These idiots, who love power but hate the accountability that very occasionally comes with it, are hoping a judge will force Afroman to take down his publication of his own security camera footage, prevent him from ever doing it again, and give them some of Afroman’s money because he had the audacity to wrest the narrative from their control. These aren’t public servants. These are children playing dress up — daft punks who seem to believe their actions should be eternally free of consequences.

They’re trying to bring a “right of publicity” claim against Afroman — an oft-abused offshoot of copyright law that supposedly allows people to control how their faces, bodies, images, etc. are used to prevent commercial exploitation without their consent.

It’s highly unlikely public servants recorded performing their public duties can prevent use of these recordings in any way that might conceivably result in monetary gain for the person doing the recording. That much seems obvious. This also seems to foreclose this action: it’s unlikely these seven officers (deputies Happy, Sleepy, Dopey, Grumpy, Bashful, Sneezy, and Doc) will be able to claim that their faces/bodies as captured by Afroman’s security cameras have any intrinsic value capable of being exploited in violation of this law.

Are women allowed anything anymore? To create? Without being immediately shut down for not being about males instead? We could put a cock and balls on every surface imaginable and they wouldn’t object to that. Drives me up the fucking wall

Just over a month ago a friend told me that I was the cause of her cancellation. My friend — whom I’ll call F — is a writer and had been asked to appear in a fashion show alongside various other luminaries in their respective fields. On the appointed day she headed to the event, having sorted out childcare for her young child, as she is a single mother.

But when F arrived, she was intercepted by the management team for a well-known trans woman who was also booked for the show. They said they had gone through F’s social media and seen she had favourited a tweet of mine — which wasn’t about the trans woman, or trans people at all; it was about women’s sex-based rights. Nonetheless, they said, given the recent killing of the trans teenager Brianna Ghey, the trans woman didn’t feel “safe” with F in the show, so she would have to leave.

The organisers — doubtless conscious of the trans woman’s far greater public profile — regretfully agreed, and so F went home. She then learnt she had been locked out of her Twitter account and was being “investigated” by the site’s moderators; one of the last things she had tweeted was a link to a piece I wrote for The Sunday Times Magazine about Hannah Barnes’s investigation of the Tavistock’s gender clinic. The “investigation” is contuining.

Over the past few years, so many women have been reprimanded and even pushed out of jobs for questioning gender ideology’s contention that being a woman has nothing to do with biology but is down to some undefinable inner feeling, that it’s easy to stop seeing how unbelievably weird this is. High-profile cases such as those of Maya Forstater and Allison Bailey, who successfully sued their employers for discriminating against them because of their belief that males and females are defined by biological sex, may have given some people the impression women are free to speak up again. This is very much not so, and few cases illustrate that more clearly than that of the Spanish academic Laura Favaro.

In September 2022, Favaro wrote an article for Times Higher Education about the vilification and ostracism of female academics who questioned gender ideology — and afterwards was herself, she alleges, vilified, ostracised and ultimately let go by City, University of London. (City told me it does not comment on incidents relating to individual members of staff but that it takes its legal obligation to protect freedom of expression very seriously.)

One day Favaro may enjoy the irony of her thesis being proven so neatly by her own employer, but for now it still makes her cry. “It’s the sense of injustice. I haven’t done anything wrong. I’m a sociologist: it’s my job to look into social issues and to develop analyses about my findings, and I’m a feminist.

“I’m also half-Uruguayan, half-Spanish, so I know something about what it’s like to live in a dictatorship, and this is the stuff of stories I grew up with. This is far from the promises of a democracy,” she tells me. She is taking her case to an employment tribunal, and yesterday started a crowdfunding appeal for her costs.

