“I was hit in the face by a man dressed as a woman,” says Riley Gaines. It didn’t end there for the decorated former college swimmer for the University of Kentucky. Gaines was at San Francisco State University to speak about biological men competing in women’s sporting events when a group of activists attacked her, chanting mantras like “Trans women are women”. A group of protesters barricaded Gaines in a classroom along with campus security.
Gaines is a prominent opponent of trans women competing in the women’s division. She has experienced the phenomenon first hand. Just last year Gaines swam against Lia Thomas – a male who ‘transitioned’ in 2021 to compete for the women’s team at the University of Pennsylvania.
It was late on Thursday night when San Francisco Police finally came to the rescue and helped Gaines to safety.
Gaines has written about what happened to her in DailyMail.com.
I raced against Thomas in March 2022 in the 200 freestyle. We tied. We finished at the exact same moment down to 100ths of a second.
But after we stepped down from the awards podium, an NCAA official looked at both Thomas and me and said, “Great job, you tied. But we don’t account for ties. So, the trophy goes to Lia.”
That struck me as strange, so I questioned him. As it turns out, that may have been the first time anyone had ever questioned why Thomas received special treatment. And the official’s answer shocked me.
He said that Thomas would hold the trophy for picture purposes.
That’s when I realised that the NCAA no longer valued everything that I, my teammates and every other girl swimming that day had worked their entire lives to achieve. The goal was no longer excellence in women’s sport. The goal was virtue signaling on the backs of women.
That’s when I knew I had to speak out. I wanted to be part of a conversation about what is happening in women’s sports so that we can find a way to accommodate trans-identified athletes without marginalising or discriminating against female athletes.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I salute Chris for keeping going in the face of such dishonesty, his work is one of the major reasons I make a small contribution to the DS.
I agree and thank Chris Morrison and others on here and in some other places for doing something that 90% or more of journalist don’t do, and that is question something that is supposed to be about “science”. ——-In science you question everything. When you don’t question it, you are indulging in politics not science, and nothing today is more highly politicised than energy/climate.
I see the red thumbs down person disagrees with me and thinks that in science you should not question anything. ——Notice how they don’t say why. Probably because they are aware how silly that would be.
I’m firmly of the opinion that “the red thumbs down person” / people is/are probably attention-seeking, insecure vitiates. Ergo, the red thumbs down gesture.
I try to ignore them.
Could it be a cry for help?
Also, please visit https://wattsupwiththat.com/
There you will find a wealth of information about the environments, actual science, weather, the climates and also links to numerous agencies that provide data on ice, sea temperatures, atmospheric temperatures etc.
Likewise. An excellent chap, it was a pleasure to meet him at the DS Christmas Party.
Yesterday I flicked over to SKY NEWS (a rare event). ——On it was the “Climate Show”. They were doing a piece about coastal erosion and painting a picture of rising sea levels threatening coastal villages with lots of images of houses very close to the edge and footage of bits of cliff falling down to the beach etc. ——The whole idea was to give this picture of sea level rise that was all caused by our emissions of CO2 and as a result of “climate change”. There is only one thing wrong with this. Sea levels have been rising throughout this Interglacial period for the last 12,000 years or so but crucially there is no evidence of an increase in the rate of sea level rise as would be expected if humans were adding to natural rises with our CO2 emissions. Any honest reporting would surely therefore conclude that coastal erosion was caused by rising sea levels that are occurring naturally. But on a “Climate Show” that is like a hammer that sees everything as a nail, absolutely everything that occurs is because of humans and that is POLITICS not SCIENCE.
You may know this, but 20,000 years ago temperatures started rise marking the end of the last glacial expansion cycle. Huge quantities of ice melted and the seas started to rise (see the graphic below). Today we are told that humans are responsible for an 8cm rise in seas since the 1800s. Using the same scale and beginning 20,000 years ago nature was responsible for 123,000cm rise in seas. Lets compare that.
Nature – – 123,000cm
Humans – 000,008cm
I struggle to see how nature has stopped suddenly and only since the Industrial Revolution. During the Holocene the seas have continued to rise although much slower and with the occasional drop. We have perhaps 500 years before the next glacial cycle gets into it’s stride and unless the Earth loses all it’s orbital and rotational eccentricities I cannot see what will stop the descent into another 80,000 to 100,000 years of a much much colder, drier planet .
