That must be a real pain in the arse for them.

└ Tags:

Discussion (134)¬

  1. Son of Glenner says:

    Hurrah, a new strip.

    Let’s see what Glenn Anderson thinks about this. I’ve been assuming he is male, but I may be wrong. If so, I apologise.

  2. Paul Seed says:

    So, what _are_ Moses’ pronouns? I assume no longer He/Him, (or, if Moses prefers Hebrew ??? / ????). If he is insisting on being addressed in ancient Hebrew, it is no wonder he has had problems.

  3. Greenpoisonfrog says:

    They/their I presume are his pronouns now.

  4. jb says:

    Many languages (e.g., Chinese) have ungendered pronouns. I don’t like the idea of knuckling under to Wokeism, but there are advantages, one of which is that if you only have ungendered pronouns then it isn’t possible for a man who has had himself done up to look like a woman to demand that you refer to him as though he actually a were a woman. (What do you want to bet that even if the Woke succeed in forcing the they/them singular usage into standard English, plenty of transpeople will still insist on the archaic he/she/him/her gendered pronouns for themselves, just so they can hear you say it).

  5. Newtonian says:

    People in the southern United States have no trouble.

    Just use Y’all for anything and everything. He, she, or it are all “y’all”. Plural or singular, although there are possessive (y’all’s) and qualifiers (alla y’all and summa y’all). It is quite convenient. Alla y’all should try it.

  6. misanthropope says:

    even if you subscribe to the notion that all this “new-fangled gendered identity stuff” is just fashion, it is remarkably dishonest of you to claim that there are no risks or costs associated with coming out.

    poorly done author.

  7. Mockingbird says:

    SoG _- Jesus and Mo and Glen ?

  8. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    My pronouns are not words, they are very specific facial expressions.
    I feel so much better for coming out.

    misanthropope, aside from having people laugh at the pomposity, what are the risks of claiming one’s pronouns be plural, as in the cartoon?

  9. jb says:

    I don’t use it myself, because it would feel like an affectation, but I’m a fan of “you all” or “y’all”, and I would love to see it catch on as a standard second person plural. Unfortunately some Southerners (such as my brother-in-law) also use y’all sometimes as a second person singular, which kind of defeats the purpose.

    And of course y’all doesn’t help at all with the third person singular issue.

  10. Measure says:

    Making fun of the nonbinary now? Oof. If this is the direction the comic is heading, I’m out.

  11. M27Holts says:

    This subject opens the trapdoor into the philosophical abyss even more than the burka as an xx expression of xx emancipation…i’ve just donned my iron bra and titanium french knickers…i’m ready for y’all….

  12. Pointyface says:

    Dear Author, What would make you publish a mean comic like today’s? I quite agree with Measure. Bigotry puts you in the self-rightious religious miasma. Please apologise. With Kindest Regards.

  13. Alan Flynn says:

    Author is entitled to his view on trans issues but I feel that expressing them through this cartoon (again) is wholly out of place and only detracts from a great body of work focused on challenging the Abrahamic faiths.

  14. Jveeds says:

    Newtonian: great comment. I was used to “y’all” and then I started hearing “y’alls” and then Charles Barkley would say “all y’alls” — I mean, how much more plural can ya get! My Southern friends say “y’all” can be singular or plural. However, my Pittsburgh neighbors (“Southerners” to those from Lake Erie) like to say “y’uns” (you ones) and thus are known as “yinzers.”

  15. M27Holts says:

    The sentence, “oy ‘knob-heads’ what yer drinking” seems plenty non-binary to me…

  16. Donn says:

    On “y’all”, wikipedia quotes H L Mencken: is a cardinal article of faith in the South. … Nevertheless, it has been questioned very often, and with a considerable showing of evidence. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, to be sure, you-all indicates a plural, implicit if not explicit, and thus means, when addressed to a single person, ‘you and your folks’ or the like, but the hundredth time it is impossible to discover any such extension of meaning.

    Which is to say, it’s plural.

    On whether the Author may make fun of this topic without causing offense – clearly he may not. QED, it would seem to be perfect for this cartoon series.

  17. Donn says:

    To claim that Southerners use the obviously plural y’all for 2nd person singular, is to perpetuate the stereotype of the Southerner as stupid and irrational, it’s a micro-aggression (is that still a thing?)

  18. Jesus F Iscariot says:

    Holy Jeezoid! Now people are whining about the content of cartoons? After tolerating the pointed abuse of sacred cartoonish religious leaders we are outraged about the current confusing struggle in pronoun Hell? The god Trinity was binary plus one. Trinary? Them is risen?

  19. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Ooh, look at all the people crawling out of the woodwork to denounce Author because he dares to gently mock the new gender dogma.
    ‘Making fun of the nonbinary now.’ ‘Mean bigotry’. Get a grip, people. You’re perfectly happy to see the unproven, unprovable claims of religion mocked, but when it comes to the equally unproven, unprovable beliefs held by the non-binary then suddenly it’s wrong. Hypocrites is what you are!

    As for Alan Flynn, who are you to dictate where Author can express his opinions? It is very generous of you to allow him the entitlement to have his own views on trans issues but your attitude is typical of the trans lobby, namely ‘say what you want as long as you agree with us’.

  20. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Donn, re ‘it’s a micro-aggression (is that still a thing?)’

    God, no. Nowadays what was once a micro-aggression is literal violence, and it gets worse from thereon in.

  21. DTW says:

    In next week’s comic, can we expect Mo to reveal that he has married a man, only to hear that the biggest problem he received since coming out as gay was other people misgendering his spouse? Maybe Jesus can berate a cripple as he heals them for having no bigger problem than waiting for a bus with an accessible door? Or the pair could compare notes about how the pinnacle of racism for Middle-Easterners in the West is being unable to find socks that suit their skin tone?

