Peter Myers Digest (2): Dictionaries change definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Trotskyist advocates Green Terrorism

(1) Woman sues Psychiatrist over Gender transition; Knowing that I can’t have children is absolutely devastating
(2) Cambridge Dictionary changes definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’
(3) Merriam-Webster Changes the Definition of ‘Female’
(4) Oxford Dictionary changes definition of ‘woman’ from “a man’s wife” to “a person’s wife”
(5) Are ‘Trans Women’ really Women? Definition of ‘Woman’ is most controversial
(6) 500 Healthcare Workers Get $10 Million Settlement After Being Fired Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
(7) Malone to RFKjr: DHS treated Covid Dissidents as Terrorists
(8) Trotskyist Andreas Malm advocates Green Terrorism – given a platform by Bloomberg
(1) Woman sues Psychiatrist over Gender transition “Knowing that I can’t have children is absolutely devastating”
It’s time to hold the Soros Foundations, the Rockefeller Foundation, and other Foundations of the oligarchs liable for the damage the Culture War has wrought. If the Catholic Church can be held liable, then extremist secular movements can be held liable too – Peter M.
‘Absolutely devastating’: woman sues psychiatrist over gender transition
By Julie Szego
Sydney Morning Herald
August 24, 2022 — 5.00am
The first time Sydney woman Jay Langadinos saw psychiatrist Dr Patrick Toohey she was 19, living at home and identifying as male. It was May 2010. Langadinos wanted to start on masculinising hormones and her endocrinologist had referred her to Toohey to assess if she was suitable for the treatment.
According to a statement of claim filed in the NSW Supreme Court in May, the referral letter from Professor Ann Conway said it “seemed likely” Langadinos had “true gender dysphoria”, but she was “very young” and “clearly” needed “thorough psychiatric work-up before embarking on hormone treatment”.
Toohey agreed Langadinos suffered from gender dysphoria – a misalignment between a person’s sex and gender identity – and found she was suitable for hormone therapy, in this case testosterone, which encourages the development of male secondary sexual characteristics.
Langadinos saw Toohey a second time in February 2012. Now she was eager to have her breasts surgically removed. Toohey allegedly found “no contraindication” for her to undergo a bilateral mastectomy. She had the operation in April.
The following month, Langadinos was back again, this time to discuss her wish to have her womb removed. Again, Toohey reported he could not see “any psychiatric contraindication to proceeding with hysterectomy as part of gender transition”. Langadinos underwent the surgery in November, less than seven months after her mastectomy. She was 22.
Toohey’s advice is now subject to a rare legal case. Langadinos, now 31 and no longer identifying as male, is suing Toohey for professional negligence. The case comes amid an intensifying debate in Australia and overseas about the “gender-affirming” approach to treating gender dysphoria after an explosion in young people questioning their gender.
Last month, England’s National Health Service announced it was closing the UK’s only children’s gender service at London’s Tavistock clinic, after preliminary findings from an independent review headed by eminent paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass found doctors felt “pressured to adopt an unquestioning approach” to young patients, especially children.
Langadinos says that around November 3, 2016 – four years after her hysterectomy and during psychiatric treatment provided by Dr Roberto D’Angelo – she “came to the realisation that she should not have undergone the hormone therapy or the first and second surgeries”.
In January 2020, she consulted endocrinologist Dr Christopher Muir about ceasing testosterone treatment. Langadinos claims Toohey “failed to take precautions” to avoid risk of harm “in the nature of loss of her breasts, uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries”.
Langadinos required further psychiatric evaluation by him and by a psychiatrist with specialised expertise in diverse conditions. She alleges that he was negligent in not recommending she get an opinion from a second psychiatrist for her hysterectomy.
She told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald: “Knowing that I can’t have children is absolutely devastating.”
Toohey, an experienced psychiatrist, told The Age and the Herald he was unable to comment as the case is before the courts.
Solicitor Anna Kerr, of NSW’s Feminist Legal Clinic, who referred Langadinos’ case to legal firm Slater and Gordon, believes the legal action is “likely to be the tip of the iceberg”.
“We can expect to see extensive litigation in future years related to gender-affirming cross-sex hormones and surgeries,” she said.
