Notices by HebrideanHecate (hebrideanhecate@spinster.xyz)

https://thecritic.co.uk/why-cousin-marriage-endures/

But for Labour and many self-styled “centrists”, all of this is too much to consider. We have now had a generation or more in which they have made it imperative to remove “stigma” around people’s choices in terms of sex and relationships, especially if those choices are associated with ethnicity or race. That one of Britain’s largest ethnic minorities has been found to engage in a custom which, notwithstanding the medical consequences, is inherently revolting to most English people, is more than they can bear. For them, the entire subject is simply racist, let alone any specific opinions or policies one may come up with about it. They want it to go away, and the easiest way to do that is to stick firmly to the liberal line that whom people marry and have children with is their own business.As a result, cousin marriage is now in the same drawer as questions such as the wearing of the niqab, which divide liberal opinion between those who emphasise the autonomy of minority communities and those who place primacy on the individual. This is mainly a debate going on among people who consider themselves “progressive” in one manner or another. As such, their arguments tend to be couched in the language and assumptions of the Left. Many conservatives and populists are naturally in favour of banning what they regard as a backward foreign practice as a matter of principle, but they are happy to amplify arguments for doing so on grounds that sound more enlightened and humanistic if others are already articulating them.

So we begin to see the argument that cousin marriage is a patriarchal imposition on the autonomy of individual women of Pakistani heritage, forcing them into marrying cousins with the risk of giving birth to unhealthy babies. Surely, they reason, no woman could possibly want that for herself, or for her potential children. It is a coercive practice, designed to shore up the power of the male elders of clans, by marrying their own offspring together. This is an argument which many progressives, especially male ones, know they have to treat far more cautiously than those from the Right which can be dismissed as racist or stigmatising. Especially since any perceived disregard for the specific rights of women from “marginalised” cultures risks making them look like the racist ones. This followed on from the public debate around the niqab earlier this year, in which nominally left-leaning or liberal feminists seemed to make the argument more stridently and confidently than they had done previously; that full face veiling was patriarchal and oppressive, and that a secular society had a duty to intervene. Unlike their counterparts in other English-speaking countries, the success of British feminists in halting and reversing the tide of gender ideology has clearly made many of them far less patient of other parts of any so-called progressive coalition insofar as they might infringe on the freedom and autonomy of women — and a bloody good show too.

https://x.com/AjaTheEmpress/status/1914215229874937938

Imagine this: a group of working-class white men flood into Parliament Square on a Saturday afternoon, waving Union Jack flags. Among them are known criminals—some with violent records. They shout abuse, deface statues, urinate on memorials. They hold signs with slogans like “The only good immigrant is a dead one,” “Bring back witch-burning of brown people,” and “Piss on Muslims.” Can you imagine the reaction? The police would be out in full riot gear. Journalists would descend like vultures. Front pages would scream about a fascist uprising. Politicians across the spectrum would line up to condemn it. There would be emergency debates in Parliament. The working class would once again be blamed for dragging Britain into barbarism. It would be treated as a national crisis. Now imagine the same scene—but swap the Fred Perry shirts for dresses. Swap the football chants for chants of “trans rights are human rights.” Keep the abuse. Keep the criminal records. Keep the vandalism and the threats—only now, the targets are women. Lesbians. Feminist. Survivors of male violence.

And instead of swastikas or white power slogans, the flags are Progress Pride and trans stripes. Now imagine the reaction. Actually, you don’t have to. Because that happened. And no one cared. There was no national outcry. No political reckoning. No police crackdown. No headlines about hate movements. No pundits drawing historical parallels to fascism or authoritarianism. Instead, there was silence—or worse, celebration. Because these weren’t angry working-class blokes the liberal elite loves to loathe. These were the approved kind of extremists: middle-class men in lipstick, cloaked in the language of rights and inclusion. They can say “die, TERF.” They can threaten rape and disfigurement. They can silence women, stalk them, spit at them, doxx them. They can scream “no debate” while waving signs glorifying violence. And institutions—media, government, academia—will protect them. Not just tolerate them, but fund them. Platform them. Cheer them on.

Because identity, in this warped political moment, trumps behaviour. And gender identity, in particular, has become the ultimate shield. It turns men into victims, women into villains, and violence into virtue—so long as it's directed at the right targets. This isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s systemic gaslighting. It’s a two-tier society where some people can say and do anything under the banner of “progress,” while others are hounded for speaking plain truth. We’re told to imagine a dystopia of hate. But the real nightmare is already here—and it’s wearing a dress.