    Author, there must be many more ways for you to punch down at minorities of all flavours. But I do miss the days when you skewered such ideas rather than endorse them.

  22. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    DTW, please tell me the problems a person faces by ‘coming out’ as non-binary – not transgender, not gay or lesbian, which are different things – just non-binary which, as far as I can tell, requires no change except for pronoun use.

  23. Donn says:

    I don’t see him punching down at minorities, but rather at the idea that someone can declare a category of verbal injury, such that using common English pronouns is violence.

  24. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Ah, fuck it. I’m so sick off all the fuss about gender non-binary people being so brave and special. It’s just bullshit, a made-up category for people wanting to be seen as something other than ‘normal’.
    The truth is, gender, as opposed to sex, is a socially-constructed idea of masculine and feminine in which males are supposed to hold the masculine traits and women the female traits. Men are supposed to act and think in stereotypical masculine ways, women in stereotypical feminine ways. GI Joe and Barbie: Action Man and Cindy.

    That’s what gender is all about, yet who really conforms entirely to the gendered ‘norms’ of their sex? We all have traits that are supposedly those of the opposite sex, nobody is 100% gender conforming, so we are all gender non-binary. Come to my house and you are as likely to see me cooking or ironing as tinkering with a motor or mending a fence: I may be reacting on emotion or thinking logically. I am neither masculine nor feminine, I’m a male, and the things I do, say, think, etc. have nothing to do with that simple fact. Can anybody here say anything different about themselves?

    To ‘come out’ as non-binary is just saying ‘look at me, I’m perfectly normal, with a normal range of tastes and ideas and actions’. So why should that require bravery or demand plural pronouns?

  25. Author says:

    Nonbinary people are not a minority. There are over 7 billion of us.

  26. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    So Author says what I just said, only in two short sentences.

    I will add this: notice that the people telling Author he’s being mean and bigotted and punching down aren’t saying why or how he’s wrong, he’s just wrong. Why can’t they explain their position instead of merely declaring by fiat that Author is wrong? Note also that ‘it’s not nice’ is not a valid argument.

  27. valleycat1 says:

    I kind of understand people deciding to be addressed by pronouns other than the expected ones, but find it amusing when someone with an obvious male or female name has added to their signature line their equally obvious male or female pronouns as their preferred ones. I know this is pc so that, I suppose, only those choosing different pronouns are not singled out as needing to specify, but would it really be offensive to them if someone erred on the side of caution and used “they or them” instead of the specific ones?

  28. Gail Dobson says:

    I have never commented here before but this just screamed at me to respond. I’m from the U.S. I believe that those who don’t want ‘him/her’ or ‘she/he’ must come up with a better pronoun set that does not appropriate the plural. This new pronoun must sound different in speech, as well as be spelled differently in text. Someone’s personal preference cannot hijack the language we all share. Somehow we all managed that we no longer have ‘gay’ meaning light & happy, but really ‘their’ referring to a single person? That’s not going to fly, not very far anyway. Mostly, I’m surprised at the ‘venom’ expressed in comments here that I’ve never noticed on this site before. And yes, in the U.S. south (some years as a child and between husbands, LOL) “y’all” means whatever group you’re part of that I’m addressing right now. I’ve never heard “y’all” used as just meaning “you”, though that may be regional. Please, why such viciousness from so many of y’all on pronouns?

  29. raymondm says:

    Mohammed : Charlie Hebdo :: pronouns : Author


  30. M27Holts says:

    We’re donning our full plate armour as well now…told y’all it would get bumpier than a victorian cobbled street…

  31. DTW says:

    @Acolyte of Sagan: yes, being gay or lesbian is different from being trans. Well spotted, two out of three ain’t bad (being non-binary comes under the trans umbrella – intersex people possibly excluded?). But since it seems you are aware that there are difficulties coming out as lgbt, is it such a stretch to extrapolate to non-binary trans folk?

    For those who cannot see the problem: imagine Bob refers to Sam as “he”. Bob is informed that Sam in fact just looks masculine, but uses feminine pronouns (and indeed has the doubters’ requisite female genitals and chromosomes). Regardless, Bob continues to refer to Sam as “he”. Hopefully, you will have sufficient empathy to understand why Sam might get upset and why this is not okay. Again, it is left to the reader to extrapolate this to a person whose genitals or chromosomes may not be in agreement with their gender.

    As to pronouns: most people are comfortable with the idea of sitting on a chair and discovering that the previous occupant left their phone behind, without instantly thinking that the phone belonged to more than one person. But if anyone is still upset, I trust that they will immediately stop using the singular “you” and revert to “thee”/”thou” lest anyone become confused by the use of the plural form.

  32. Donn says:

    It should be easy in English, where 3rd person singular has for many hundreds of years been masculine/feminine/neutral, and we just have this convention that people and animals we’re close to must have gender. Since that presumption appears to offend, we can leave that convention behind and refer to Moses as “it”.

    Much more awkward in Portuguese for example, where not only do they have no pronoun that answers to “it”, the gender seeps out into the adjectives. Even 1st person – I know it’s linguistically a little suspicious, but the rule is that if you say “I’m obliged”, “obliged” takes your gender. And that’s their word for thank you – obrigado, or if you’re female obrigada.

  33. Son of Glenner says:

    Still no sign of “Glenn Anderson”.

    Perhaps they got lost?

  34. M27Holts says:

    English always twisted my melon at school. Much preferred the elegance and simplicity of math. Add and subtract…two simple operations. And algebra isn’t fecking gendered….tho a lot of people get confused when presented with imaginary numbers….

  35. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Gail Dobson, re.

    And yes, in the U.S. south (some years as a child and between husbands, LOL)

    I do hope you meant ‘and later, between husbands’, otherwise, well, that’s one Southern stereotype I never thought I’d see confirmed. 🙂

  36. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    SoG, he’s still trying to find a way to twist this cartoon into an attack on Islam.