Historically, studies have suggested very low regret rates for people who transition, about 1 per cent. Now, some experts are uncertain if those studies are relevant to the much larger cohort of young people presenting with gender issues today, of which two-thirds are females in their teens. Many have existing mental health conditions.
Langadinos says the consequence of Toohey’s alleged breaches of duty of care was that she “has suffered and continues to suffer from injuries and disabilities”, including masculinising and complications as a result of hormone therapy, loss of breasts, uterus and ovaries, complications from early menopause, anxiety and depression, impaired psychological functioning, an ongoing need for medical treatment and diminished capacity for employment.
In an interview with The Age and the Herald, she explained the background to her gender confusion. Her complicated home life had given rise to a feeling she was somehow defective. The feeling grew in her mid-teens when she realised she was attracted to other girls. At 17, she searched for answers on the internet and “discovered transgender”.
“And because of the definition of dysphoria, I thought, ‘That’s what I have.’ I decided that I must be transgender because of my discomfort that I had in my body,” she said.
“As my unhappiness grew, I felt the cause of my unhappiness was because I was not male, so the answer was to change my body even more,” she said.
“I had a breakdown, couldn’t function for an entire year. I couldn’t get out of bed. I wish at the time I knew how much I was hurting and why.”
The statement of claim alleges that after their first consultation, Toohey noted Langadinos had been distressed at primary school for having to dress as a girl, that she had a “tomboy” manner, that she had left high school at year 11 and started an apprenticeship as a chef, that she was sexually attracted to females, did not have friends, and that her parents “were not accepting of her transgender issues”.
He said he was worried Langadinos “did not know how psychological factors could influence the outcome of gender transition”. He “strongly” recommended she receive therapy for “social phobia”, have regular psychological follow-ups during hormone therapy, and that family therapy would also be helpful.
At her second consultation with Toohey, Langadinos came with her parents. Toohey noted afterwards that his recommended treatment and family therapy had not occurred and that Langadinos told him anxiety was not a problem for her and that she did not want treatment.
Her parents were supportive of her having a mastectomy, Toohey noted, though her mother agreed she needed treatment for anxiety.
“Considering the situation overall and the parents’ support,” Toohey concluded, he could see “no contraindication to proceeding with bilateral mastectomy”, and Langadinos could then be encouraged to receive treatment for anxiety.
In a separate letter to an andrology fellow at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Toohey said that when he first saw Langadinos in May 2010 he had noted at the time “a past history of significant social phobia and depression which may have been beyond gender dysphoria”.
After their third and final session, according to the legal claim, Toohey found “no psychiatric evidence of incompetence regarding making medical decisions” and that the “only major psychiatric issue was the chronic social phobia” and Langadinos’ avoidance of treatment.
The case went to a directions hearing this month. The lawyer for Toohey’s medical indemnity insurer has sought further particulars of the claim before filing a defence.
(2) Cambridge Dictionary changes definition of ‘man’ and ‘woman’
By Olivia Land
December 13, 2022 9:53am Updated
Cambridge Dictionary is being blasted by critics online for revising the definition of “man” and “woman” to include people who do not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth.
“Man” is now includes the definition “an adult who lives and identifies as a male though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”
In the same vein, the updated definition of “woman” reads “an adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.”
Both definitions previously reflected the outdated views on sex, which assumed that sex and gender identity always adhered to one another.
The changes were quickly derided on the Internet, with political commentator Steven Crowder tweeting “Remember, if you can control the language, you can control the population.”
Daily Caller writer Mary Rooke called the dictionary writers “F-ing traitors to the truth.”
“Cambridge Dictionary is only the latest. If we don’t stop them from erasing women our civilization is [not going to make it],” she claimed.
Dan McLaughin, a senior writer at National Review, viewed the revision as dystopian as opposed to progressive.
“1984 wasn’t supposed to be a how-to manual,” he tweeted.
Still, some social media users pushed back on the backlash, labeling critics transphobic and celebrating the changes as more inclusive.
“Guess what transphobes are upset about now? You guessed the dictionary, didn’t you,” Evan Urquhart of Assigned Media tweeted.