I am aware a lot of this stuff as I have been looking into it since about 2007, but I thankyou for your reply…….All information and knowledge is GOOD.—– It is no knowledge that is bad, and that is why people end up gluing themselves to buildings and throwing tomato soup at works of art.—-Because they know NOTHING
Agreed. I run the risk of writing what people like yourself already know but I consider it better to do that as others that don’t know may be reading.
I went with my son to visit Keele University as part of their open day. We were greeted at Stoke station by one of the students acting as a guide. I asked him what he was studying? As he answered Environmental Studies I thought he would know about the Ice Age we are currently in, particularly the extent and duration of the last glacial expansion. He confessed to not knowing much about it at all. I naively thought that anyone in higher education would be thirsty for knowledge especially everything around the subject they have chosen?
Yes I often post stuff that others may already know as well. But so what? There will always be some people who don’t know or are unaware. The more that we all attack this hijacked environmentalism that is really just politics masquerading as science the better.
I think you’re out by a factor of 10. 120m is 12,000cm, not 120,000 (which would be mm)
Otherwise, thanks for the graph.
Oh yes and thanks for pointing out, but unfortunately I cannot correct and hide my error, so there it is. Either way even 12,300cm is a considerable rise compared to 8cm.
Sky subscription? Cancelled.
BBC TV, Radio 4 Today programme? Do these still exist?
Watts Up With That is all the news that you need:
First three WUWT articles today?
‘……the EU may be realizing that banning internal combustion engines, and replacing them with e-cars, is going to cause a lot more damage than good.’
‘….the models that formerly used WH (Western Hudson) bears as a proxy to predict the survival of all other subpopulations, including the one published last year, are not worth the paper they were printed on. What a surprise!’
‘The subsequent Great Dying or end Permian Extinction 252 million years ago was simply the culmination of “dead clades walking” that began with CO2 starvation, the rain forest collapse, and phytoplankton blackout. The end Permian saw 81% of the remaining marine species and 70% of remaining terrestrial vertebrate species go extinct……….if history teaches us anything, we must ensure that attempts to reduce CO2 concentrations do not result in devastating CO2 starvation ever again.’
Yep. There are also many many books on the issue of energy and climate. —-One of the best is “Hubris, The Troubling Science, Economics and Politics of Climate Change”. by Michael Hart ————-I also like the works of energy experts like Robert Bryce and Michael J Economides who wrote “Energy and Climate Wars”. ——–Good luck with your reading and thanks for your comments on here.
“Watts Up With That is all the news that you need”
Don’t fall into that trap, as true as the statement may be.
Tom Nelson’s YouTube channel is worth a watch. This is a good listen, if you can cope with 1 hr and 40 mins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIrOsjS6_GU
Luckily there is a chapter list so you can find the various most interesting points.
And let’s not forget that humans were vastly vegetarian!
All those thousands of flint arrow heads, fish barbs and knives were all used to hunt apples and wild tomatoes!
https://www.newsweek.com/diets-almost-exclusively-vegetarian-first-european-cities-1856648
If food scarcity is an issue for polar bears (very common for these large carnivorous predators), then why not turn up to their habitat every month or so and feed them? Problem solved. We’ve got an abundance of food, we stuff our faces all day long, many of us are obese, and yet we give almost nothing to the animal kingdom. They live like scavengers, how utterly selfish of us.
Instead these magnificent animals have become the unwitting poster boy for the deranged leftist deindustrialisation plan, where white people (only white people of course) must: decommission our existing power stations and buy Chinese wind turbines; dump all our cars on the scrap heap and buy Chinese EVs; dump all our gas boilers on the scrap heap and buy Chinese heat pumps…in order ‘to save the polar bears’. Mass hysteria.
If the leftists really cared about polar bears, then they would do as above. But it’s clear that they don’t think twice about them, know nothing about them, nor do they care.
I can think of a few people I’d like to send to the arctic to feed polar bears.
Hänsel and Gretel get lost in the turbine forests until they arrive at a ramshackle shed where the evil climate alarmist Claudia Roth lies in hiding who seeks to capture children to use their dead bodies as mushroom beds for yeast and mould fungi she then turns into the vegan meat replacement products which exclusively make up her diet. She captures Hänsel by cunningly luring him into her home under the pretext of wanting to give him a sausage roll but Gretel luckily escapes. Having locked up the boy to let him compassionately starve to death, the Green politician (for that she is in her public life) then goes hunting for the girl through the desolate wasteland of concrete, dripping chemicals and turbine blades whoosing through the air.