  37. Donn says:

    Oh, the angle would be easy – just come up with some way non-binary Moses would have it better under Islam, where you’re free from nasty atheist oppression.

  38. Someone says:

    Even a trivial search reveals a lot of academic research going back to the 50’s into the non-binary nature of gender. The links have already been provided following previous comics.

    This does serve to highlight what I’ve been saying about some prominent atheists being anti-trans/nb/etc. It shows an unscientific approach to a topic, presumably because it makes them uncomfortable. Hypocrisy.

  39. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Someone, of course gender is non-binary by nature. It isn’t a physical reality like sex (male/female), it’s an out-dated social construct of masculinity and femininity, and it is in a large part a failure to live up to or conform to the artificial norms that gender imposes on people, and the stupid conflation of sex with gender that has led to so many of them believing – or being led to believe – that they are somehow in the ‘wrong’ body or don’t belong to their birth sex.
    We should be getting rid of ideas of gender, not affirming and validating delusions based on nonsensical ideas of gendered roles, gendered thinking and all the other rubbish that we are told is a masculine or a feminine trait.

  40. Laripu says:

    With respect to the non-binary discussion, there are two opportunities for kindness:

    1. Assuming a person feels strongly about how they want to be treated (pronouns, etc), it is kindness to treat them that way.
    2. If someone has trouble using non-standard pronouns after a lifetime of speaking normally, it is kindness to tolerate that habit.

    The second isn’t like some people in the US south, that habitually used words to degrade black people, and want to continue to speak that way. Male and female pronouns never degraded anyone, and still don’t, unless you use them in an arrogant way, to insist that the person claiming to be non-binary is to be ridiculed.
    About “y’all”… I’ve moved to Florida from Canada 24 years ago. I’m surrounded by rednecks, but also by Spanish speakers from many different Latin American countries, people of Italian origin, Eastern European origin, secular Jews, African Americans, and white northerners. In all that time, I’ve heard “y’all”, maybe, 20 times. Half of those were in jest. Just recently someone I know said that the people who stormed the Capitol were “y’all Qaeda”.

    I think it may only be a rural expression nowadays.

  41. Donn says:

    Florida is not culturally the South we’re talking about, then. How do they express the plural there – “you guys”? At the far geographical edge in Texas, when I’ve been down there – Austin, for example – it’s simply how they talk. Here in the Pacific Northwest we say “you guys”, which is ridiculous enough that many of us recognize we’re in no position to laugh at the y’allers (even if Y’all Quaeda is pretty funny), and occasionally I try to say “you all” in hopes that it isn’t too affected if so pronounced. I’ve heard a “yez” only once that I recall. Unfortunate gap in the language. We also lack a way to distinguish “we [including you]” vs. “we [and not you]”, which I believe exists in Chinese though I couldn’t say how much use it gets.

  42. Glenn Anderson says:

    From the wikipedia post “LGPT and Islam”

    “Homosexual acts are forbidden in traditional Islamic jurisprudence and are liable to different punishments, including the death penalty, depending on the situation and legal school. However, homosexual relationships were generally tolerated in pre-modern Islamic societies,[12][10] and historical records suggest that these laws were invoked infrequently, mainly in cases of rape or other “exceptionally blatant infringement on public morals”.[8] Public attitudes toward homosexuality in the Muslim world underwent a marked negative change starting from the 19th century through the gradual spread of Islamic fundamentalist movements such as Salafism and Wahhabism,[13][14][15] and the influence of the sexual notions and restrictive norms prevalent in Europe at the time: a number of Muslim-majority countries have retained criminal penalties for homosexual acts enacted under European colonial rule”[16][17][18][19]

  43. M27Holts says:

    and…Just read “Alice Dreger” , I reckon she represents my views on this…it is science v woooo (again) with most of the population siding with woooo….unfortunately.

  44. Rrr says:

    All this gender pronoun policing à la mode is rapidly approaching actual violence. Can we please just not do that to us?

  45. suffolk blue says:

    “That must be a real pain in the arse for them” – LOL

  46. Anonymous Bastard says:

    Ah, it’s nice to finally see Author agree with the religious right on something. Wait, is it???

  47. jb says:

    Hey everyone, here are my candidate ungendered third person singular pronouns, thus saving they/them for plural. Wadja think?

    he/she –> E

    him/her –> em

    his/hers –> ems

    himself/herself –> emself

    Unlike a lot of the weird suggestions that have been made, these actually kind of sound like English, because they are basically existing English pronouns with the initial consonants lopped off. Not a prayer of this actually happening of course, but playing with language is fun, and although I doubt I’m the first to come up with this particular scheme I haven’t actually seen it anywhere.

  48. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Anonymous Bastard says:
    February 11, 2021 at 11:57 am
    Ah, it’s nice to finally see Author agree with the religious right on something. Wait, is it???

    Do you steal because the religious right believe in the commandment: thou shalt not steal?
    Do you murder because the religious right believe in the commandment: thou shalt not kill?
    Are you an adulterer because the religious right believe in the commandment: thou shalt not commit adultery?
    If you do none of the above then congratulations, you agree with the religious right.
    I happen to like – and have owned – German Shepherd dogs. Do you know who else liked GSDs? Adolph Hitler. Does that make me sympathetic to Nazis? Of course it fucking doesn’t.
    The argument that any stance the other side takes is automatically the wrong stance is not only bullshit, it’s juvenile, a version of ‘I don’t like them so if you talk to them I won’t talk to you’.

  49. jb says:

    Well I just learned I can’t save an edit to my comment because another comment was posted during my 5 minute edit window. That seems suboptimal!

  50. Son of Glenner says:

    jb: So proof-read and edit BEFORE you hit Submit Comment!