Favaro has been aware since 2017 of the bullying of female academics who question gender ideology, and there is no shortage of examples: Jo Phoenix, Rosa Freedman and Kathleen Stock are just some from this country. During her three years at City, Favaro interviewed more academics who supported gender ideology than who questioned it, and yet her colleagues described her work as an “attack on trans people”. After Favaro’s article was published, she was told by City she was being investigated, although not for what, and she says she had to defend herself in two meetings without knowing the allegations. She was, she says, eventually cleared of any ethical wrongdoing, but nonetheless she was let go and denied access to her research and data.

Favaro was told that City “does not want to become involved in the sex and gender debate”. This is the common cop-out of bosses, institutions and politicians afraid to stand up to the ludicrous hyperbole of gender activists, who claim that any querying of their ideology causes trans children to kill themselves and casts trans people’s literal existence into doubt. Meanwhile, literal women are losing literal jobs just for describing their experiences, their observations, their lives. Somehow, allowing women to be bullied out of their jobs is seen by some as a position of neutrality.

The swift exit of Nicola Sturgeon seems to have woken up some politicians, such as Keir Starmer and Leo Varadkar, to the obvious truth that prioritising the whims and magical thinking of a loud but very niche minority over the rights of women is not a sustainable position. But industries such as academia and publishing that pride themselves on their progressive credentials, and tend to attract young, highly educated, highly online graduates, remain notably in thrall to the idea that the censorship of feminists is for the greater good.

Favaro says the online attacks she suffered after the publication of her article were “nothing” compared with what she endured from senior colleagues at City as she tried to conduct her research. “That’s what destroyed my career,” she says, adding she was told things would have been different if she had believed trans women are women. She had hoped to turn her extensive research on the gender war in academia into a book, but publishers have told her the subject makes them “nervous”.

What they were saying to me was very clear. As long as any male, anywhere is suffering, women are selfish to mention that they are suffering, too.

I'm sure neither of those men realized the woman-hatred behind their feeling that everything and everyone should come before women. I pointed out quietly that in every country where children are starving, women are starving also. In every country where men are being tortured, women are being tortured also. I was insensitive enough to point out that Vietnam is also strewn with the blasted bodies of women, and that many, many of those bodies were not simply blown up, but were also sexually abused-raped, gang raped, used up in prostitution, tortured. No matter when or where or what men suffer, women's suffering is on some totally different, more exquisite, plane.

But no one wants to hear that women are suffering. Men's ordeals are recounted and described and depicted in every conceivable way in every medium on earth, and have been from earliest history. We are always asked and expected to look at and listen to and understand and sympathize with men's pain and suffering, and we have always done it, all of us, men and women. But women's agony at the hands of men must never be revealed. If women steadfastly and courageously began to tell the truth and would not stop, would not be co-opted, would not become afraid, the truth of our enslavement would be undeniable, and the jig would be up.

That this might indeed happen is terrifying to most people. It would stand the whole world on its head. This is why any time women say, "Look at what is happening to us!" someone invariably rises up on the spot (as patriarchy has trained us all so well to do) and shouts, in order to divert us, to frighten us, to remind us of our vulnerability and danger: "But what about men?"

I explained to the distraught man whose buddies lie in fragments all over the corpse of Vietnam: ''You are performing this function here to night. May I interrupt this well-rehearsed performance to point out that we have given men 5000 years of undivided attention." (Is it any wonder they have remained spoiled little boys?) As Pauline Bart points out: "We are not allowed, even now, to speak of women's suffering without someone saying, 'and men, too,' although we have always spoken of men's suffering without adding 'and women, too!'" Patriarchy has worked hard to make women's experience appear so trivial and so invisible that it is inconceivable to most people that we warrant any attention at all. Otherwise, it would not be so maddening to them to have to listen for a whole hour to a speech about women, though they listen willingly day after day, year after year, to talks by and about men. For many hundreds of years they have heard about nothing but men: their wars, their ideas, their art, their politics, their science, their blah, blah, blah, ad nauseam."

when you inject chemicals into your face you forget how to be a human lmao

Removed the ages

To instead include tanner stages, once tanner stage 2 has been reach, then it's good enough.

Then you have this TikTok doctor

more on her ⬇️