situation has moved on since then, and has now reached a decisive turning point. But the basic strategy has not changed.

Trump describes the document as a “roadmap” to ensure the US remains “the greatest and most successful nation in human history”. So far, so alarming. But this was just the preliminary appetiser. The main dish was yet to be served. It was the cause of a very serious outbreak of acid indigestion among a certain class of politicians.

From In Defence of Marxism via This RSS Feed.

rss

2025-12-12 19:28:14

Trump declares war on Europe

“This intellectual decline has reached its lowest level in the persons of the political leaders in Europe. They have led this once mighty continent straight into a morass of economic, cultural and military decline, reducing it to a state of complete impotence.

---

From In Defence of Marxism via This RSS Feed.

https://marxist.com/trump-declares-war-on-europe.htm

cross-posted from: hexbear.net/post/7023514

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1330…

“This intellectual decline has reached its lowest level in the persons of the political leaders in Europe. They have led this once mighty continent straight into a morass of economic, cultural and military decline, reducing it to a state of complete impotence.

I wrote those lines in an article entitled, The meaning of Donald Trump: a Marxist analysis, which we published on 21 March 2025. They accurately describe the situation that exists at the present time. I do not have to change a single word or comma.

The reason for the present article was the publication of the US National Security document and Pete Hegseth's speech, which is basically the same thing.

This has confirmed everything we’ve been saying, even before Trump came to power, concerning his fundamental strategy. We wrote about this extensively twelve months ago, and I refer you to this material. The situation has moved on since then, and has now reached a decisive turning point. But the basic strategy has not changed.

Trump describes the document as a “roadmap” to ensure the US remains “the greatest and most successful nation in human history”. So far, so alarming. But this was just the preliminary appetiser. The main dish was yet to be served. It was the cause of a very serious outbreak of acid indigestion among a certain class of politicians.

From In Defence of Marxism via This RSS Feed.

thelastaxolotl [he/him]

2025-12-12 20:04:39

Trump declares war on Europe

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1330…

“This intellectual decline has reached its lowest level in the persons of the political leaders in Europe. They have led this once mighty continent straight into a morass of economic, cultural and military decline, reducing it to a state of complete impotence.

I wrote those lines in an article entitled, The meaning of Donald Trump: a Marxist analysis, which we published on 21 March 2025. They accurately describe the situation that exists at the present time. I do not have to change a single word or comma.

The reason for the present article was the publication of the US National Security document and Pete Hegseth's speech, which is basically the same thing.

This has confirmed everything we’ve been saying, even before Trump came to power, concerning his fundamental strategy. We wrote about this extensively twelve months ago, and I refer you to this material. The situation has moved on since then, and has now reached a decisive turning point. But the basic strategy has not changed.

Trump describes the document as a “roadmap” to ensure the US remains “the greatest and most successful nation in human history”. So far, so alarming. But this was just the preliminary appetiser. The main dish was yet to be served. It was the cause of a very serious outbreak of acid indigestion among a certain class of politicians.

From In Defence of Marxism via This RSS Feed.

https://marxist.com/trump-declares-war-on-europe.htm

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1329…

The ancient Palestinian town of Sebastia in the northern West Bank is a testament to 5,000 years of Palestinian history. Israel announced that it plans to seize the village and its archaeological sites.

Israel’s creeping annexation of an ancient West Bank village and its archaeological site stands to upend the lives of its Palestinian inhabitants and dispossess them of their lands. Israeli settlers and the Israeli army have stepped up efforts to make life “unbearable” for Palestinians, according to the town’s residents, in order to compel them to leave. Many of them face expulsion, as their homes fall within the area slated for seizure.

Villagers, activists, and politicians from Sebastia, northwest of Nablus, have for years warned the international community of Israel’s plans to erase them and the 5,000 years of Palestinian history contained within the town’s archaeological ruins. Their warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

On November 12, the Israeli government issued an order outlining plans to “expropriate” 450 acres of land from ancient Sebastia and the village’s entire archaeological park, which includes homes and businesses.