  51. Son of Glenner says:

    Acolyte of Sagan: German Shepherd Dogs? Do you mean Alsatians?

  52. Okapi says:

    I knew yesterday when I saw the strip that the comment section would be full today.

    I have no dog in this particular fight and for me terms only work well when all parties agree to their usage as we all know what we mean.

    He/she/they – whatever you fancy. It doesn’t bother me. I think the thrust of the strip, for what it’s worth, is about the difficulty in enforcing ones preferences and how to respond to a world that is indifferent to, or ignorant of your preferences.

    I’m happy to be corrected if I mis-use a term. I’m less happy to be hauled over the coals for an honest mistake or through not completely understanding someone else’s personal preference. Where this gets insidious is when unrelated third parties Wade in to enforce a dogma or perceived slight.

    Nuance in this debate is difficult because of the intransigence of both sides. Go easy folks.

  53. M27Holts says:

    SOG? Alsatian? Arrrrgh that is a forbidden nomenclature…you will be shortly visited by men in black suits and full length leather coats…best hide in your next door neighbours loft for five years….the KCEC (kennel club enforcement corps) are REAL BASTARDS. ..

  54. Author says:

    Glenn Anderson, I have to ask you this – have you been complaining to CafePress?

  55. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    SoG, it’s how they identified; who am I to argue?

    Seriously though, they were originally known as German Shepherds but the name was changed to Alsatian in the UK when all things German went out of fashion owing to the 1914-1918 scuffle (the US dropped ‘German’ and just called them Shepherds in 1917, just prior to entering the fray in time to allow them to claim it was the Yanks wot won it). The GSD name started being used again post WWII when we Brits stopped being so petty about using the word German, and because the Alsace region is in France while the dog is a German breed.

  56. Son of Glenner says:

    Acolyte of Sagan: Sorry you did not realise I was joking about the GSD!

    Just my British SoH.

  57. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    SoG, I did realise, hence my initial response about how the dogs identify (fits with the theme of the current strip, too).
    The rest was just a bit of history because why not.

  58. Forteatwo says:

    Pardoning my lack of understanding this issue in part, could someone give an example of the wrong pronouns Mo might have used in his telephone conversation with Moses, and what PC pronouns should have been used? Are we to assume Moses gender fluidity leans toward female since he is physically a male and has raised the issue. Also, if one is having a conversation with someone you do not know personally, is it not impossible to be PC in addressing them?

  59. Bruce Vereshagen says:

    Nailed it Author.

  60. Donn says:

    Forteatwo – you need to imagine Moses taking part in a conversation where he is notwithstanding referred to in the 3rd person, like “he can ride in the back seat.” Moses’ complaint is that it should have been “they can ride in the back seat”, since he does not identify as male nor female. I think I got that right – it’s somewhat outside my direct experience.

  61. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Forteatwo, here’s the strip you need for the context:

  62. Glenn Anderson says:

    Author: “Glenn Anderson, I have to ask you this – have you been complaining to CafePress?”

    No. This is the first time I’ve heard about CafePress. I haven’t complained about anything to anyone. Absolutely no need. This is a uniquely open forum and I respect what you have achieved.

  63. Glenn Anderson says:

    Still don’t know what cafepress is. When i google all I get is a gift shop on amazon.

  64. Author says:

    Thank you, Glenn. I’m sorry I had to ask. Cafepress has very recently stopped selling my stuff, after 15 years of doing so without a problem. It seems a complaint may have been made.

  65. M27Holts says:

    ^ sounds like another symptom of the woke cancel culture to me. I had a complaint made about me in my local speakeasy a few years back. I was wearing my “science takes you to the moon. Religion flies you into sky-scrapers” T-shirt. The complaint was made my a fecking woman (who turned out a social worker) who said it was islamophobic. Fortunately, the landlord didn’t agree and I wasn’t barred…

  66. Glenn Anderson says:

    Author: Thank you, Glenn. I’m sorry I had to ask.

    No problem

    Author : “Cafepress has very recently stopped selling my stuff, after 15 years of doing so without a problem. It seems a complaint may have been made.”


    I guess the problem is one of ‘product differentiation’. From my understanding, satire is about mocking those in power and constructive social criticism. However, if your cartoons are going to be lumped with those that mock those without power then you have a problem.

    Perhaps speak with some Muslim satirists. The following article suggests there may be fertile ground for collaboration: Satire In The Muslim World: A Centuries-Long Tradition

  67. Mockingbird says:

    M27 – I love it ! That’s a new one on me, must have missed it.

    “Science takes you to the moon”
    “Religion flies you into skyscrapers.”

    Mind you, I only read the teeshirts with bumps in ’em.

  68. HaggisForBrains says:

    Author, I’ve just checked Cafepress, and although all your items are listed, it proves impossible to add any to one’s cart. I guess I’ll have to take good care of my old “How ya doin'” mug.

  69. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    I’d bet the fortune I don’t possess that Cafepress has been visited by the hyperbolic trans ‘allies’ mob complaining and weeping their bitter crocodile tears about all the violence and actual, real physical harm done to that most oppressed of all communities by Author poking fun at pronoun preciousness.

  70. Author says:

    I don’t think it’s them, AoS. Items in the J&M shop which do not feature an image of Mo are still available to purchase.

  71. Laripu says:

    I looked at the Cafepress site featuring J&M. Almost all the objects for sale have images of Mo. Perhaps the ban is only in the country of the complainer?

    I’m in the United States, Florida specifically.

    Edit to add: I can see them, but can’t go to the page that would let you buy them. But the spring shirts are there and available.

  72. Holms says:

    After clicking through every product link, I agree with author: everything with an ‘unveiled’ Mo is not available. Everything else can be clicked through to be placed in cart.