#ThisIsTrans

Both Islam and gender ideology dictate femininity through the lens of others—whether that’s male clerics or male activists. Women are not allowed to define themselves; we are forced to accept what others impose upon us. In both ideologies, women are told what to be, how to dress, who to love, and how to think. Whether through fatwas or Twitter mobs, we’re punished if we step out of line. Islamic theology treats blasphemy as a punishable offense, with severe consequences for those who criticize God, the Prophet, or the Quran. In countries like Pakistan and Iran, individuals have been executed or imprisoned for posting something critical online, and many have been lynched for just a single comment deemed disrespectful. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the brutal attack he suffered in 2022 highlighted how Islamic regimes and extremists enforce ideological control beyond their borders. Gender ideology has created a secular version of this sacred speech code. Questioning whether a man can become a woman is considered hate speech in many academic and political spaces. Misgendering—using someone’s biological pronouns—can be legally punished in places like Canada, the UK, and parts of the US. People have been fired, harassed, or even arrested for expressing gender-critical views. Philosopher Kathleen Stock lost her university position due to backlash against her stance, and women’s rights activist Posie Parker has had to be protected by the police just to speak in public. This is not just a matter of discouraging dissent; it is about making it impossible to even think freely. Like apostates from Islam, gender apostates—detransitioners like Keira Bell—are shamed and discredited. They’re treated not as people with insight, but as threats to be erased. Just like blasphemers, they’re accused of doing harm simply for telling their truth.

Both Islamic and gender ideology enforce strict limits on what can be said and thought. These ideologies demand that truth be suppressed in favor of a particular belief system, and they punish those who dare to question. Islamic states are characterized by strict control over their citizens, especially in the areas of political dissent, sexuality, and secular thought. Women’s dress, behavior, and education are constantly monitored. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, citizens live in fear of punishment for minor infractions, such as showing a bit of hair or speaking out against the regime. The morality police patrol the streets, ensuring that the Islamic code is adhered to. Similarly, gender ideology has been enforced through Western institutions, including universities, government departments, and NGOs. People are expected to publicly affirm the new orthodoxy of gender, or risk losing their jobs and professional standing. Gender training is mandatory in many workplaces, and children in schools can change their gender identity without parental consent, as seen in Scotland. Dissenters are deplatformed, blacklisted, and erased from public life. What began as an attempt to secure tolerance has evolved into a system of compelled belief. In international development, Western NGOs now require the adoption of gender identity frameworks to receive funding. In Uganda, India, and parts of the Caribbean, feminist organisers are forced to accept male “lesbians” into their projects—or lose resources. This is ideological colonialism: the new face of cultural imperialism.

Both Islam and gender ideology make the dangerous claim that children—who are still developing physically, emotionally, and mentally—are somehow capable of making profound, life-altering decisions. In some interpretations of Islam, it is argued that girls who have reached puberty, often as young as nine, are mature enough to consent to marriage. The reasoning is that once they’ve menstruated, they are seen as capable of taking on the responsibilities of a lifelong commitment. This view ignores the reality that puberty is not an indicator of emotional maturity or the ability to understand the complexities of marriage, effectively putting children in a position they cannot fully comprehend. Similarly, gender ideology argues that children—some as young as toddlers—are capable of knowing their own gender identity and should be able to make decisions about transitioning, including receiving medical treatments such as hormone blockers or even surgery. Proponents of this view claim that children can consent to these interventions, asserting that they know their own minds better than anyone else. This perspective dangerously undermines the idea that children are not mentally or emotionally prepared to make decisions that can

In both cases, adults are asserting that children, who have limited life experience and whose minds are still developing, are ready for massive life changes. Whether it’s the expectation that a girl who has hit puberty is ready for marriage, or the push to administer medical treatments to children based on their perceived gender identity, both ideologies fail to recognize that children cannot give consent. Both ideologies project adult desires onto children—religious elders seeking “wives” and activists seeking affirmation. Neither system protects childhood. They both exploit it. This is where the danger lies. In both instances, adults are projecting their own desires or ideologies onto children, stripping them of the opportunity to grow, learn, and make informed decisions as they mature. Children cannot fully comprehend or consent to the long-term consequences of marriage or medical transition. By pushing these agendas, both Islam and gender ideology put children at risk—all while falsely claiming they have the capacity to consent.

