“This Is Historic”: FIFA and UEFA Presidents Are Accused of Aiding Israel’s War Crimes
It’s likely you heard the surreal news that FIFA President Gianni Infantino awarded Donald Trump a “Peace Prize” amid the backdrop of protest outside the Kennedy Center.
It’s less likely that you heard about a far more serious announcement the previous week: that Infantino will be formally accused of aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes against Palestinians.
The ICC filing parties will include a group of Palestinian footballers, Palestinian clubs, land owners, and advocacy groups Irish Sport for Palestine, Scottish Sport for Palestine, and Just Peace Advocates, with support from an expert legal team.
According to a public statement from the filing parties, Infantino, as well as Union of European Football Association President Aleksander Čeferin, are facing accusations that FIFA and UEFA funded settlement clubs—that is, football clubs that operate on land illegally seized from Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
“This Is Historic”: FIFA and UEFA Presidents Are Accused of Aiding Israel’s War Crimes | The Nation
A coming filing with the ICC accuses FIFA’s Gianni Infantino and UEFA’s Aleksander Čeferin of crimes against humanity for their financial support of settlement clubs.The Nation
like this
Maeve likes this.
American-owned consortium assumes control of Canada’s premier nuclear research facility
American-owned consortium assumes control of Canada’s premier nuclear research facility
Nuclear Laboratory Partners of Canada Inc. will also be responsible for cleaning up the federal government’s inventory of radioactive wasteMatthew McClearn (The Globe and Mail)
It's hard to boycott the price gouging bastards when it's just 3 companies owning the entire market of what you literally need to buy every week to live.
The best I can do is make maximum use of my local farmer's market but it's closed for the season now. Which is a bummer because not only it was cheaper, but the produce was fresher and of higher quality.
I have space, I keep 50lbs of AP flour, 100lbs of rice, 40 lbs of Maseca, and 40lbs of pizza flour.
Family of 4 goes through it all over the year and i re-buy. Then I make it a point to make stuff from each every week to keep costs down.
This is the way, though.
Grow your own = Insanely cheap, very easy, super delicious.
Farmer's market = Cheap, convenient, super delicious and big.variety.
Friends with chickens = Delicious high quality free eggs offloaded onto you every week.
Grocery store = Low quality crap; twice the price. An unpleasant experience of other miserable people and awful music. A chore of a thing to do. The whole layout trying to be themed like a fancy farmer's market but you can't even find the plum vinegar!
like this
hpx9140 likes this.
So envious of all of you that have cheap farmer's markets. Where I am, my choices are
- Grocery store: cheap, highly variable quality, support the conglomerates
- Farmer's market: expensive, probably higher quality, support local farmers
They're so much fun to walk through though. If only I could actually afford to buy from them.
All I can guess is our farmers haven't been given any initiative to sell to a middle man (store) that marks up. In essence, a farmer's market is supposed to be like going directly to the manufacturer and telling the retailer to fuck off. The farmer is happy, I'm happy, it works.
If your farmer's markets are expensive, I'm guessing it may be novelty or hobbiest produce out to make a quick buck of a trend.
Grow your own = Insanely cheap, very easy, super delicious.
Not going to be anywhere near enough food for one person unless you have more land available for yourself than people in a city or even most modern suburban developments are likely to have. Also takes a lot of time and effort if you want more than the occasional tomato, cucumber, lettuce head or zucchini to enrich your diet a bit. (Can be fun on a small scale, though.)
Farmer’s market = Cheap, convenient, super delicious and big.variety.
Nice, but takes a lot of planning, storage and home cooking to work out. You may need to start planning your life around when the farmer's markets are and what they carry. Also, the variety is necessarily limited to what farmers in your area are growing.
Friends with chickens = Delicious high quality free eggs offloaded onto you every week.
Cool if you got those, but most people don't.
Valid concerns. I won't ignore the orphan crushing machine and every situation is different, but a lot of food can be grown in an apartment.