  73. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    That’s odd, after all these years. To borrow from conspiracy theorists, maybe a ‘false flag’ campaign – one hyper-sensitive mob, not really having enough to point at as being over-offensive, posing as another hyper-sensitive mob.
    It’s just a really odd coincidence that after all this time you turn your wit onto something other than religion and suddenly, on this one topic, there are unfamiliar names queuing up to denounce you in the comments and it appears that complaints have been sent to a secondary party which just happens to provide a presumably small income for you. It just reeks of the tactics of those who like to poison the well for certain feminist writers with new books out by ‘expressing their concerns’ to small, independent book stores, for example.

  74. Donn says:

    What do you think would be the odds of a fatwah coming down on CafePress, if they insist on selling Mo-toon paraphernalia?

  75. M27Holts says:

    Mockingbird. I very rarely wear that T-shirt. I prefer my “I may be wrong, but it’s highly unlikely.” White on black T-shirt as it’s tighter and shows my man-boobs off better…

  76. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: “Man-boobs”? … !!!

    Are you trans? – And, if so, which direction?

    OK! – None of my ….ing business!

  77. jb says:

    Wow, I’m actually quite amazed that Author has been able to sell his stuff for 15 years on CafePress without incident. Things have just been getting worse and worse.

  78. M27Holts says:

    SOG. Man-boobs is large pectoral muscles. If I had used the sentence …to show off my pecs…i would have you lot calling me a narcisistic meat-head or no-neck numptie or whatever…haha…

  79. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: You mean you are NOT a narcissistic meat-head nor a no-neck numptie?

  80. Son of Glenner says:

    It had never occurred to me to acquire a J&M T-shirt, I’m not really a T-shirt-wearing sort of person, but I am now sorely tempted to contact CafePress and demand one, just to be contrary.

  81. M27Holts says:

    I am lucky in that I build muscle naturally. Never taken steroids. Just do 100 press-ups every night. Seems to keep my chest and arms toned. Planking for core. I have loads of slogan / band T-shirts, plus two dozen football themed t-shirts. No J&m tho…might rectify that soon…

  82. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    M27Holts, I have to disagree with your definition of man-boobs, or ‘moobs’, as being pecs. Pecs are by definition muscles, whereas moobs are a layer of flabby, fatty tissue covering the pecs and protuding in a way that resembles the breasts of women.
    Think of the film Twins: Arnie had pecs, DeVito had moobs.
    I don’t care what people call me; at my age I’m bloody proud to still have pecs.

  83. M27Holts says:

    ^ ok. Pecs then. I have a thick layer of black hair covering my chest and back tho. Not waxing for anybody are we…

  84. Son of Glenner says:

    I had a look at the CafePress site and could not find “Jesus and Mo”, “J&M” or other variations, apart from a passing reference to the Jesus and Mo Comic Strip in a bit of site self-promotion. Either it has been deleted from their index or I am just not good enough at navigating their site. Possibly, after 15 years, sales had gone cold, so they have simply “weeded” it out. They still have “… flying into skyscrapers” listed.

  85. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: Having read your comments, are you sure you are not a narcissistic meat-head? I suppose you need something to do when you are stuck indoors because it is raining, as it always is in Manchester.

  86. Donn says:

    I think the easiest way to get to the CafePress shop is to select a shirt or mug from the right hand column above. Then you’ll see the whole line of apparel and accessories, as if you could purchase them, but only some are actually functional. You can get a “thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust” shirt, because you can’t recognize that well known visage behind the burka.

  87. Son of Glenner says:

    Donn: Thank you for that – there’s a quite a large selection displayed, but I have not checked on which are functional – I’ll just take your word.

  88. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Son of Glenner says:
    February 12, 2021 at 9:16 pm
    M27Holts: Having read your comments, are you sure you are not a narcissistic meat-head?

    That’s not fair! With that thick coat of hair he’s clearly the very model of the Gallagher-esque Manc monkey.

    Just kidding, Holts. Humour? I’m mad f’rit, me 🙂

  89. Laripu says:

    In the news: apparently some ultra orthodox rabbi and a Muslim cleric agree that the covid vaccine will make you gay.

    How long before some US television evangelists follows suit?

    This one blamed covid on premarital sex, then died of covid himself. Oopsie !!

  90. Rob Barnett says:

    Good Morning from Mancunia! Hasn’t rained here for days. Yesterday went for a 17km walk down the river Irwell and Clifton Marina in glorious sunshine. Might treat myself to a sneaky egg n bacon oven bottom barmcake….might be something in that clerical madness…one of my droogs has reported, that after the astro-zeneca his 80yo grandad has started drinking lager-top and bought himself two sovereign rings and thrown his flat cap in the bin. His whippet is looking worried and god knows what will happen to his Ferrets….

  91. Son of Glenner says:

    Rob Barnett: Are you M27Holts, going by your real name?

    If not, I hope you and M27Holts meet up with one another. I’m sure you’d get on famously, just go easy on the narcissism!

  92. M27Holts says:

    Aye. We are one and the same…just different log names.and not a split personality….

  93. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Holts/Rob: Yesterday went for a 17km walk down the river Irwell and Clifton Marina

    Jesus H(airy) Christ, he walks on water!

  94. M27Holts says:

    Acolyte. You see how useless english is for accurately describing my stroll in the cold clear day? If i had given you the latitude/longditude linked list from my smart-watch you would know I was on the banks of the river Irwell….

  95. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Yeah, but then I would have been denied the chance of making a ‘walking on water’ joke. I suppose I could now say something about how, if you were walking on its banks (plural) the river must be very narrow, or you’ve got incredibly long legs to be able to straddle it, but I won’t do that in case it falls as flat as the first joke.
    My comedic ego can only take so many hits, you know.

  96. M27Holts says:

    My attempts at comedy on this forum are regularly given the “tumble weed blowing through a deserted frontier town” treatment. So perhaps we should form a partnership, Acolyte & Holts….or perhaps Lead Balloon would be more apt….