Both ideologies represent a dangerous approach to children's rights, positioning them as capable of making decisions they simply aren’t ready for. Islam spread historically through conquest, imposing religious laws upon the societies it conquered. Indigenous cultures, spiritual practices, and legal systems across North Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East were replaced by Sharia law, the Arabic language, and Islamic cultural norms. This was not just a matter of religion—it was a full-scale ideological takeover, one that erased diverse ways of living in favor of a single moral code. Gender ideology follows a similar pattern, but instead of military conquest, it spreads through cultural and institutional means. Western-funded NGOs and international aid organizations often require the adoption of gender identity frameworks as a condition of receiving support. Activists from the West impose these gender norms on communities in places like Uganda, India, and the Caribbean, often ignoring the voices of local feminists and same-sex attracted individuals. In effect, this is ideological colonialism—erasing indigenous beliefs about sex in favor of a Western, postmodern agenda. Whether by sword or slogan, mosque or NGO, both ideologies crush the cultures they enter. They are not about coexistence—they are about domination. Whether by sword or slogan, both ideologies replace and suppress what existed before.

Finally, both Islam and gender ideology demand the erasure of the individual in favor of a collective identity. Under Islamic rule, the ummah—the global Muslim community—supersedes personal belief, sexuality, or freedom of conscience. Apostasy is treated as a form of treason, and the individual is not free to define their own truth. In the realm of gender ideology, the individual’s truth is also subsumed by the collective. A lesbian who refuses to accept men who pretend to be women as women is accused of being "transphobic." A woman who asserts that her biology is real is denounced and silenced. Both Islam and gender ideology demand conformity to a collective identity that does not allow for individual thought, choice, or freedom. The parallel between Islam and gender ideology is unmistakable. Both demand submission, suppress individual liberty, and aim to enforce a singular worldview—no matter the cost. They compel us to deny our reality, to silence our own voices, and to surrender our sense of self. They do not champion freedom or progress; they replace those values with rigid systems of control and coercion. As women—and as human beings—we must hold our ground. We must reject every attempt to erase us, to reshape us into someone else’s vision, and to force our compliance. We will not be silenced. We will speak our truth. We will protect our rights and fight to uphold the freedoms that allow us to live with dignity. Now is the time to take a stand—not just for ourselves, but for future generations. We must safeguard our right to define who we are, to love without shame, and to speak without fear. This is a fight for truth, for freedom, and for the integrity of women’s rights.

I will not submit. I will not be silent. And I will never stop standing up for what is right.

https://x.com/AjaTheEmpress/status/1909219448784826425

Islam is clearly the new ideology of the powers that be. Whether it be the police, the prime minister, or our king, they have clearly decided that this is what they are backing in 2025. I, however, reject it. I reject it fundamentally in every aspect of my life. I will not submit to it. I refuse. It is no different from gender ideology. I do not accept it. I will not submit to it. I will speak out about it. In 2023, the UK’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary admitted that the police were “too afraid” to investigate crimes within Muslim communities for fear of being called racist. Schools suspended teachers for showing cartoons of Muhammad. Politicians avoid any meaningful critique of Islamic doctrine, while our monarch attends mosques during Eid and carefully avoids engagement with gender-critical feminists under siege. These aren’t gestures of inclusion—they are signs of institutional capture. Both Islam and gender ideology share a number of core characteristics that make them highly authoritarian and deeply misogynistic. Despite their different origins—one rooted in religious tradition, the other in postmodern secular thought—both are systems that demand submission and control, not only of the body but of thought itself. This is where the real danger lies.

Islamic doctrine has long criminalized same-sex relationships, especially between men. In many majority-Muslim countries, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Mauritania, and parts of Nigeria, same-sex acts are punishable by imprisonment, corporal punishment, or even death. State-sanctioned executions for homosexuality still happen today. The stigma surrounding lesbianism, in particular, is severe, often leading to forced marriages, social ostracism, or even physical abuse in the name of "correcting" women’s sexual identity. In Iran, lesbians are sometimes forced into marriages with men or subjected to “corrective” therapy, all while the state pretends lesbianism doesn’t exist. This erasure is not unique to Islam. Gender ideology presents a more subtle form of homophobia, one that hides behind the language of inclusivity. Under the guise of promoting tolerance, it forces a redefinition of what it means to be a woman and, in doing so, erases the very concept of same-sex attraction. Lesbians are told they are bigoted if they do not accept men who pretend to be women as potential sexual partners. This new orthodoxy is disturbingly reminiscent of religious homophobic environments, where dissenting views are punished, and the notion of sexual boundaries is obliterated.