“[Trans-exclusionary radical feminists] ganna [sp] blow a gasket,” sculptor Daniel Lismore shared. “Trans people deserve to be recognized for who they are.”
Similarly, the UK-based group Bristol Leading Against Transphobia hailed the decision as “Fantastic news.”
(3) Merriam-Webster Changes the Definition of ‘Female’
July 19, 2022 5:44 PM
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary has caved to the trans agenda. In order to appease woke activists, the dictionary publisher has added a secondary definition of “female” that defines the term as “having a gender identity that is the opposite of male.” The key term here is “gender identity,” which demonstrates that Merriam-Webster maintains that gender is not directly connected to sex. A female is a woman. Trans-identifying males are not female. However, according to trans activists, men can be women.
This is not the only part of the definition that has changed in the online edition of Merriam-Webster. Notice the primary definition of female: “Of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.” In Merriam-Webster’s tenth edition, the dictionary defines the noun female as “of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs.” The change in the online edition to include the phrase, “typically has the capacity” shows Merriam-Webster’s attempt to include trans-identifying males in the definition of female. While this phrase may refer to women who cannot bear children due to infertility, given their nod to “gender identity” in defining the word “female,” it is most likely another way to appease the trans community.
Ironically, the “kids definition” of the adjective “female” in the online edition remains the original one: “of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or lays eggs.” We are at a point when the children’s definition of a word is the real definition while the adult definition is politicized nonsense.
The insanity continues. The Left understands the importance of controlling language. Once one controls language, one can shift the culture to one’s will. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight until a major cultural shift takes place that dispels the commonly held misconception that men can turn into women and vice versa.
(4) Oxford Dictionary changes definition of ‘woman’ from “a man’s wife” to “a person’s wife”
A petition signed by 34,000 activists was enough to get Oxford to change its definition – a change that affects millions of Britons and billions worldwide.
Oxford justified the change, saying the dictionary is “driven solely by evidence of how real people use English in their daily lives”. 34,000 real people, that is, not the billion silent majority. – Peter M.
Oxford English Dictionary changes definition of ‘woman’ after complaints that it was ‘sexist’
Changes come following petition which has gained more than 34,000 signatures and claims current definition is ‘sexist’ and discriminates against women
Liam Coleman
Saturday 07 November 2020 19:26
The Oxford English Dictionary has updated its definition of the word “woman” in its latest gender review, after complaints it was “sexist”.
In the latest edition of the world-famous dictionary it has acknowledged for the first time that a woman can be “a person’s wife, girlfriend or female lover”. The previous definition was limited to “a man’s wife, girlfriend or lover”.
The changes come after a petition was set up last year by campaigner Maria Beatrice Giovanardi to get rid of all phrases and definitions that discriminate against or patronise women.
So far it has gained more than 34,000 signatures, and aimed to eliminate synonyms such as “b****, besom, piece, bit, mare, baggage, wench, petticoat, frail, bird, bint, biddy, filly” from the dictionary.
In the online petition Ms Giovanardi said: “Over a third of young women aged between 18 to 24 have been targeted by online abuse.
“We can take a serious step towards reducing the harm this is causing our young women and girls by looking at our language – and this starts with the dictionary.”
Speaking to The Independent she said: “I would like to say yes, it’s a victory, because I am very happy about all the changes they have made, because we have improved the definition so much and the synonyms compared to what they were. …
In a statement given to The Telegraph, publisher Oxford University Press (OUP) said that the dictionary is “driven solely by evidence of how real people use English in their daily lives”.
It added: “We have expanded the dictionary coverage of ‘woman’ with more examples and idiomatic phrases which depict women in a positive and active manner.
“We have ensured that offensive synonyms or senses are clearly labelled as such and only included where we have evidence of real world usage.”
The OUP had previously said in March last year that dictionaries “reflect rather than dictate” how English is used.
The Independent has contacted OUP for comment.
(5) Are ‘Trans Women’ really Women? Definition of ‘Woman’ is most controversial
The salient point about the definition of ‘woman’, which this article obscures, is that many people object to counting “Trans women” as “women” – Peter M.
‘Woman’ Selected The Word Of 2022
Kim ElsesserSenior Contributor
I cover the intersection of business, psychology and gender. selected “woman” as its word of the year for 2022. Searches for the word on the site doubled this year compared to previous years, boosted by questions about what it means to be a woman.