I had a 300sqft bachelor pad in Vancouver where I managed to grow tomatoes, goji berries, greens and ALL the herbs. I kept my herbs in pots under a full spectrum light indoors, clipping and drying as they grew out. After set-up I only had to water, fertilize sometimes, and prune as needed. Greens, I kept harvesting young and re-seeding. Aside from watering, it took almost no effort to put a significant dent in my grocery bill.
Now, I have a 4x8ft fenced garden in a shared yard where I grow so much I barely buy produce in the summer. Aside from weeding, sprouting and transplanting in the spring, the main labour is watering, which only takes like five minutes. I get my seeds from things I eat or the public library seed share, so those are free, too.
I legit grew three pumpkins, four ziplock bags of sunflower seeds, beets, snap peas, opium poppies, carrots, tomatoes, gooseberries, strawberries and still have a herb shelf inside.
I get that's still not a year's worth a food, but it's a lot for tiny bit of dirt, considering I knew nothing about gardening before.
Oh but get GMO pumpkin seeds. White mildew rot is a pain in the ass and everywhere. And a dehydrator if you don't know how to deal with lots of food at once, you can make chips and crackers out of anything.
I'm pretty lucky in that my friends hunt, too, so I get a butt load of deer meat every fall.
Yeah. I don't have large space, but grow my winter and my summer vegetables, then obviously herbs. Plenty for two people. All I need to do is get meat.
Literally about to have a meal now and it'll be eggs benedict on toast with spinach and mushrooms. Only thing not from the yard or friends is the bread.
Or I could go down the road and get the same meal, shittier, for $20.
Edit: Didn't even use the bread. Decided to go omlette. But I did slot some sliced ham in there which was also store bought.
Sounds fantastic. Foraged mushrooms are the best. I feel the same way about going out for food unless it's something difficult or expensive to make on my own. That said, one of my favorite meals is a bowl of peas.
I've sent city hall and my mp an obnoxious amount of e-mails about allowing urban chickens here. When they get their heads out of their asses and shut down the bylaw I'll have a coop built before the ink dries.
I believe the “grow your own” suggestion is intended to be supplemental, rather than a fully developed subsistence farm in your back yard.
The beauty of growing your own is that you can decide what you want to grow! There are some things which are very easy and cheap to grow (such as fresh herbs) that are actually quite expensive and inconvenient to buy! Other things, such as potatoes, are very cheap in any grocery store (when purchased in bulk) such that growing your own is more of a hobby/curiosity than a budget saver.
Tomatoes happen to be one thing you can grow at home that are simply far more delicious than anything you can get at a store. Sometimes you might be able to get nice heirloom tomatoes at a store but they tend to be very expensive and usually seasonal.
If you get some experience growing tomatoes then you can produce a pretty large crop in a relatively small yard. With home water bath canning you can then outfit yourself with up to a year’s supply of home made pasta sauce (or even simply peeled and blanched tomatoes with basil leaf in the jar).
Not going to be anywhere near enough food for one person unless you have more land available for yourself than people in a city or even most modern suburban developments are likely to have.
i did a study on area needed for food production a while ago, and IIRC
- per person, about 1000 m² are needed to feed them. depends a bit on where you live though
- fertile land produces around 3.5 t of grains /ha on average. with modern technology, the peak is 7.5 t/ha
- by far the most area is needed to grow calorie-heavy foods. like, you could get far with 30 m² for yourself if you only plant vegetables and buy the grains at the supermarket
- grains are really cheap, compared to vegetables. that's because vegetables are labor-intensive (difficult to automate because they're often fragile and sensitive) while grains can be automated on ultra-large-scale farms with farming machines, so they're really cheap.
Note: 1 t = 1000 kg, grains = cereals
100% Agree, I thankfully have a local grocery store close to me so I can avoid the big 3, but this isn't a realistic option for everyone. I'm hesitant to just buy online for things like produce as my experience with them has been mediocre (I haven't tried costco though).