  97. Mockingbird says:

    Acolyte & Holts – Your humour efforts are not wasted. I thought the “walking on water” comment was great. (even with those holes in his feet !) I’m sure a lot of readers who don’t post, prefer a bit of a laugh to the current debate on the use of English language or counseling for Glen.
    – – – –

  98. Rrr says:

    Upon information and belief, walking on water is rather commonplace in the Low Countries. In winter. With skates on.

  99. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Aw, thanks Mockingbird.

    Holts, I think The Old Groaners would be apt for a double-act. For me at least it covers age, general demeanor and my level of humour. I’ve got jokes that make Bob Monkhouse’s material look fresh!

    Rrr, I’ve tried walking on skates but they were just too slippery and it took forever to wash the fishy smell off my feet.

  100. Mockingbird says:

    Some people never finish anythi

  101. Rrr says:

    Acolyte, I never quite got the hang of skating. My feet are too wide.

    Or maybe I should have put them on the other way up?

  102. M27Holts says:

    Never cold enough in mancunia for open water ice to be thick enough to allow Torville & Dean to do their bolero or whatever it was called. Not really a fan of frozen water sports….

  103. Son of Glenner says:

    Acolyte of Sagan & M27Holts: Just because you can’t hear us laughing, does not mean that we don’t find your jokes funny!

    As to the question of whether we do think your jokes are funny …

  104. M27Holts says:

    Anyway er-indoors is upstairs….tarting herself up for the candlelit dinner for deux i’m preparing (Normandy Chicken & apple casserole)…anything one-pot and I can slap in the oven is a good dish for my extremely limited cooking skills. Valentines innit…go on you lot, plenty of comedic ammo I loaded in your canon…fire away….

  105. Mockingbird says:

    M 27 – “If i had given you the latitude/longditude linked list from my smart-watch you would know I was on the banks of the river Irwell… ” (Said M27 13/02/21)

    According to that tag on your ankle you were in the front room watching Bob Monkhouse and Dolly Parton re-runs. :o)

  106. Mockingbird says:

    Wow! It’s lockdown, I’d forgotten all about VALENTINES DAY. (Thanks M27)

    Glen, will you be my Valentine ?

    – – – –

  107. Laripu says:

    Valentine’s Day. Well we don’t do anything for it. But way back in 1996, about 18 months before my wife and I married, I showed up at her door with a gift.

    Feigning ignorance, I said “happy Ballantine’s Day” and handed her a bottle of Ballantine’s Scotch. Which, by the way, she never drank. All of it went down my gullet.

    She married me anyway.

    (Which is how I end many stories about her. 🙂 )

  108. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Well, it was Valentine’s day, romance was in the air and I caught sight of my wife bending to reach into the freezer. Her short skirt had ridden up and, well, passion overtook patience and the result was exactly as one would expect in that situation: we are now banned from the supermarket 🙂

  109. M27Holts says:

    On a similar vein. A German shepherd and a bull mastiff are talking in the vets. The bull mastiff was contemplating rhe routine emasculation that was pending so sadly asked…what you here for? “Well” said the GS, “i got a bit dirty, so my lady owner was filling the bath and her short skirt lifted and she wasn’t wearing any knickers…I just couldn’t resist and mounted the bitch…”. “Ah, so you in for the ballchop like me?”. “NAH” replied the GS, “having my claws trimmed…”

  110. Someone says:

    “[Gender] isn’t a physical reality like sex (male/female)”

    This statement appears either incomplete or just flat-out incorrect and bigotted. Educated medical experts on the topic don’t refer to sex because that implies a binary nature again. Externally expressed sexual characteristics were traditionally (biblically) associated with what we thought were two sexes. But once genetics, hormones, nutrition and other environmental factors come into play, it becomes clear that sexual characteristics are not as binary as a biblical interpretation of ‘sex’ would imply. External sexual attributes can be measured as a physical quantity, but they are not the sole controlling factor of the expression of sexual characteristics of an organism. Hormone levels and genetics and many other attributes also contribute and are not guaranteed to match with an ignorantly limited measure of sexual attributes. These other attributes are *physical* and are just as measurable as external sexual characteristics, despite not being explicitly visible to the human eye. This [gender or sex is not binary] is what the scientific medical experts have found that the evidence says on the subject.

    That there are many (allegedly science based) atheists that refuse to accept this is why I earlier noted, hypocrisy.

    As to the links provided by Laripu… how in the hell do those evangelists know how happy I’ll be to get the vaccine? Is this finally proof of god speaking to them? 😀

  111. Donn says:

    Quote AoS “physical reality like sex”, call that “bigoted”, and then go on to discuss physical reality? I looked up “bigoted”: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others

    Is there a way to present your ideas without the denunciations?

  112. Rrr says:

    Donn: A polite way seems to be hard to find.

  113. Donn says:

    … but so effective. You know, one gets used to a certain background level of outrage from the moral police / “vortex of grievance” phenomenon (from one of jb’s links), and I think it can’t be helped, some of it gets discounted. An objective voice presents an attention-getting contrast.

  114. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Someone, human biology has the cube root of fuck-all to do with biblical interpretations of the sexes: humans have always been a male/female binary. The Bible did not invent the concept of a binary, it merely observed the fact. That the Bible states that God made humans male and female merely shows that the authors, being ignorant of science, made a best-guess at the origins of humans.
    The Bible also has God creating the Sun. They had no idea what the Sun is, how it formed and what it is made of, but they didn’t invent the Sun. Are you going to argue that the Sun doesn’t really exist because the Bible got the technical bits completely wrong? Is the Moon not real because the authors of Genesis believed it shone by its own light?

