The Times covered the Christian Henson story and I added this comment. Here’s the Guardian story that forgets to include a photo of its subject, who can be seen at the very top of this post. This paragraph is breathtaking in its casual dishonesty: “An Italian tech worker who moved to Ireland two years ago, Valentino is a newcomer to Gaelic sports and by her own account not especially skilled, yet she may leave a lasting mark if the GAA and LGFA allow trans players to compete – she has been consulted by the policy review. “I will never be remembered for my sporting results but I’d like to be remembered for leaving a legacy of inclusion for other trans players.”
A quick glance at them suggests that organisations such as Stonewall and Mermaids had input in their preparation (both organisations are listed in the resources section).
It’s ridiculous that guidelines have been prepared by an organisation based upon input from only one side of the argument (it’s worth someone looking at the other organisations listed in the resources section, but my guess is that they’re in agreement with Stonewall).
Given Stonewall’s recent decline, there may be an opportunity to press for revised guidance.
my god, those lying pronouns are so powerful. That's why they're constantly pushed and defended. Apart from appropriated feminine names, they're the most effective weapon in the 'gender' cult arsenal.
There are two policies that newspapers consider when publishing article about transgendered people. First, there’s the Editor’s Code. Second, there’s some additional IPSO guidance (see the link above).
If anyone can think of ways in which the Code could be amended, we could make suggestions that it be changed. The website, on its FAQ page, states:
12. Can I suggest Code changes?
Yes. The Code is evolving all the time to suit changing circumstances. The Code Committee's job is to write, review and revise the Code. It is open to anyone - be they an ordinary citizen or a member of Government - to suggest possible ways in which to improve the Code.
One of the strengths of the system is that the Code is easily adaptable, and the existence of a standing Editors' Committee means it can respond quickly - in a few weeks if necessary - to meet new or altered conditions.
Also, the Code is reviewed annually, and the committee invites suggestions from the public and civil society.
These should be sent to: Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee, c/o News Media Association, c/o Crowe LLP, 2nd Floor, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JW.
I had commented on various posts where a story is run about a woman rapist/pedophile etc. Where a photo is included we can all see what's going on. However for a blind person this would depend on how the photo is described in the accessible text. I know there is no photo in this article but I have seen many with photos. If there is a story about a dangerous criminal on the loose in your local area, the very least a blind person should expect is to know the perpetrator is a male.
Could this fact be brought in to any discussion on this. It is shocking and these publications have a duty to inform the public of what is going on.
I've copied in various organisations for blind people but never heard back.
Here are some rough ideas on how the Editor’s Code could be amended:
1. Remembering their duties of impartiality and accuracy, publications should take great care to ensure that they don’t incorrectly describe the gender critical as “transphobic”, contributing to violence, death etc. They should bear in mind that this is a highly charged area of disagreement and slurs are often unfairly made by one group towards the other. They should not automatically report those slurs as true.
2. Something about the importance of setting out correct/reliable medical opinion when discussing trans issues. For example, references to puberty blockers/cross sex hormones and “corrective surgery” should not be presented as a solution without any reference to the dangers/unknown risks. I can’t think of any other area of health where such one sided (and potentially dangerous) information is presented as accurate other than perhaps silly articles about how to cure the common cold.
3. Examples of cases where it’s presumed that biological sex will be reported unless there are exceptional reasons not to: perhaps crime; women’s sports; positions and places reserved, quite lawfully under the Equality Act 2010, for women and girls; medical/health matter; science reporting; and any other case where the article wouldn’t make sense unless biological sex is reported.
4. Not to report campaigning slogans as fact. “Trans rights are human rights” is a catchy slogan, but pretty meaningless. All human rights are qualified. Just as my right to life doesn’t prevent the police from lawfully shooting me dead if I turn up at the shops with a bomb strapped to my back, my right to put on a dress and some lipstick and call myself Jane (she/her) doesn’t entitle me to enter women’s spaces.
"... this is a highly charged area of disagreement and slurs are often unfairly made by one group towards the other".
I don't see any equivalence at all between the 'gender' critical discourse and that of 'trans' ideologues. None at all. One side is overwhelmingly reasonable and disciplined, the other -- NOT.
I don’t disagree, but any proposed amendments to the code should be in neutral language. The guidance should be that the press doesn’t simply repeat what someone says about their opponents as being true.