This really isn't a problem the everyday Canadian can fix without the government stepping in and breaking up the monopoly of Loblaws, Sobey's and Metro.
I'd love to see a future Canada where there was more local grocery chains, with the same access to product that the big three have. Also would be great if they were closer to where people lives so people wouldn't feel like the need to drive to get their groceries.
like this
hpx9140 likes this.
Costco produce ordered online can be a bit hit or miss, unfortunately. You know how when you shop at Costco, it's usually better to dig down a layer with produce since the top box always has everything that's been rejected by someone else? I'd guess, based on our mixed success, that some Instacart shoppers just grab from the top of the pile. We've had some shops with bad produce, but most have been great.
What sucks is that if you return it to the warehouse, you don't get the full price back because of the Instacart markup; on the either hand, you can sometimes return things at a net profit because of Instacart offers (like the $10/mo. Executive Members thing.)
like this
KaRunChiy likes this.
It’s not great.
The median mortgage payment is over 50% of the median income, which historically should be 30%. Houses are over 60%. But the numbers are getting better than their 2023 records highs.
Our biggest grocers were fixing bread prices for over a decade and were only given a slap in the wrist. People can ask for a $20 rebate.
Almost all of our grocery stores are owned by 3 companies (Loblaws, Metro, and Sobeys (made up of former Loblaws employees)). 3 companies own almost all our phone providers, so they gouge prices too.
You can really see a trend — we seem to concentrate all our industries into 3 or so companies and the competition bureau thinks that’s fine. Historically I think that’s because we were a colony and got too used to being exploited and having our wealth shipped off.
it's expensive here. Groceries are a crap shoot and if you have the ability to shop mom and pop then that's your best bet. Thankfully I live in Toronto near an area known as "little china" so I do all my grocery shopping there and I save an absolute ton. better quality food imo too.
Rent is a crap shoot pretty much every where in the country. you're not going to find US prices here at all. And if the place you do live is connected via a transit system to a major city then rent is going to be about the same as if you were actually living in said major city. so you're looking at paying well over $1200 a month for just about everything. anything below that? you're one lucky bastard.
Everything else is expensive because in Canada there's very little, if any, competition and that's by design. like 3 grocery chains, maybe 3 telecom providers that all provide phone, internet, and tv service so they all work together and adjusting their prices. The Canadian government is essentially in the pocket of these companies so you won't get competition at all as the government basically won't allow it.
It's been like this for a very long time. Canada is expensive, has always been expensive, and will continue to be expensive because the powers that be want it that way.
like this
hpx9140 likes this.
Yes, Loblaws, Sobeys and gang are gouging everyone.
But climate change is a big factor in rising food prices too.
Remember olive oil going up in price? Crop failure due to bad weather.
Orange juice? Disease due to climate change.
Coffee prices rising right now? Take a guess.
It's only beginning.
Orange juice? Disease due to climate change.
That's very recent.
A more historical look at orange production - particularly in Florida - shows it peaked in the early '00s at 250M boxes, then plunged to 12M boxes thanks to disease, hurricanes, and real estate development.
But the root reason is that orange surpluses were thinning profits. Drastic reduction in production pushed up unit prices without materially increasing costs.
Orange agribusiness is doing fine. It's the retail purchases who are eating shit
Remember olive oil going up in price? Crop failure due to bad weather.
The destruction of historical olive groves has been a major Israeli tool for displacing native Arab peoples.
This isn't just bad weather. It's manufactured poverty through ethnic cleansing.
We're seeing similar events in Central Africa, Ukraine, the Kashmir region of India, and now the US military campaign against Venezuelan fishermen.
Israeli settlers burn Palestinian home, fell olive trees in West Bank
There have been more than 2,400 settler attacks on Palestinian property since October 2023, with over 3,000 displaced.Stephen Quillen (Al Jazeera)
Ugh, I feel this in the USA too. I went to get some groceries the other day - purposely "just picking up a few things." I live in an area where you have to bring your own bags, and I only brought two, so I was careful with my limits.