Today, if a lesbian refuses to date a trans-identified male, she’s called a transphobe. Lesbianism is being redefined out of existence, just as it was denied under traditional religious rule. And if you dare to speak up, you’re branded a bigot—not for who you exclude, but for knowing who you are. Islamic law has long enforced a patriarchal system where women’s rights are restricted based on religious doctrine. A woman’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man. Her access to divorce is limited, and her inheritance rights are reduced. In countries like Iran or Afghanistan, women can be arrested or beaten for the simple act of not wearing a hijab, speaking out, or even traveling without permission from a male guardian. Education, employment, and freedom of movement are all contingent upon male approval. Meanwhile, women in Iran risk arrest just for removing their headscarves in public—something that has sparked mass protests by feminist dissidents who refuse to be silent.

Gender ideology also perpetuates misogyny, but in a way that’s more insidious and less overt. Instead of enforcing male dominance through religious authority, it achieves the same end through the redefinition of what it means to be a woman. In this view, a woman is no longer someone born with the biological reality of female sex; instead, anyone who claims to be a woman is considered a woman. Men who pretend to be women are allowed into women-only spaces, like changing rooms, sports teams, and prisons. In the UK, male rapists are housed in women’s prisons, and in Canada, women have been told they can’t request female carers for intimate care without being accused of discrimination. The very concept of the female body has been erased—now it’s about a "feeling," and anyone who objects is labeled as hateful. The same institutions that once ignored women’s rape reports now lecture us about “inclusion” while forcing us to share spaces with violent men. This isn’t progress. It’s a rebooted patriarchy with glitter on.

@RadicalCartoons @KeepTakingTheSoma @ForBritain Oh for sure, but that was art, this is shit.

@KeepTakingTheSoma @ForBritain This is awful, degrading nonsense and how dare they allow it, why would you do that to an old important beautiful building.

@TriptychTwinsRidesAgain Fuck me, ANOTHER tranny nonce, you don't say! 🙄

He responded to the charges by accusing a child victim of being a predator

@Purp1Lady @TriptychTwinsRidesAgain https://thepostmillennial.com/drag-queen-booted-from-phoenix-pride-after-arrest-for-statutory-rape-of-13-year-old-boy

Drag queen booted from Phoenix Pride after arrest for statutory rape of 13-year-old boy

An Arizona drag queen has been charged with the statutory rape of a 13-year-old boy and has subsequently been pulled from the Phoenix Pride Festival, according to authorities. The suspect has been charged with two counts of sexual misconduct with the boy. Michael Browder, 35, who performs drag under the stage name of Aubrey Ghalichi, is one of two men who met the teen using an online dating app and met the 13-year-old for anonymous sex, according to court documents obtained by ABC 15. Records from police said that the 13-year-old posed as an 18-year-old on the online dating app and arranged to meet up with the two men at different times.

However, with messages from the laptop of the 13-year-old, the police were able to trace encounter back to Browder. When the drag queen spoke to authorities, he confessed to having sex with the teen, but said that when he entered the apartment it was so dark that he was not able to determine the teen's age. He told the police he believed the 13-year-old to be 18 or 19.

@KeepTakingTheSoma Yep. My God, these people need a pitchfork up their arse.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/10/08/big-brother-has-gone-full-orwell/

Sitting hunched with her hands over her face, Caroline Monk looked less like a contestant on a reality show and more like the victim of a struggle session in Maoist China. Last night, the disembodied voice of Big Brother scolded the 56-year-old for using ‘unacceptable’ and ‘offensive’ language. This cringing show of contrition on prime-time ITV might have been warranted had Caroline embarked on a racist tirade or tried to whip up an insurrection. But her supposed transgressions were far more mundane. One was to have asked a fellow contestant who identified as pansexual whether she ‘likes pans’. Another was pointing out that Zelah, a female contestant who identifies as male, doesn’t ‘have a willy’. The only offence that could be squeezed from either remark is that they’re a bit bloody predictable.

It’s hard to think of a more perfect, or circular, case of life imitating art. A woman on a TV show named after a novel about a totalitarian surveillance state has been publicly humiliated for committing thoughtcrime. And it was beamed straight into homes across Britain via our telescreens. The idea that a woman who takes testosterone and has had her tits lopped off is, in any meaningful sense, a man is – put bluntly – a lie.