The defendant in those proceedings doesn’t have a gender recognition certificate, but still even the Daily Mail refers to him as a “she” (although obviously the fact that he’s a sex offender who’s been sent to a women’s prison is worse). At least his biological sex is identified.
When judges force female witnesses to refer to the man they accuse of raping them as 'she', it's a hugely tough fight all round, but as critical as can be imagined. In the most literal sense, the lunatics are taking over the asylum, and those lunatics are utterly evil.
Thanks for that. The resources are shocking. These are propaganda groups, and heinous ones at that. 'Gendered Intelligence'. A clear and obvious paedophile front. I will never forget this Transgender Trend report on them promoting adult sexual fetishes to children.
Can anyone shed light on the role of OFCOM in transgender coverage? I seemed to remember they had made findings against the BBC report on lesbians being coerced into sex with MtF trans guys, but I can't find it. Do I have that wrong?
How Peter Tatchell gets away with his history of paedophile advocacy never coming up when he debates trans issues and RSE is also staggering, given how germane that is when we're talking about the implications of children being able to 'consent' to change sex and his desire to teach fetishes and anal sex to children. Is that anything to do with OFCOM rules?
The cognitive dissonance is staggering. Imagine that editorial meeting: someone pitches the 'triumph-over-adversity' narrative of Stunning & Brave Valentino who only wants to play Gaelic football with her sisters but is cruelly denied by the forces of oppression and bigotry - then they see the photo... I'll bet any amount of money that not one person on the Guardian staff said out loud: "We can't publish the photo because it obviously shows a man," while that's exactly what they're all thinking.
If they sincerely and genuinely believe that photo shows a woman, then they have no reason not to print the photo. But they won't because they know the same thing that we know and that every rational person knows; a man can not be a woman. If they're willing to let imprisoned women live in fear of dangerous men, they're certainly willing to let female footballers get battered and bruised by a man before they'll admit what we all know to be true.
The Guardian has no integrity, it doesn't care about honesty, fairness or journalism. There's little beyond identity politics, and it'll give the 'truth' most expedient to fulfilling its purposes. If the article included a photo, only a liar would agree the subject was a woman because he says he is. It is a photograph of a man, they know that and they know everyone who sees it will know the exactly the same. Instead, they focus on Valentino's claimed lack of prowess on the pitch. Who gives a shit? They can go and fuck themselves rather than fucking with other people.
The Guardian is doing exactly what Bill Gates told them to do when he gave them a pile of money. What still amazes me is that people who don't buy into their identity politics crap still believe that Putin is out to take over Europe. Frankly, who would wanna?
They make me puke, all that crap about being an independent media, not owned by a billionaire like Murdoch, etc. Yes, it does what it's told to satisfy its investors and its new readership.
The point is that we know they're lying about transgenderism, but many of the commenters on this site seem to believe everything else they regurgitate. They ARE NOT a good source for international news; neither are PBS, BBC, the NYT, the Washington Post, etc, etc, etc. They do what their masters tell them to do. And there is good information available if one looks carefully; there are quality investigative reporters quietly doing their work which will never be published in organs of state propaganda.
Actually, knowing the bit I do about newspapers -- worked at one, spouse worked at three -- I would bet they did discuss the photo out loud and decided not to publish it. Every day in every way newspapers choose what to print and what not to print. For example, a child molester was taken to court by a neighbor for exposing himself. The case was covered -- neighbor lost, probably because man seemed middle-class -- but his previous background of having to leave another state due to sexual "inappropriateness" was left out. I had to tell our priest the truth because this dude wanted the church to fund his defense!
I wonder if common sense is a subject that needs to be taught at universities? Personally I'd make it compulsory. Pay people with trades like electrician and hairdresser to put their heads together and teach it to undergraduates before higher education can turn our young people into fools and psychopaths.
Kath Viner et al are in absolute violation of the Editors' Code of Practice.
"Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images. The Clause also makes clear that the press, whilst free to editorialise, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."
Soooo ... what they are presenting to the public is inaccurate, misleading and distorted. I would add that 'lack of clarifying image' should be included in the definition of press 'transgressions'.
"Has the individual made their transgender status known?
• If not, is the revelation of their status necessary to the story?"