It was still sticker shock at the register, as my total was between $90-$100 USD. What the actual fuck.
I'm sorry you're all dealing with the same thing north of the border. I also understand if my comment isn't welcome in this community - I'll delete it if so. I just found the meme painfully relatable and wanted to commiserate.
Same hit in the UK, same hit in Germany.
(With the exception of LIDL, for some reason they understand how to keep prices down)
That problem has a track record from even deeper than the 3-firm collusive oligopoly of distribution. In fact, in the 1970s the Government of Quebec unilaterally decreed criminal charges beyond arbitrary and Pareto-inefficient quota limits of production and sale by a centralist system of ‘licenses’, a result of colluding of the 1922-born Union des Cultivateurs Catholiques (UCC) of Quebec and the Government of Quebec. Under the guise of “management of supply”, those terrorists have made production and sale of agricultural products under Quebec law a criminal offence, and skyrocketed prices of daily basic human needs of food. Example, still in 2025, the Government of Quebec has threatened criminal charges, i.e. penalties, incarceration, and ultimately use of lethal force, on any production and sale of chicken beyond the 22 chicken production licenses total, 12 eggs production licenses total,
$24 000 + per cow production licenses, and 3 slaughterhouses total, on the vast expanse of land more vast than Europe under military rule of the fascist racist capitalist selling-the-country(including-their-own-mother)-to-rich-foreigners ‘government’ of Quebec.
Ahh, the smell of food riots in the morning of the 2020’s. Does not seem to have changed much since the 19th century.
About that, a few recommended readings:
“The Conquest of Bread” - Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin
“The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time” - Karl Polanyi
“The Hidden Repression of the IMF” - Alex Gladstein
“La Ferme Impossible” - Dominic Lamontagne
“Mutual Aid: a Factor of Evolution” - Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin
In parallel, astute observers of economics and politics of Quebec and Canada have likely noted a similar problem about a similar unilateral decree of ‘licenses’ of production and sales. In opposition of the Canadian parliamentary federation unilateral decree law of 2017, by which cultivation of cannabis has legal standing up to 4 plants per household, the aforementioned government of Quebec has produced a racket of collusive monopoly, breaking entering and gunpoint robbing self-medication peasants, farmers, students, professors, moms, dads, aunties, uncles, etc. with one hand, and selling ‘licenses’ of prodcution and sales in highest-bidder-auction-even-if-you-sang-self-incrimination-about-’187’ing-cops-of-partner-nations-on-multi-million-sales-music-records with another hand.
“Oh, well just apply for a license!” => minimum investment required, a large production facility (e.g. warehouse), i.e. approx. $100k pre-application, then bribe a lottery type attribution system to actually get the Government of Quebec approval to grow therapeutic food plants, sell them, and if you produce more in contravention of the limits the Government approved of you (e.g. CannTrust), you just get a minor $ penalty, in comparison with the productive people producing outside of that dump of officepaperwork waste of natural resources.
In another parallel, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from the comforts of offices in gomorrah Washington D.C., has an extensive record of lending active genociders trillions of US$ on conditions of ecocidal and inefficient mono-cultures very similar of the gunpoint-slave-labor plantations of the style of Charles Tait of the 1700s.
The bad parts of capitalism and centralist state communism, with scarce democracy in sight beyond words under attack from stacks of dirty paper and gold in shell-corporation hideouts of the style of Panama, Luxembourg, and Fort Knox, Texas.
Welcome to Canada Ey! Bonjour, Hi, and Bye!
Prescription:
Anarchism yesterday, today, as long as needed. Of, for, by local people.
Replacing pigs in sties and maggots in rot.
Since the needs arose, until the needs subside and fade away.
For human rights, for health.
Peace.
Happy Farming :)
Sincerely,
One of numerous mountain bears.