Caroline’s humiliation on Big Brother wasn’t entertainment, it was an attempt at indoctrination. The message is clear: truth is dangerous, compliance is safe, and shame is the price of staying in the game. Reality television – indeed, reality itself – has rarely looked so dystopian.

@KeepTakingTheSoma This dangerous and pernicious shit needs to be stamped out, it is normalising abuse and a complete safeguarding fail.

@KeepTakingTheSoma Too right.

🙄 😑 🚩

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/who-really-caught-the-hong-kong-phone-gang-02h3rg56m

The Metropolitan Police and mayor of London are celebrating a major sting in which criminals responsible for stealing, fencing and exporting half of London’s stolen mobile phones were arrested this week. Except beneath the macho stuff of doors bashed down in the early hours, Bulgarians led out in dressing gowns and Afghan kingpins with exciting code names was the source of the investigation. Not a copper or customs officer but an unnamed woman who had doggedly tracked her iPhone to a warehouse at Heathrow, then persuaded a security guard to locate the parcel, which turned out to contain a whole stash bound for Hong Kong. Some of the phones were — small clue here — still ringing. Normally a victim of phone theft — or bike theft or car theft for that matter — who locates their stolen property at an exact address is told police cannot be arsed to attend. Look what happens when they do! Next day, however, British Transport Police announced they were effectively decriminalising the theft of bicycles left at “secure” bike parking in railway stations for longer than two hours. You locked it there to catch a commuter train and came back in the evening? Sorry, mate, we’re not wading through eight bloody hours of CCTV. Nor are we curious whether your wheels were stolen by someone with a hundred others in his lock-up. Buy a new bike.

https://archive.ph/yNtEL

🚩 https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/kink-groups-promote-fetishes-on-campus-2qmbgrjz5

There were plenty of unusual groups at freshers’ week at Anglia Ruskin University this year, ranging from the Horror Society to a pole-dancing club. Even so, the Kinkster Society stood out. The society describes itself on the student union website as “a vibrant and inclusive community dedicated to exploring and celebrating the diverse world of fetish and kink”. The society at Anglia Ruskin is one of a growing number of groups dedicated to alternative sexual practices that have been springing up at universities across the country. There are similar groups at other universities including York, Keeley, Portsmouth, Warwick, Sheffield and Nottingham. It is part of a wider trend of young adults embracing alternative sexual practices involving bondage and sadomasochism, often referred to as BDSM.

One mother, whose daughter encountered members of the Kinkster Society not long after starting at Anglia Ruskin, said: “I would expect universities to have sexual health stalls for those who wanted information and I am grateful for this, but promoting fetish and potentially dangerous and abusive sexual practices crosses the line. You don’t expect to send your child away at 18 [for them to be] faced with this in freshers’ week.” The woman, who asked not to be named to protect her child’s privacy, added: “Students at that age are still vulnerable when they are away from home for the first time. I’m shocked at how badly this university has failed in their duty of care in allowing the promotion of these sexual practices. “Most first-year students are just 18 and leaving home for the first time, so they are vulnerable to grooming by older adults, especially when they are trying to fit into a new community away from their families.

https://archive.ph/eUz8n

@KeepTakingTheSoma Wilfully living with a paedo when her kids are in the house and trying to blame other people for this, she should be utterly ashamed of herself, for all of this, but that beggars belief.

@KeepTakingTheSoma Getting rid of the Matrons for these over paid buffoons of mangers was a bad idea, so was making nursing a degree. This carry on in all sectors, not just health, of parachuting generic managers into things, people who have no clue, did not work their way up, don't know the first thing about whichever job it is needs to stop too.

It's the piss taking that has been going on, same with the benefits system too, wrecked the joint to the detriment of genuine need.

Blair's cramming the unis was another load of nonsense, need more people doing apprenticeships for proper jobs, not pissing around with Mickey mouse degrees in farting trannies of the world and their effect upon climate change, everybody is spicy neuro and incapable of finding their own arse with a map without having a breakdown about it.

@KeepTakingTheSoma As I said, the calibre of staff these days horrifies me, really shocking.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw7ey0gj4qo

@KeepTakingTheSoma It worries me all the people who would fall through the net, who don't have the money for insurance, see state of the dental situation at the moment, and teeth matter to health full stop, not just teeth.