I should think the revelation of a male player's 'trans' status is bloody well relevant when he is 'playing' on a women's team. It's no less than a conspiracy of silence to keep relevant information from the public.
It's a code of practice or standard. So guidance not law. It might be misleading, cheating, unfair, dishonest, and brings the whole profession into disrepute but slippery to hold them to any accountability. I think it was the late HRH who spoke about it being the People who change things and other organs of the State should follow. How we do that is moot.
Voting with our feet maybe the only recourse and whichever way we do that.
Why can’t a Times subscriber submit a comment, attaching the photo? (It may not get published but the Times censor will see it.) Or a Twitter link.
Or at least a description of the photo: “As a longtime Times subscriber, I was surprised that the Times neglected to include Valentino's photo, showing the player's lengthy arm span and bald head.”
I stopped subscribing to The Times. I couldn’t comment anymore for some reason. It might have been an IT problem but they didn’t sort it out which made me think hmm have I been banned. Some of their moderators seemed to be in support of gender identity at one stage. Not sure if they are contractors or employed by The Times?
Sorry to hear this. Not good for business if The Times moderators are cancelling subscribers. I think they targeted knowledgeable people (probably mostly women- that can’t be legal).
"The Guardian agreed not to publish this or any photograph that identified Valentino, who has been harassed. “Safety is a privilege that doesn’t belong to trans people,” she said."
Safety reasons you see. Liars must be protected from exposure of the truth!
I think men like Valentino actually help the cause. He’s pushing the ideology to its logic conclusion - that you just have to say ‘I’m a woman’ and do or say nothing more to be accepted as one (by fawning imbeciles). We need men like him to beat the boundaries of folks not yet convinced enough to start objecting to the insanity.
Of course, if the Guardian selectively report - as here - then folks won’t get it.
I get your point. How did we even get this point where those fawning imbeciles held sway and started changing our laws. Even 'doing' things no man can ever be a woman so it's strange to see where the line is. From those who 'pass' and are younger, smaller, with finer bone structures, huge amounts of repeated plastic surgeries and bone-shaving, plastic-filled, penis-inverted, wound-dilated, flooded with hormone bodies with voice boxes hacked and tilting heads to those who grandly declare 'I am a woman' and flounce about in some reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, they're still only and always men. I don't care what they do or how much they spend, it makes them no more of a woman and never female. It's ludicrous. But Penny Mordaunt is Lord President of the Privy Council so it's wheels within wheels.
Very well put, Graham. I continue to find find it bewildering and appalling, in equal measure, that our 'news' is so utterly disingenuous. But every rebuttal from recognised names such as yourself does make a difference. As for the likes of me, we shall just have to continue bending the ears of friends and family until they finally open their eyes or stop answering the phone.
Did they also omit the fact that this bloke had a hissy fit about not being allowed to share the female changing facilities? Along witha reminder that indecent exposure is a form of sexual violence?
Head injuries! A man can kick the ball much harder. If it then hits a female player in the head, she could suffer the rest of her life from traumatic brain injury, or even die. It's a terrible shame, but the female players need to refuse to start the games, for their very lives. How can we support these female athletes to do what's right for the next generation of athletic girls?
I wish I had advice on a harassment case for Graham. These people colluded based on indoctrinated beliefs, and they think they are doing right. That's the ideology they've swallowed. Perhaps after the 1,000 families have won settlements in their class action suit? Exposing those who regret, citing the valid data and hosting truthful individuals with a focus on free speech is a great accomplishment. It's a slog--take care of yourself, we all need to live healthy, long lives in hopes we'll witness the medical profession undoing their false "treatments."
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
A first step would be to persuade IPSO to change it’s guidelines.
A copy is available here: https://www.ipso.co.uk/media/1275/guidance_transgender-reporting.pdf
A quick glance at them suggests that organisations such as Stonewall and Mermaids had input in their preparation (both organisations are listed in the resources section).
It’s ridiculous that guidelines have been prepared by an organisation based upon input from only one side of the argument (it’s worth someone looking at the other organisations listed in the resources section, but my guess is that they’re in agreement with Stonewall).
Given Stonewall’s recent decline, there may be an opportunity to press for revised guidance.
my god, those lying pronouns are so powerful. That's why they're constantly pushed and defended. Apart from appropriated feminine names, they're the most effective weapon in the 'gender' cult arsenal.