Putin Invites Journalists to “Surrounded” Ukrainian Forces in Kupiansk—Zelenskyy Shows Up Instead
Putin Invites Journalists to “Surrounded” Ukrainian Forces in Kupiansk—Zelenskyy Shows Up Instead
During his visit to Kupiansk, President Zelenskyy praised Ukrainian troops, highlighting their vital role in defending the region against Russian aggression.Cyril Barabaltchouk (UNITED24 Media)
The purest example of fake news. Putin invited journalists to see the surrounded Ukrainian garrison in Myrnograd-Pokrovsk (that pocket has now been all but eliminated, so it's too late for that). This article tries to claim he said it about Kupyansk, a town in a completely different part of Ukraine, which is very easy to verify is not true.
It's sort of insulting that the people who churn out this lazy pro-Ukrainian propaganda think their audience is this stupid that they won't even check.
As for the Narcoführer, he just went to do another of his usual photoshoots with the town sign, which in this case happens to be several kilometers outside of the actual city itself.
Coincidentally it just so happens that almost every time he does one of these PR stunts that city ends up falling not long after.
I have no idea if this is going to be the case here. Who knows, maybe Ukraine will break the pattern this time and retake the city. Congratulations to them if they do, they haven't had a win in a long time now so i'm sure it would be a nice morale booster, but unfortunately it doesn't change the broader trend which is very much not in their favor.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Can I use the attachment from the user aTEZ's reply called: “FF7R ver 1.005 goldberg crack, manifest, clean api, complete save.rar” in the post software performing this post action?
Inside the Viral IRON Robot Everyone Thought Was Human
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.www.youtube.com
‘Freaking out’: Hongkongers fret over BN(O) visas as UK hardens migration stance
‘Freaking out’: Hongkongers fret over BN(O) visas as UK hardens migration stance
Worries voiced over plan to double settlement qualifying period for migrants to 10 years and raise language requirements.Ambrose Li (South China Morning Post)
like this
Maeve likes this.
EHRC trans ban: arguing over who is a ‘true trans’ won’t save us
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 beforeThe 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.
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
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
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 beforeThe 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.
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
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Alex/Rose Cocker, Author at Canary
Articles by Alex/Rose Cocker for CanaryAlex/Rose Cocker (The Canary)
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.
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
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Alex/Rose Cocker, Author at Canary
Articles by Alex/Rose Cocker for CanaryAlex/Rose Cocker (The Canary)
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 beforeThe 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.
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
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
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.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
From Canary via This RSS Feed.
Alex/Rose Cocker, Author at Canary
Articles by Alex/Rose Cocker for CanaryAlex/Rose Cocker (The Canary)
495,000 overseas students return to China in 2024, up 19.1 percent from 2023
495,000 overseas students return to China in 2024, up 19.1 percent from 2023: MOE
China saw 495,000 students returned from studying abroad in 2024, up 19.1 percent from 2023, indicating faster talent repatriation, Xinhua News Agency reported on Thursday, citing the Ministry of Education (MOE).www.globaltimes.cn
like this
Maeve likes this.
Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
workersdecide.tech: Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
If you are anxious about how AI will impact or is already impacting your job, you don’t just need to doomscroll about it. Collective action can, will, and is...techworkerscoalition.org
Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
workersdecide.tech: Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
If you are anxious about how AI will impact or is already impacting your job, you don’t just need to doomscroll about it. Collective action can, will, and is...techworkerscoalition.org
Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
workersdecide.tech: Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
If you are anxious about how AI will impact or is already impacting your job, you don’t just need to doomscroll about it. Collective action can, will, and is...techworkerscoalition.org
Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
workersdecide.tech: Resources to Fight AI Sloppification At Work
If you are anxious about how AI will impact or is already impacting your job, you don’t just need to doomscroll about it. Collective action can, will, and is...techworkerscoalition.org
HubertManne
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
ghost_laptop
in reply to HubertManne • • •HubertManne
in reply to ghost_laptop • • •radiofreebc
in reply to HubertManne • • •IninewCrow
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •like this
Maeve likes this.