Israel’s seizure of the lands of Sebastia and the nearby village of Burqa will form part of a plan to create a “national park” for Israeli settlers on one of the most significant Palestinian historical sites in the West Bank out of 6,000 others.

From Mondoweiss via This RSS Feed.

rss

2025-12-12 19:27:53

An ancient Palestinian town in the West Bank may soon no longer exist – because Israel plans on stealing it

The ancient Palestinian town of Sebastia in the northern West Bank is a testament to 5,000 years of Palestinian history. Israel announced that it plans to seize the village and its archaeological sites.

---

From Mondoweiss via This RSS Feed.

An ancient Palestinian town in the West Bank may soon no longer exist - because Israel plans on stealing it

^{Felix Nobes (Mondoweiss)}

cross-posted from: hexbear.net/post/7023464

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1329…

The ancient Palestinian town of Sebastia in the northern West Bank is a testament to 5,000 years of Palestinian history. Israel announced that it plans to seize the village and its archaeological sites.

Israel’s creeping annexation of an ancient West Bank village and its archaeological site stands to upend the lives of its Palestinian inhabitants and dispossess them of their lands. Israeli settlers and the Israeli army have stepped up efforts to make life “unbearable” for Palestinians, according to the town’s residents, in order to compel them to leave. Many of them face expulsion, as their homes fall within the area slated for seizure.

Villagers, activists, and politicians from Sebastia, northwest of Nablus, have for years warned the international community of Israel’s plans to erase them and the 5,000 years of Palestinian history contained within the town’s archaeological ruins. Their warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

On November 12, the Israeli government issued an order outlining plans to “expropriate” 450 acres of land from ancient Sebastia and the village’s entire archaeological park, which includes homes and businesses.

Israel’s seizure of the lands of Sebastia and the nearby village of Burqa will form part of a plan to create a “national park” for Israeli settlers on one of the most significant Palestinian historical sites in the West Bank out of 6,000 others.

From Mondoweiss via This RSS Feed.

thelastaxolotl [he/him]

2025-12-12 20:03:21

An ancient Palestinian town in the West Bank may soon no longer exist – because Israel plans on stealing it

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1329…

The ancient Palestinian town of Sebastia in the northern West Bank is a testament to 5,000 years of Palestinian history. Israel announced that it plans to seize the village and its archaeological sites.

Israel’s creeping annexation of an ancient West Bank village and its archaeological site stands to upend the lives of its Palestinian inhabitants and dispossess them of their lands. Israeli settlers and the Israeli army have stepped up efforts to make life “unbearable” for Palestinians, according to the town’s residents, in order to compel them to leave. Many of them face expulsion, as their homes fall within the area slated for seizure.

Villagers, activists, and politicians from Sebastia, northwest of Nablus, have for years warned the international community of Israel’s plans to erase them and the 5,000 years of Palestinian history contained within the town’s archaeological ruins. Their warnings have fallen on deaf ears.

On November 12, the Israeli government issued an order outlining plans to “expropriate” 450 acres of land from ancient Sebastia and the village’s entire archaeological park, which includes homes and businesses.

Israel’s seizure of the lands of Sebastia and the nearby village of Burqa will form part of a plan to create a “national park” for Israeli settlers on one of the most significant Palestinian historical sites in the West Bank out of 6,000 others.

From Mondoweiss via This RSS Feed.

An ancient Palestinian town in the West Bank may soon no longer exist - because Israel plans on stealing it

^{Felix Nobes (Mondoweiss)}

Mexico City, Mexico, December 11, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela accused the United States of committing “international piracy” after US authorities seized an oil tanker in the Caribbean, denouncing the action as part of a long-running US campaign to strip the country of its energy resources.

US President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Washington seized an oil tanker sanctioned by the US off Venezuela’s coast. He described the vessel as the largest oil tanker ever seized and indicated that the United States would retain the crude aboard.

The move was met with a sharp rebuke from Caracas.

“The Bolivarian Government will appeal to all existing international bodies to denounce this grave international crime and will defend its sovereignty with absolute determination,” read the communiqué. “Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right.”