“It’s one of the oldest words in the English language. One that’s fundamental not just to our vocabulary but to who we are as humans. And yet it’s a word that continues to be a source of intense personal importance and societal debate. It’s a word that’s inseparable from the story of 2022,” the digital dictionary company wrote about its word choice.
“This year, the very matter of the definition of the word ‘woman’ was at the center of so many consequential moments, discussions, and decisions in our society,” said John Kelly, senior director of editorial at
Indeed, searches for the word “woman” spiked more than 1400% on the site in March during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Specifically, the surge in lookups occurred after Senator Marsha Blackburn asked the judicial nominee to define the word “woman.” The 1400% surge was described as a “massive leap for such a common word.”
During the hearing in March, Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee, “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?”
“I can’t,” Jackson said.
“You can’t?” Blackburn asked.
Jackson responded, “Not in this context—I’m not a biologist.”
“The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?” Blackburn asked.
“The prominence of the question and the attention it received demonstrate how issues of transgender identity and rights are now frequently at the forefront of our national discourse. More than ever, we are all faced with questions about who gets to identify as a woman (or a man, or neither). The policies that these questions inform transcend the importance of any dictionary definition—they directly impact people’s lives,” wrote in a press release.
Nonetheless, does provide several definitions for “woman” on its site (the word can apparently also function as a verb). “An adult female person” is the primary meaning listed. Although the site’s definitions sidestep transgender identity, the site qualified in a statement, “the dictionary is not the last word on what defines a woman. The word belongs to each and every woman—however they define themselves.”
The Human Rights Campaign is more explicit on how trans women fit into the definition of womanhood. “When we say women, that word always includes trans women. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. A woman’s gender identity is her innermost concept of being female. A trans woman’s gender identity doesn’t define or caveat her womanhood; it simply describes her journey to womanhood,” they explain.
Unfortunately, many like Blackburn don’t subscribe to this definition—which is why “woman” remains a controversial word, even in 2022. In fact, according to a Pew Research survey, six-in-ten U.S. adults believe a person’s gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth.
The Supreme Court hearings weren’t the only time “woman” definitions were questioned in the news this year. Earlier in 2022, questions were raised about who should be categorized as a woman for collegiate sports teams and about whether Lia Thomas, a trans woman swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania, had an unfair biological advantage in her sport.
And some thought we shouldn’t be defining gender at all, at least in schools. In March, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed a law that prevents kindergarten through third-grade teachers from discussing gender and sexual orientation in class. The law also restricts what teachers can say in upper grades to what is developmentally appropriate but doesn’t state what is considered suitable for older kids.
Clearly, there are still competing perspectives on what it means to be a woman. In addition to searches related to gender identity, lookups for the word “woman” on also spiked after the leak of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and again after the decision was officially released. Interestingly, these searches were accompanied by an increase in the number of people looking up the word “autonomy.”
(6) 500 Healthcare Workers Get $10 Million Settlement After Being Fired Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
500 Healthcare Workers Get $10 Million Settlement After Being Fired Over COVID Vaccine Mandate
A U.S. judge approved a multimillion-dollar settlement for workers who were fired by an Illinois healthcare system for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
By The Epoch Times
By Zachary Stieber
A U.S. judge approved a multimillion-dollar settlement on Dec. 19 for workers who were fired by an Illinois healthcare system for refusing to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
About 500 workers who were terminated or, after seeing their exemption requests denied, got a COVID-19 vaccine, will receive compensation as part of the $10.3 million settlement, a preliminary version of which was first announced in July.
U.S. District Judge John Kness, a Trump appointee overseeing the lawsuit brought by the workers, issued verbal approval for the settlement during a hearing, lawyers for Liberty Counsel and NorthShore University Healthsystem said. Kness plans to release a written judgment in the next week.
In a brief statement emailed to The Epoch Times after Kness’s approval, NorthShore wrote, “We are pleased with the Court’s approval of a supportive resolution to this matter and continue to prioritize the health and safety of our patients and team members.”
Harry Mihet, vice president of legal affairs for Liberty Counsel, said in a statement that the group was “pleased to finally get the court’s final approval of this classwide settlement for these health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate.”