    I am amazed that anybody would argue in good faith that an atheist should reject something if it’s in the Bible. Was I supposed to have a ‘lightbulb moment’, slap my forehead and marvel at my own stupidity?
    The Bible was right about human sex being binary, where it was wrong was in dictating that gendered roles be enforced in line with sex: that males must be masculine and do masculine things, while females be feminine and stick to feminine roles. The Bible’s demand that females be subservient to males does not negate the fact that humans are a species comprised of a male and female sex binary.

    :Gender has no physical reality, it is a human construct, and one which pre-dates the Bible – it is known that many cultures had their own concepts of gender and gendered roles even if the specifics vary. If your claim that the male/female binary comes from the Bible, how did pre-Biblical cultures, or those cultures contemporary with the Old Testament but ignorant of its religious ideas manage to create their own ideas of gendered roles tied to an individuals sex, and usually with those roles having the males superior to females? It’s almost as though there was some level of sexual dimorphism in play, wouldn’t you think? One in which the generally larger and physically stronger sex got to make the rules, in the same way that larger and stronger tribes -and eventually nations – could control the smaller and weaker ones.

    Very briefly, to address your point ‘External sexual attributes can be measured as a physical quantity, but they are not the sole controlling factor of the expression of sexual characteristics of an organism.
    I agree. Some organisms really can and do change their physical sex as part of their nature owing to hormonal changes and/or environmental factors: some really are both male and female at once and have both male and female sex characteristics. The usual examples given by those arguing for a spectrum of sex in humans are certain fish and plant species. That is clearly a dishonest comparison for them to use since humans are neither fishes nor plants.
    Yes, individual clownfish, for example, can and do physically change sex during their lifetime; it’s an evolved characteristic that humans simply do not have. A male anglerfish, having found a female to mate with, attaches itself to her body, connects to her bloodstream and becomes absorbed until there is little of the male left except for a tiny protusion on the female’s skin, a remnant of its body containing just its testes.
    Nobody claims that humans can pull off this trick and yet we are supposed to accept that humans do not exist as a binary because clownfish change their sex. Is that not dishonestly cherry-picking examples from nature to suit their case, even though the examples are completely irrelevant?
    In exactly the same way, those arguing for a non-binary of sex will use the examples of people with genetic disorders, abnormal chromosones and so-on, conditions caused by mis-devolopment of the foetus and having nothing whatsoever to do with people of one sex claiming to be of the other, or of both or even neither.

    Finally, Someone, please do tell how one can declare oneself to be non-binary if there is no binary? How does one meaningfully identify oneself as being outside of something that doesn’t exist? One cannot be non-religious without a religion from which to exclude oneself. I cannot declare myself to be a non-Saturniun being – at least not in any way that I can demand be taken seriously – without the existence of Saturniun beings. One cannot deny the existence of a sexual binary and declare that is not part of the sexual binary. In a very real sense, either we are all part of a binary or none of us are.

  115. M27Holts says:

    Ricky Gervais in “After Life” has a middle-aged geezer dressed as a nine-year old girl…and insists he should be allowed to be completely accepted as such…it is absurd, hilarious but also worryingly creepy…or is that just me?

  116. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Holts, are you sure you’re not describing Grayson Perry? He was once a panelist on Have I Got News For You?, he was dressed as a little girl in a schoolgirl-type’ gingham pinafore dress and sporting a blond wig with pigtails, topped off with make-up that a pantomime dame would call over-the-top.

  117. M27Holts says:

    Nah, not the Sculptor…an episode of the RG written dark sitcom as titled…anyway the sculptor wants to be identified as a geezer who likes to live out transvestite scenario’s as part of his art. He does not insist he is a nine year old girl and should be accepted as if it was physically real…

  118. Author says:

    UPDATE: CafePress has informed me that the content was removed in response to a notice received from the government of Pakistan in 2019. I thought it was a while since I had a payment from them!

  119. M27Holts says:

    I had to cross-dress to serve my wife and her friends because one of her mates said she would donate £100 to rhe MND research charity I support if I cooked and served in drag….1. I was far less convincing as a woman than Grayson Perry. 2. I was nearly 7ft tall in the high heels. 3. You have to wear granny knickers coz otherwise your old man falls out the side. 4. The long hair wig itched and was sweaty…

  120. Mockingbird says:

    M27 – “I had to cross-dress to serve my wife and her friends . . . . . . .”

    Now there’s a confession to pass on to the Pakistan Government.

  121. Donn says:

    Someone, please do tell how one can declare oneself to be non-binary if there is no binary?

    That’s easy enough, isn’t it? All we need to negate some assertion, is the ability to define it well enough to consider the question. Am I non-trinary? Certainly – inasmuch as I can vaguely conceive a three way biologically-driven social/reproductive association, I can declare with some certainty that I’m not in that game, and as far as I know no one else is either.

    I’m surprised by the question, though. I’m pretty sure everyone would acknowledge that typical human biology is “binary”, as is the behavior pattern driven by it. All the fuss is really about a small minority who don’t fit the typical mold, whose psychology doesn’t line up with somatic expression.

  122. Mockingbird says:

    When discussing bullshit it is so proprietorially important to be aware that the original concept of the non-binary demonstrates that there is no binary bullshit illusions that intrude.
    That’s easy enough, isn’t it? All we need to negate some assertion of bullshit, it is the ability to define it well enough to consider the question. Am I non-trinary bullshit or trinary bullshit? Certainly.
    Inasmuch as I can vaguely conceive a three way biologically-driven bullshit social/reproductive association bullshit I can declare with some certainty that I’m not in that bullshit game, and as far as I know no one else’s bullshit is either.
    I’m surprised by the bullshit question, though. I’m pretty sure everyone would acknowledge that typical human biology is “binary” bullshit, as is the behavior pattern driven by bullshit in other atmospheres. All the fuss is really about small minority bullshitters who don’t fit the typical bullshit mold, whose bullshit psychology doesn’t line up with sophisticated bullshit displayed herein.
    – – – –