There are two policies that newspapers consider when publishing article about transgendered people. First, there’s the Editor’s Code. Second, there’s some additional IPSO guidance (see the link above).
The Code is available at http://www.editorscode.org.uk/
If anyone can think of ways in which the Code could be amended, we could make suggestions that it be changed. The website, on its FAQ page, states:
12. Can I suggest Code changes?
Yes. The Code is evolving all the time to suit changing circumstances. The Code Committee's job is to write, review and revise the Code. It is open to anyone - be they an ordinary citizen or a member of Government - to suggest possible ways in which to improve the Code.
One of the strengths of the system is that the Code is easily adaptable, and the existence of a standing Editors' Committee means it can respond quickly - in a few weeks if necessary - to meet new or altered conditions.
Also, the Code is reviewed annually, and the committee invites suggestions from the public and civil society.
These should be sent to: Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee, c/o News Media Association, c/o Crowe LLP, 2nd Floor, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7JW.
I had commented on various posts where a story is run about a woman rapist/pedophile etc. Where a photo is included we can all see what's going on. However for a blind person this would depend on how the photo is described in the accessible text. I know there is no photo in this article but I have seen many with photos. If there is a story about a dangerous criminal on the loose in your local area, the very least a blind person should expect is to know the perpetrator is a male.
Could this fact be brought in to any discussion on this. It is shocking and these publications have a duty to inform the public of what is going on.
I've copied in various organisations for blind people but never heard back.
Thanks.
Here are some rough ideas on how the Editor’s Code could be amended:
1. Remembering their duties of impartiality and accuracy, publications should take great care to ensure that they don’t incorrectly describe the gender critical as “transphobic”, contributing to violence, death etc. They should bear in mind that this is a highly charged area of disagreement and slurs are often unfairly made by one group towards the other. They should not automatically report those slurs as true.
2. Something about the importance of setting out correct/reliable medical opinion when discussing trans issues. For example, references to puberty blockers/cross sex hormones and “corrective surgery” should not be presented as a solution without any reference to the dangers/unknown risks. I can’t think of any other area of health where such one sided (and potentially dangerous) information is presented as accurate other than perhaps silly articles about how to cure the common cold.
3. Examples of cases where it’s presumed that biological sex will be reported unless there are exceptional reasons not to: perhaps crime; women’s sports; positions and places reserved, quite lawfully under the Equality Act 2010, for women and girls; medical/health matter; science reporting; and any other case where the article wouldn’t make sense unless biological sex is reported.
4. Not to report campaigning slogans as fact. “Trans rights are human rights” is a catchy slogan, but pretty meaningless. All human rights are qualified. Just as my right to life doesn’t prevent the police from lawfully shooting me dead if I turn up at the shops with a bomb strapped to my back, my right to put on a dress and some lipstick and call myself Jane (she/her) doesn’t entitle me to enter women’s spaces.
"... this is a highly charged area of disagreement and slurs are often unfairly made by one group towards the other".
I don't see any equivalence at all between the 'gender' critical discourse and that of 'trans' ideologues. None at all. One side is overwhelmingly reasonable and disciplined, the other -- NOT.
I don’t disagree, but any proposed amendments to the code should be in neutral language. The guidance should be that the press doesn’t simply repeat what someone says about their opponents as being true.
Such important information.
Perhaps a petition, signed by thousands of people, would be persuasive?
Here’s an example from today of the nonsense caused by these guidelines: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11193987/Judge-sends-serial-sex-abuser-born-man-not-legally-recognised-female-womens-jail.html
The defendant in those proceedings doesn’t have a gender recognition certificate, but still even the Daily Mail refers to him as a “she” (although obviously the fact that he’s a sex offender who’s been sent to a women’s prison is worse). At least his biological sex is identified.
When judges force female witnesses to refer to the man they accuse of raping them as 'she', it's a hugely tough fight all round, but as critical as can be imagined. In the most literal sense, the lunatics are taking over the asylum, and those lunatics are utterly evil.
