It's publication day for Unkind, on why women and girls shouldn't have to make up for the world by "just" being kinder (but men and boys possibly could...)!

I just think it must take such an incredible amount of effort to pretend the women who defy the stereotypes are the ones enforcing them. So much intellectual effort, it's the kind of thing that might make you think you're a genius by the end of it.

Another delay on crypto rules and all eyes are on @SenLummis. Is this about policy… or a generational gap in understanding tech? https://t.co/easJqaldUa

The Peggie judgement is just so backslappingly laddish. Male judge agrees with male doctor that women are just a bunch of regressive stereotypes and that any "assigned female" who complains isn't doing womanhood right.

The entire feminist argument is that women *aren't* defined by stereotypes of femininity - regardless of whether they come from religion, traditional conservatism or porn. We're female human beings who exist and matter in our own right.

Because it was definitely Sandie Peggie who decided you can tell a woman by her "feminine" hair or voice ...

Wake Arena: multi-agent AI audit with graph-driven reasoning and LLM-tailored static analysis. 43/94 high-severity vulnerabilities found in historical audit competitions. 26 findings, including 5 criticals in 4 production audits by Akcee in Nov 2025. Full benchmarking report:

We don't forget this. It's not hidden, mysterious knowledge. It's in so many stories. It's just not seen as all that important when it gets in the way of other preferred narratives.

I watched the film Woman of the Hour yesterday and it reminded me how women's fear of men in enclosed or isolated spaces never needs to be over-explained in a plot. It is obvious she can't just "assault him back" or overpower him by being a bit less girly.

If male violence against women were seen to matter at all, the very suggestion that some men are less of a threat simply on their say so would be treated as a red flag, not a social justice principle

“We cannot understand the presumption that the application of law is conditional on whether or not a woman complains. Women should not be placed in this invidious position.”

Ditch the obfuscatory jargon and this reads: “In our view…there is little evidence that men pose more risk to women than women do.” Which is patently nonsense.

Mini-to-Micro Contract Converter = instant product fungibility. Swap E-minis and Micro E-minis on the fly with a clean 10:1 ratio—no margin math, no friction. One unified risk limit, seamless contract sizing, and your max position stays tied to the primary contract. Trade up.

The judge in the Sandie Peggie case who opined that there is no “reliable evidence” that women are at risk from biological males in an intimate setting needs a short lecture on the meaning of “reliable evidence.”

There is a "burn the witch" thing going on here. Women who complain too loudly are accused of harassing the men in women's spaces. Women who complain to quietly are told there was never a problem

This is only true if you take as your starting point the quasi-religious and antiscientific belief that men who identify as female aren’t biologically male. Which the ET panel appears to have implicitly done.

From the Peggie judgment. A man who identifies as a woman is no more of a risk to a woman than another woman. The next tweet will explain how such a man can reduce his risk to women...

You’ve got options when it comes to trading. Discover how Cboe Index Options can support your strategies with flexible solutions to meet your goals.

Mental health issues are not a justification for undermining the legal protections of women. Very telling these charities are motivated by concern for the mental health of one group (men who identify as female) over another (women who want single-sex services spaces and sports)

It has been made abundantly clear to women, over and over, that the trans movement is entirely predicated on prioritising men’s feelings over women’s physical safety

“You, the thinker, the genius, the progressive, aren’t going to want to get your hands dirty” — @glosswitch argues that Zack Polanski should care more https://t.co/ksGmY3NyXT

It's not easy to "police" lots of things men do to women, especially behind closed doors. We don't respond as though "therefore" we shouldn't have laws against abuse, or conflate the difficulty of proving transgression with men not knowing they're transgressing

Your mercy turns cold nights into hope

How can we possibly police women having their own spaces and resources? I dunno, could start with having a culture in which "it'd be so upsetting for someone who disrespects boundaries to have it pointed out to them" isn't your knee-jerk response

Apparently women shouldn't have boundaries because they're not going to be respected anyways

I wrote about how Zack Polanski's attitude to carers is in keeping with the body and dependency denialism of identitarian individualism