The chase goes on an on and Gretel, having tripped numerous times over thick cables laid out all over the ground, is near the end of her endurance when they finally reach the outskirts of the ghastly mechanical forest and approach a huge solar installation composed many highly reflecting mirrors for bundling the sunlight and sending it to water heating chamber in the center of it. Roth stumbles over a concrete ridge while trying to grab the girl who, with a final exertion, pushes here into the circle of reflectors where – with a shriek of absolute terror – the evil Green is incinerated in a bright flash, turning into flocks of grey ash blown away by the wind. Panting, the girl makes are way back to the shed step by step where she finds releases her unfortuntate brother.
What is that? ——–Is it from your imagination or from some book or other? ——-It is very funny and quite appropriate parody.
Thanks. I just wrote that on the spot at that time. I only wish the English was less atrocious.
The politician.
Oooh, she’s lovely!
RW, it works. Freud may ask to see you after class, but you said it well. Your English is way better than my stale, high-school/GCSE German.
If I wrote auf Deutsch, I would feel as humble as you do. Not a problem.
Brilliant! Now it needs to be made into a ‘Blockbuster Movie’. ‘Based on real events.’
Models prove nothing! Why is that so hard for people to understand?
It’s not science, it’s pure bunkum.
I’ve been leading teams of Data Scientists for years. The whole team understands we’re just making sophisticated guesses and that’s how we communicate any results to management. We actively seek to falsify and refine. It’s the only responsible thing to do.
The minute you see “scientists used ‘high emissions’ climate model scenarios to predict ice-free conditions” then it’s clear that the model was designed with embedded assumptions which led to the intended conclusion.
The same crappy thinking led us into lockdown. Big scary numbers produced by fancy models were enough to rob us of our freedoms.
Modelling sounds sexy and mysterious, but it’s just a complex calculation. If I said “my spreadsheet calculations predict thermageddon is imminent”, more people would question my conclusions.
If I said “my AI/ML model has predicted…” then suddenly it sounds all scientific. Snake Oil.
Correct. ——-But when most people tune into their 6 O’Clock news to be lectured about the unfolding “climate crisis” they only hear things like “all scientists agree”. They never hear “All Modellers agree”. ——-A model is NOT science and it is not evidence of anything. Mainstream news has simply become climate activism pretending it is reporting on science.
Chris, why use that silly graph of declining sea ice from 1979?? It starts at 14m/sqKM so it is only the ‘tops’ and exaggerates the decline, this is EXACTLY what the game that alarmists play. Am I missing something?
Yes, it’s exactly their game but “when in Rome,…”
Shrinking the axes is a common ploy for exaggerating data. We saw that late ’20 / early “21 when our wonderful media were pontificating whether us peons deserved freedom.
When things were bottoming out, despite several months prior data, the Beeb zoomed into the previous 4 weeks which showed a ‘spike’ and quizzed ‘The Right Honourless W*nksock MP’ on that slice of the data. Something like ‘given the recent increase in cases [lol, ffs!], why should we let the peons leave their houses?’ – yes, I exaggerated but it’s certainly no more egregious than the panic-whipping tactics of our media over that wonderfully ‘educational’ (i.e. the lying that led to my becoming red-pilled) couple of years.
This myopia ignored the huge decline over the previous months. Instead they focused on the blip, thus exaggerating the severity of our non-crisis.
I think it was then, in response to an impertinent question, Mr W*nksock claimed the ‘journslist’ had ‘got the science wrong’
I wish, at exactly this moment, the inquisitor had asked him to ‘explain the science’ – it would have shown him for the igno-ty-rant he really is.
Instead, I’m fairly sure the general population (gen-pop being prison terminology) were duly scared into clamouring for ‘our’ freedoms [unsurprisingly, not the suspension of the freedoms of the laptop class, which somehow seemed enhanced in those dark days.] to remain suspended for a few more months.
Yeah, even after all this time, I’m still really salty. Cold hard rage.
It’ll take a long while and some humility/repentance from our ‘betters’ to bring me back down.
Why does the Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent graph for 1979-2023 shown above match such a nice neat straight trend line [shown in blue]?
That seems a little unusual. It suggests a linear relationship of the form y = mx + c.
Of course the trend over a much longer period than 24 years might not match s straight trend line.
Taking it at face value, what other single variable might match that straight trend line? Is there some other process responsible for this that is not ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’?
Does the sea ice extent for Antarctica match this or is it different?
What of changing ocean currents? Are they different now? If so is the change linear?
Any thoughts?