Thanks for that. The resources are shocking. These are propaganda groups, and heinous ones at that. 'Gendered Intelligence'. A clear and obvious paedophile front. I will never forget this Transgender Trend report on them promoting adult sexual fetishes to children.
https://www.transgendertrend.com/gendered-intelligence-training-teachers-kiss-my-genders/
Can anyone shed light on the role of OFCOM in transgender coverage? I seemed to remember they had made findings against the BBC report on lesbians being coerced into sex with MtF trans guys, but I can't find it. Do I have that wrong?
How Peter Tatchell gets away with his history of paedophile advocacy never coming up when he debates trans issues and RSE is also staggering, given how germane that is when we're talking about the implications of children being able to 'consent' to change sex and his desire to teach fetishes and anal sex to children. Is that anything to do with OFCOM rules?
The cognitive dissonance is staggering. Imagine that editorial meeting: someone pitches the 'triumph-over-adversity' narrative of Stunning & Brave Valentino who only wants to play Gaelic football with her sisters but is cruelly denied by the forces of oppression and bigotry - then they see the photo... I'll bet any amount of money that not one person on the Guardian staff said out loud: "We can't publish the photo because it obviously shows a man," while that's exactly what they're all thinking.
If they sincerely and genuinely believe that photo shows a woman, then they have no reason not to print the photo. But they won't because they know the same thing that we know and that every rational person knows; a man can not be a woman. If they're willing to let imprisoned women live in fear of dangerous men, they're certainly willing to let female footballers get battered and bruised by a man before they'll admit what we all know to be true.
The Guardian has no integrity, it doesn't care about honesty, fairness or journalism. There's little beyond identity politics, and it'll give the 'truth' most expedient to fulfilling its purposes. If the article included a photo, only a liar would agree the subject was a woman because he says he is. It is a photograph of a man, they know that and they know everyone who sees it will know the exactly the same. Instead, they focus on Valentino's claimed lack of prowess on the pitch. Who gives a shit? They can go and fuck themselves rather than fucking with other people.
The Guardian is doing exactly what Bill Gates told them to do when he gave them a pile of money. What still amazes me is that people who don't buy into their identity politics crap still believe that Putin is out to take over Europe. Frankly, who would wanna?
They make me puke, all that crap about being an independent media, not owned by a billionaire like Murdoch, etc. Yes, it does what it's told to satisfy its investors and its new readership.
Putin is a bit of a leap. Ukraine doesn't quite make me discount an even greater threat level. Now where were we? ...
The point is that we know they're lying about transgenderism, but many of the commenters on this site seem to believe everything else they regurgitate. They ARE NOT a good source for international news; neither are PBS, BBC, the NYT, the Washington Post, etc, etc, etc. They do what their masters tell them to do. And there is good information available if one looks carefully; there are quality investigative reporters quietly doing their work which will never be published in organs of state propaganda.
Actually, knowing the bit I do about newspapers -- worked at one, spouse worked at three -- I would bet they did discuss the photo out loud and decided not to publish it. Every day in every way newspapers choose what to print and what not to print. For example, a child molester was taken to court by a neighbor for exposing himself. The case was covered -- neighbor lost, probably because man seemed middle-class -- but his previous background of having to leave another state due to sexual "inappropriateness" was left out. I had to tell our priest the truth because this dude wanted the church to fund his defense!
I wonder if common sense is a subject that needs to be taught at universities? Personally I'd make it compulsory. Pay people with trades like electrician and hairdresser to put their heads together and teach it to undergraduates before higher education can turn our young people into fools and psychopaths.
Absolutely.
Kath Viner et al are in absolute violation of the Editors' Code of Practice.
"Clause 1 (Accuracy) requires that the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images. The Clause also makes clear that the press, whilst free to editorialise, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact."
Soooo ... what they are presenting to the public is inaccurate, misleading and distorted. I would add that 'lack of clarifying image' should be included in the definition of press 'transgressions'.
''Points for editors to consider"
"Has the individual made their transgender status known?
• If not, is the revelation of their status necessary to the story?"
I should think the revelation of a male player's 'trans' status is bloody well relevant when he is 'playing' on a women's team. It's no less than a conspiracy of silence to keep relevant information from the public.
Would suing help? Is there a law being infringed?
It's a code of practice or standard. So guidance not law. It might be misleading, cheating, unfair, dishonest, and brings the whole profession into disrepute but slippery to hold them to any accountability. I think it was the late HRH who spoke about it being the People who change things and other organs of the State should follow. How we do that is moot.