According to Reuters, the “Skipper” tanker loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of crude at Venezuela’s José terminal early this month before unloading 200,000 to a Cuba-bound ship. The remaining cargo was believed to be destined for Asian markets. The move was viewed as aggression against Cuba as well, which relies on Venezuelan oil shipments for energy and income.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parilla condemned “the vile act of piracy” as a violation of international law.

Michael Galant, member of the Progressive International Secretariat, said that calling the US seizure an act of piracy fell short.

“This is the deliberate immiseration of the Cuban people, already suffering debilitating fuel shortages, blackouts, and a chikungunya outbreak thanks to the US blockade,” wrote Galant on social media.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video on social media on Wednesday evening showing armed US forces boarding the vessel. There was reportedly no resistance from the crew nor any casualties. The assault involved Coast Guard members, Marines, and special forces who were seen in the video descending from helicopters onto the ship’s deck.

The seizure of the tanker comes only days after Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark approved the sale of Venezuela’s US-based refiner CITGO to Amber Energy, a process that Venezuela called a “barbaric theft” of a Venezuelan asset via a “fraudulent process.”

In past years, the United States has intercepted shipments of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela, ultimately taking control of the gasoline and selling it at auction. While US-led sanctions have created significant challenges for the sale of Venezuelan oil on international markets, Wednesday’s seizure marks the first time the US has directly impeded a crude shipment of from Venezuela. Reuters reported that buyers in Asia were demanding further discounts on Venezuelan crude as a result of the seizure.

Trump’s latest move is a significant escalation in the latest US effort to oust the Nicolás Maduro government from power. Since September, the US has built up its forces in the region, including the mobilization of the Gerard Ford Carrier Fleet, and has carried out deadly strikes on boats that the administration claims are tied to drug trafficking.

Washington’s decision to seize the tanker drew scrutiny from US lawmakers who have questioned the true intentions behind military mobilization and campaign in the Caribbean.

“If Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean is about drugs, why did he just seize an oil tanker?” asked US Representative Nydia Velázquez. “This is yet another dangerous escalation that brings us closer to a regime change war.”

Senator Mark Warner, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, questioned how the US was able to seize an oil tanker but has opted to strike alleged drug smuggling boats from the skies without an effort to arrest the occupants or seize the purported contraband.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen spoke Wednesday on the floor of Congress to call on lawmakers to stop Trump’s ”regime change war” against Venezuela.

Caracas maintains that the US attacks are motivated by a desire for regime change in order to secure access to Venezuela’s natural resources.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, speaking from Oslo where she traveled to receive her Nobel Peace Prize, publicly endorsed the seizure of the tanker as a “very necessary step.”

Juan González, Joe Biden’s former chief Latin America adviser and the architect behind the former president’s Venezuela policy, said that a US Naval blockade was “potentially a viable option” despite admitting that it would constitute an act of war against Venezuela.

The White House has repeatedly threatened further escalation, including land strikes. The New York Times reported that US officials expected additional seizures in the coming weeks. This action would constitute an act of force and place additional pressure against Venezuela’s oil industry.

The United Nations (UN) Charter expressly prohibits all Member States from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Blockades imposed without a declaration of war or that are not sanctioned by the UN Security Council are not considered legal. Likewise, UN independent experts have consistently maintained that the extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions is contrary to international law.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The post Venezuela Condemns US Tanker Seizure as ‘International Piracy’ as a Potential Oil Blockade Looms appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.

From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

cross-posted from: news.abolish.capital/post/1302…

Mexico City, Mexico, December 11, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela accused the United States of committing “international piracy” after US authorities seized an oil tanker in the Caribbean, denouncing the action as part of a long-running US campaign to strip the country of its energy resources.

US President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Washington seized an oil tanker sanctioned by the US off Venezuela’s coast. He described the vessel as the largest oil tanker ever seized and indicated that the United States would retain the crude aboard.

The move was met with a sharp rebuke from Caracas.

“The Bolivarian Government will appeal to all existing international bodies to denounce this grave international crime and will defend its sovereignty with absolute determination,” read the communiqué. “Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right.”