  123. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    The problem Donn, is that the small minority are demanding that the rest of the world affirms their beliefs about themselves. We are not allowed to disagree with the trans/non-binary ideology, they demand validation. It is not enough that I believe that everybody has the right to think how they want, dress however they want, call themselves whatever they want. Unless I agree that a man is a woman if he so believes, that a persons’ sex is a matter of choice rather than a biological fact, then I am a bigot who is comitting acts of actual violence by refusing to repeat the mantra of ‘Transwomen are women, transmen are men, non-binary identities are real and valid’.
    But what really astounds me is how so many of the supposedly sceptic community have become so enthralled with the trans movement. These are people who will happily mock any ‘sincerely held belief’ and reject ideas based on nothing more than personal feelings, and yet on this one topic, which is entirely rooted in the way people think of themselves and sincerely believe that claiming an idemtity trumps reality, they have capitulated entirely and are among the most vociferous and aggressive enforcers of the belief. It’s mind-boggling.
    One thing I’ll add about the demands for validation of what is an entirely subjective self-image is that in psychological terms what they believe is a delusion. Anybody who looks in a mirror and, despite the physical evidence right there in front of them, believes themself to be a member of the opposite sex – not in a nebulous, wishful thinking way but as an absolute, physical, flesh-and-blood reality is clearly suffering a delusion, and any psychologist worty of the title will say that validating a persons delusions is to be avoided. Isn’t it just a little odd that when a man looks in the mirror and sees himself as a woman we have to validate that delusion? Why must we? There is another belief about the self that is more common than transgender, it occurs when a person, usually already underweight, looks in the mirror and sees a fat person. That delusion is called anorexia, and yet nobody would (I hope) validate that delusion by agreeing with it.
    I simply cannot understand how so many people have lost all notion of scepticism and critical thinking when it comes to this one set of delusional beliefs, but instead join in with their nonsensical thinking on the subject and promote it with all the absolute, logic-free certainty of the most enthusiastic of Evangelistic preachers, and react to those who question the dogma in a manner not too far removed from the most rabidly fundamentalist of religious zealotry.

  124. Donn says:

    To be precise, though, aren’t we talking about a man who looks in the mirror and doesn’t see either man or woman? I mean, not to dismiss your observations about trans identity, but I’m just thinking in terms of Moses’ thing.

    As for what they’re thinking … I sure don’t know, having never had any such thought myself, but it agrees with attitudes thoroughly validated by society, doesn’t it? “It’s what’s inside that counts” clearly means, as opposed to what you see in the mirror. If a lot of people were starting to have these issues, though, I’d have to wonder what’s going wrong.

  125. M27Holts says:

    The anorexia analogy is a good argument. Where is the counter argument that makes certain delusions sacrosanct and what proof thereof?

  126. Anonymous says:

    When it comes to trans people, isn’t the current way of handling their issues supported by science?

  127. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Anonymous, short answer – NO!
    Slightly longer answer. Whenever you hear it said that science supports the idea of sex as a spectrum, you’ll be hearing it from a trans advocate who is distorting the science; taking examples of clownfish and self-pollinating plants and transferring them to humans without stating where the examples come from, or using people with abnormal chromosones, genetic and birth defects to bolster their claims. What you won’t be told is how such people relate to transgender people….. because there is no relation. Trans and non-binary are physically no different to anybody else, the difference is entirely psychological.
    No biologist with knowledge of sex and genetics who is not in thrall of the trans cult will say that the science supports the claim. Biologists such as PZ Myers – very much in thrall with the cult – are a disgrace. He has written much on the subject and every time he plays the subtle bait and switch, begins ny stating that trans people are what they say they are because – then switches to a wall of text about zebra fish and chromosones and birth defects that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    Donn, it’s all the same thing, really. It’s people confusing thoughts about themselves with physical reality. If I bang my leg, chances are I’ll bruise. These people only magine they have banged their legs but are demanding that we agree that their imaginary bruises are real.

  128. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Donn, re: […] but it agrees with attitudes thoroughly validated by society, doesn’t it? “It’s what’s inside that counts” clearly means, as opposed to what you see in the mirror.’

    Yes, but that saying is a truism, not a truth. It’s up there with ‘you can be whatever you want to be’: it sounds nice and motivational and all that, but it just isn’t true.
    Could you imagine a court acquitting somebody who admits killing a dozen people but says that inside he’s the most gentle soul on Earth? Would an obese person be at less risk of heart failure or diabetes if he believes that he’s really a thin person inside (no jokes about eating thin people, please)?
    For people to claim that ‘inside’ they are the opposite sex is to make a dualist mind/body claim, one that belongs to religion and philosophical sophistry, not science and reality.

  129. Walterwalcarpit says:

    Wow! What a humdinger that I missed.
    Following up on jb’s early post, to say I wrote a manual for a university course I taught many years ago.
    It was very long and full of necessarily detailed instructions for students.
    I was determined not to make it any longer with endless use of clumsy “he/she”, “her/him” or “hers/his” so I made it clear in the introduction that I would instead use “se”, “hem” or “hes” respectively.
    Of course I expected it to spread out into the wide world.
    Nowadays I sure wish it had.
    Gendering of any kind has always been a power play, as AoS ably illustrated, and I feel for any that cannot escape it in their very language.

  130. Walterwalcarpit says:

    And, yes, we can be laughing without you realising.
    More often than yous might think.

  131. Walterwalcarpit says:

    And now I shall have to go previous to see what this Glen Andersen thought about something or other to earn a name check in the very first comment.

  132. allison says:

    Yes, the risks and costs of everyone on twitter racing each other to be the first to tell you how brave you are. Shut the fuck up.

  133. Acolyte of Sagan says:

    Walter, it’s been a while! How the Devil are you?

  134. Mark says:



NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.