Voting with our feet maybe the only recourse and whichever way we do that.
Why can’t a Times subscriber submit a comment, attaching the photo? (It may not get published but the Times censor will see it.) Or a Twitter link.
Or at least a description of the photo: “As a longtime Times subscriber, I was surprised that the Times neglected to include Valentino's photo, showing the player's lengthy arm span and bald head.”
I'll try the Guardian with the photo. (As if.)
I stopped subscribing to The Times. I couldn’t comment anymore for some reason. It might have been an IT problem but they didn’t sort it out which made me think hmm have I been banned. Some of their moderators seemed to be in support of gender identity at one stage. Not sure if they are contractors or employed by The Times?
Sorry to hear this. Not good for business if The Times moderators are cancelling subscribers. I think they targeted knowledgeable people (probably mostly women- that can’t be legal).
I read The Times for many years before this
"The Guardian agreed not to publish this or any photograph that identified Valentino, who has been harassed. “Safety is a privilege that doesn’t belong to trans people,” she said."
Safety reasons you see. Liars must be protected from exposure of the truth!
Where did it say that?
12th paragraph in the Guardian article you link to.
Safety is a right his trans privilege denies to women playing Gaelic football.
I think men like Valentino actually help the cause. He’s pushing the ideology to its logic conclusion - that you just have to say ‘I’m a woman’ and do or say nothing more to be accepted as one (by fawning imbeciles). We need men like him to beat the boundaries of folks not yet convinced enough to start objecting to the insanity.
Of course, if the Guardian selectively report - as here - then folks won’t get it.
I get your point. How did we even get this point where those fawning imbeciles held sway and started changing our laws. Even 'doing' things no man can ever be a woman so it's strange to see where the line is. From those who 'pass' and are younger, smaller, with finer bone structures, huge amounts of repeated plastic surgeries and bone-shaving, plastic-filled, penis-inverted, wound-dilated, flooded with hormone bodies with voice boxes hacked and tilting heads to those who grandly declare 'I am a woman' and flounce about in some reincarnation of the Virgin Mary, they're still only and always men. I don't care what they do or how much they spend, it makes them no more of a woman and never female. It's ludicrous. But Penny Mordaunt is Lord President of the Privy Council so it's wheels within wheels.
What a brilliant Times comment, Graham.
'she may leave a lasting mark'.
Oh, I'm so tempted.
Very well put, Graham. I continue to find find it bewildering and appalling, in equal measure, that our 'news' is so utterly disingenuous. But every rebuttal from recognised names such as yourself does make a difference. As for the likes of me, we shall just have to continue bending the ears of friends and family until they finally open their eyes or stop answering the phone.
Wow, do these guys have a lot to answer for.
They'll have a difficult and stressful time at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Gender Crimes explaining why they deceived the public.
https://transmediawatch.org/
No reconciliation! Truth and Consequences! "Reconciliation" does not stop individual or massive crimes against humanity.
Did they also omit the fact that this bloke had a hissy fit about not being allowed to share the female changing facilities? Along witha reminder that indecent exposure is a form of sexual violence?
More great work, Glinner. Well done! Just had a thought... tell you who else has been quiet... Ian Hislop!
Head injuries! A man can kick the ball much harder. If it then hits a female player in the head, she could suffer the rest of her life from traumatic brain injury, or even die. It's a terrible shame, but the female players need to refuse to start the games, for their very lives. How can we support these female athletes to do what's right for the next generation of athletic girls?
I wish I had advice on a harassment case for Graham. These people colluded based on indoctrinated beliefs, and they think they are doing right. That's the ideology they've swallowed. Perhaps after the 1,000 families have won settlements in their class action suit? Exposing those who regret, citing the valid data and hosting truthful individuals with a focus on free speech is a great accomplishment. It's a slog--take care of yourself, we all need to live healthy, long lives in hopes we'll witness the medical profession undoing their false "treatments."
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
Re the Guardian picture - two balls in a bag!
Utter shite.
Just seen this cheering news on Welsh Rugby Union rules https://www.wru.wales/2022/09/wru-updates-gender-participation-policy/?fbclid=IwAR3-iLJ8652nqaZ4eseV8IZJAtqtKXw4KDL-PN7v9ITw-V_F5840Wpt9FBE