“This case should set a precedent for other employers who have violated the law by denying religious exemptions for their employees,” he said.
Liberty Counsel, a legal group that brings cases of alleged religious discrimination, was representing the 13 named plaintiffs in the case.
The group successfully won class certification for all workers who were denied religious exemptions, a group that was initially believed to be 499 former and current workers but swelled after the preliminary settlement agreement to at least 519.
As of Dec. 12, 493 class members had submitted claims for a piece of the settlement.
Each worker who was fired stands to receive $24,225. Each worker who remained at the company stands to receive $3,725.
The named plaintiffs are in line to receive an extra $20,000.
Those payments, described as service awards, will provide compensation for the plaintiffs helping advise on court filings, gathering documents and serving as lead plaintiffs “in a sensitive case involving personal health choices and religious beliefs over a matter of intense public debate, even when it was uncertain whether they would have to disclose their identities to the public,” according to a recent filing.
Three workers objected to the settlement, but both parties urged the judge to disregard the objections, which were largely based on pay the trio felt they were owed after being fired.
Marzena Novak, one of the objectors, said her actual losses from being fired and losing pay approached $140,000.
“Although the estimated $25,000 is helpful and will be welcomed, it doesn’t come close to the actual losses suffered by those they treated so poorly,” Novak wrote.
Like many healthcare systems, NorthShore imposed a vaccine mandate on employees in 2021.
NorthShore told workers that they could file a request for a religious exemption using a form that said the worker in question needed to provide “a description of my sincerely held religious principle or practice that guides my objection to receiving the required vaccination.” Northshore explicitly instructed applicants to not fill out lengthy answers.
NorthShore initially approved some of the exemption requests but then reversed the decisions and denied “all or virtually all of them,” according to filings from the plaintiffs. Officials said the employees failed to meet the standard for religious exemptions.
Employees who wanted a second look were told to file an appeal that included their vaccination history since they were 18.
NorthShore then said that any religious objections based on “aborted fetal cell lines, stem cells, tissue, or derivative materials” would result in denials because those products were “not in NorthShore administered vaccines.” All of the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States have links to aborted fetal cell lines.
At one point, one of the plaintiffs said, her manager said that “we are not approving anyone” for exemptions, although at least several were approved.
“Instead of engaging Plaintiffs in good faith, NorthShore denied Plaintiffs’ religious exemption requests en masse, providing nothing more than copy and paste responses, informing them that they lacked ‘evidence-based criteria,’ whatever that means,” one filing reads. “By failing to engage any of the Plaintiffs and its numerous employees with religious objections in good faith, NorthShore had no way to know whether an acceptable accommodation might have been appropriate. The only responses received by Plaintiffs and NorthShore’s employees were one-size-fits-all blanket denials.”
The plaintiffs said the treatment violated the Civil Rights Act, which requires employers to treat workers similarly, and the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of “right of conscience.”
NorthShore repeatedly denied that it violated the law.
The system also stated that it was “an undue hardship” to let unvaccinated staff work at NorthShore and that “it initially denied many exemption requests and that on appeal it reconsidered some decisions and chose not to challenge that the requests were made based on sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Reprinted with permission from The Epoch Times.
Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news for The Epoch Times. He is based in Maryland.
(7) Malone to RFKjr: DHS treated Covid Dissidents as Terrorists
Malone to RFK, Jr.: Americans Have Been Subjected to ‘Military-Grade Information Warfare’
Dr. Robert Malone, an outspoken critic of the COVID-19 vaccines, discussed his new book “Lies My Government Told Me” with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast.”
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
Dr. Robert Malone, who helped develop the mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines and now has become an outspoken critic of the vaccines, discussed his new book “Lies My Government Told Me” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., in a recent episode of “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast.”
According to Malone, U.S. Americans for the last three years have been subjected to “military-grade information warfare — capability and technology that was designed for our opponents for military warfare outside of the U.S. — that has been turned on American citizens.” …
Malone said the information warfare regarding the U.S. government’s response to COVID-19 appears to have been largely deployed through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
“What’s been deployed has been basically the technology and capabilities that were designed to respond to terrorism, but they’ve been deployed against the likes of you, me and Dr. McCullough and so many others,” Malone said.