According to Reuters, the “Skipper” tanker loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of crude at Venezuela’s José terminal early this month before unloading 200,000 to a Cuba-bound ship. The remaining cargo was believed to be destined for Asian markets. The move was viewed as aggression against Cuba as well, which relies on Venezuelan oil shipments for energy and income.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parilla condemned “the vile act of piracy” as a violation of international law.

Michael Galant, member of the Progressive International Secretariat, said that calling the US seizure an act of piracy fell short.

“This is the deliberate immiseration of the Cuban people, already suffering debilitating fuel shortages, blackouts, and a chikungunya outbreak thanks to the US blockade,” wrote Galant on social media.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video on social media on Wednesday evening showing armed US forces boarding the vessel. There was reportedly no resistance from the crew nor any casualties. The assault involved Coast Guard members, Marines, and special forces who were seen in the video descending from helicopters onto the ship’s deck.

The seizure of the tanker comes only days after Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark approved the sale of Venezuela’s US-based refiner CITGO to Amber Energy, a process that Venezuela called a “barbaric theft” of a Venezuelan asset via a “fraudulent process.”

In past years, the United States has intercepted shipments of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela, ultimately taking control of the gasoline and selling it at auction. While US-led sanctions have created significant challenges for the sale of Venezuelan oil on international markets, Wednesday’s seizure marks the first time the US has directly impeded a crude shipment of from Venezuela. Reuters reported that buyers in Asia were demanding further discounts on Venezuelan crude as a result of the seizure.

Trump’s latest move is a significant escalation in the latest US effort to oust the Nicolás Maduro government from power. Since September, the US has built up its forces in the region, including the mobilization of the Gerard Ford Carrier Fleet, and has carried out deadly strikes on boats that the administration claims are tied to drug trafficking.

Washington’s decision to seize the tanker drew scrutiny from US lawmakers who have questioned the true intentions behind military mobilization and campaign in the Caribbean.

“If Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean is about drugs, why did he just seize an oil tanker?” asked US Representative Nydia Velázquez. “This is yet another dangerous escalation that brings us closer to a regime change war.”

Senator Mark Warner, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, questioned how the US was able to seize an oil tanker but has opted to strike alleged drug smuggling boats from the skies without an effort to arrest the occupants or seize the purported contraband.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen spoke Wednesday on the floor of Congress to call on lawmakers to stop Trump’s ”regime change war” against Venezuela.

Caracas maintains that the US attacks are motivated by a desire for regime change in order to secure access to Venezuela’s natural resources.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, speaking from Oslo where she traveled to receive her Nobel Peace Prize, publicly endorsed the seizure of the tanker as a “very necessary step.”

Juan González, Joe Biden’s former chief Latin America adviser and the architect behind the former president’s Venezuela policy, said that a US Naval blockade was “potentially a viable option” despite admitting that it would constitute an act of war against Venezuela.

The White House has repeatedly threatened further escalation, including land strikes. The New York Times reported that US officials expected additional seizures in the coming weeks. This action would constitute an act of force and place additional pressure against Venezuela’s oil industry.

The United Nations (UN) Charter expressly prohibits all Member States from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Blockades imposed without a declaration of war or that are not sanctioned by the UN Security Council are not considered legal. Likewise, UN independent experts have consistently maintained that the extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions is contrary to international law.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The post Venezuela Condemns US Tanker Seizure as ‘International Piracy’ as a Potential Oil Blockade Looms appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.

---

From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

rss

2025-12-11 18:06:25

Venezuela Condemns US Tanker Seizure as ‘International Piracy’ as a Potential Oil Blockade Looms

Mexico City, Mexico, December 11, 2025 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuela accused the United States of committing “international piracy” after US authorities seized an oil tanker in the Caribbean, denouncing the action as part of a long-running US campaign to strip the country of its energy resources.

US President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that Washington seized an oil tanker sanctioned by the US off Venezuela’s coast. He described the vessel as the largest oil tanker ever seized and indicated that the United States would retain the crude aboard.

The move was met with a sharp rebuke from Caracas.