In his book, Malone explains how during the COVID-19 pandemic DHS “defined misinformation, disinformation and malinformation as a form of domestic terrorism.”
“They made this odd kind of logic jump where they spoke about basically the January 6th events and domestic violence,” Malone said, “and then they linked that to vaccines and vaccine hesitancy and stated in alert that they anticipated there would be domestic violence associated with protests against the masks and the vaccine mandates — and that that should be responded to as terrorism.”
“I strongly suspect that they had intelligence and reacted to the trucker protest as it was developing as another domestic terrorism act.”
Kennedy pointed out that while the original charter of the CIA forbade the CIA from propagandizing Americans, in the 1970s it was discovered to have infiltrated the American press through Operation Mockingbird.
“So in 1976, President Carter’s CIA director, said, ‘We are not going to infiltrate the U.S. press anymore’ and they acknowledged that it was illegal,” Kennedy told Malone.
“But the following year, Carl Bernstein did an article for Rolling Stone in which he said there’s at least 400 of these reporters still out there [that are on the CIA’s list] … [and] in 2014, President Obama made it legal once again for the CIA to propagandize Americans,” Kennedy added. …
(8) Trotskyist Andreas Malm advocates Green Terrorism – given a platform by Bloomberg
Why did New Yorker Radio Hour give him a platform? Why did Bloomberg? – Peter M.
Should the Climate Movement Embrace Property Destruction?
Climate activists have done nowhere near enough to reign in the fossil fuel industry and must escalate their tactics, professor Andreas Malm says on the Zero podcast.
{photo} In a handout photo from Just Stop Oil, two protesters glue themselves to the wall at the National Gallery in London after throwing tinned soup at Vincent Van Gogh’s famous 1888 work Sunflowers in October. Source: Just Stop Oil/PA Media
By Akshat Rathi and Oscar Boyd
December 15, 2022 at 3:00 PM GMT+10
The past few months have seen a flurry of climate protests. In Marseilles, a cement factory was sabotaged by activists for its high emissions. In London, tomato soup was thrown at Van Gogh’s Sunflowers by members of the group Just Stop Oil. Other activists have taken to deflating SUV tires in cities across Europe and the US to discourage use of the gas-guzzling vehicles.
This is only the beginning of what climate activists need to do in order to be effective, says Andreas Malm, associate professor of human ecology at Lund University and author of How to Blow Up a Pipeline. “The task for the climate movement is to make clear for people that building new pipelines, new gas terminals, opening new oil fields are acts of violence that need to be stopped — they kill people,” Malm says on Bloomberg Green’s Zero podcast. ==
Andreas Malm (born 1976 or 1977)[1] is a Swedish[2] author and an associate professor of human ecology at Lund University.[3][4] He is on the editorial board of the academic journal Historical Materialism,[5] and has been described as a Marxist.[6] Naomi Klein, who quoted Malm in her book This Changes Everything, describes him as “one of the most original thinkers on the subject” of climate change.[7]
In 2010, Malm joined the Socialistiska Partiet; he had been in contact with the party since attending a summer camp they ran in 1997.[8]
In 2012, Malm defended his thesis (which later became the book Fossil Capital) to obtain a PhD from Lund University.[9][10]
Malm has authored several books and is a contributor to the magazine Jacobin.[3][11] In his book How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire, published in January 2021, he argued that sabotage and property damage would be logical components of the movement against climate change.[12]
In a May 2021 article in The Guardian, Brett Christophers wrote that research by Malm suggests that manufacturers during the Industrial Revolution switched from water power to steam not because steam was cheaper but because it was more profitable. In particular, steam allowed prime movers to be located near cheap labor rather than bound to suitable waterways.[13]
In September 2021, Malm was a guest on The New Yorker Radio Hour, where he echoed the central claim of How to Blow Up a Pipeline by advocating for the climate movement to utilize sabotage as a tactic and embrace a diversity of tactics.[14]
This page was last edited on 19 October 2022, at 19:11 (UTC). ==
The Socialistiska Partiet (English: Socialist Party) was a Swedish Trotskyist political party, the Swedish section of the Fourth International.