“The Bolivarian Government will appeal to all existing international bodies to denounce this grave international crime and will defend its sovereignty with absolute determination,” read the communiqué. “Venezuela will not allow any foreign power to take from the Venezuelan people what belongs to them by historical and constitutional right.”

According to Reuters, the “Skipper” tanker loaded an estimated 1.8 million barrels of crude at Venezuela’s José terminal early this month before unloading 200,000 to a Cuba-bound ship. The remaining cargo was believed to be destined for Asian markets. The move was viewed as aggression against Cuba as well, which relies on Venezuelan oil shipments for energy and income.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parilla condemned “the vile act of piracy” as a violation of international law.

Michael Galant, member of the Progressive International Secretariat, said that calling the US seizure an act of piracy fell short.

“This is the deliberate immiseration of the Cuban people, already suffering debilitating fuel shortages, blackouts, and a chikungunya outbreak thanks to the US blockade,” wrote Galant on social media.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi posted a video on social media on Wednesday evening showing armed US forces boarding the vessel. There was reportedly no resistance from the crew nor any casualties. The assault involved Coast Guard members, Marines, and special forces who were seen in the video descending from helicopters onto the ship’s deck.

The seizure of the tanker comes only days after Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark approved the sale of Venezuela’s US-based refiner CITGO to Amber Energy, a process that Venezuela called a “barbaric theft” of a Venezuelan asset via a “fraudulent process.”

In past years, the United States has intercepted shipments of Iranian fuel bound for Venezuela, ultimately taking control of the gasoline and selling it at auction. While US-led sanctions have created significant challenges for the sale of Venezuelan oil on international markets, Wednesday’s seizure marks the first time the US has directly impeded a crude shipment of from Venezuela. Reuters reported that buyers in Asia were demanding further discounts on Venezuelan crude as a result of the seizure.

Trump’s latest move is a significant escalation in the latest US effort to oust the Nicolás Maduro government from power. Since September, the US has built up its forces in the region, including the mobilization of the Gerard Ford Carrier Fleet, and has carried out deadly strikes on boats that the administration claims are tied to drug trafficking.

Washington’s decision to seize the tanker drew scrutiny from US lawmakers who have questioned the true intentions behind military mobilization and campaign in the Caribbean.

“If Trump’s aggression in the Caribbean is about drugs, why did he just seize an oil tanker?” asked US Representative Nydia Velázquez. “This is yet another dangerous escalation that brings us closer to a regime change war.”

Senator Mark Warner, who serves as the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, questioned how the US was able to seize an oil tanker but has opted to strike alleged drug smuggling boats from the skies without an effort to arrest the occupants or seize the purported contraband.

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen spoke Wednesday on the floor of Congress to call on lawmakers to stop Trump’s ”regime change war” against Venezuela.

Caracas maintains that the US attacks are motivated by a desire for regime change in order to secure access to Venezuela’s natural resources.

Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, speaking from Oslo where she traveled to receive her Nobel Peace Prize, publicly endorsed the seizure of the tanker as a “very necessary step.”

Juan González, Joe Biden’s former chief Latin America adviser and the architect behind the former president’s Venezuela policy, said that a US Naval blockade was “potentially a viable option” despite admitting that it would constitute an act of war against Venezuela.

The White House has repeatedly threatened further escalation, including land strikes. The New York Times reported that US officials expected additional seizures in the coming weeks. This action would constitute an act of force and place additional pressure against Venezuela’s oil industry.

The United Nations (UN) Charter expressly prohibits all Member States from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Blockades imposed without a declaration of war or that are not sanctioned by the UN Security Council are not considered legal. Likewise, UN independent experts have consistently maintained that the extraterritorial application of unilateral sanctions is contrary to international law.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The post Venezuela Condemns US Tanker Seizure as ‘International Piracy’ as a Potential Oil Blockade Looms appeared first on Venezuelanalysis.

---

From Venezuelanalysis via This RSS Feed.

Subsoil Bonanza: Venezuela’s Natural Resources - Venezuelanalysis

A detailed infographic exploring Venezuela's vast wealth of natural resources, including massive oil, natural gas and gold deposits.

^{ricardo (Venezuelanalysis)}