It’s a new week and terraces are allowed open again in Brussels! Also, winter is back! And everybody is in retrograde this week, so best of luck!

Let’s start with royal news, because nothing says “white privilege” better than Prince Andrew’s existence refusal to cooperate with the New York prosecutors as regards the Epstein-investigation (a formal request has been sent to him again).
Must we care?

Well, remotely. There’s a documentary-series on Netflix about Epstein called Filthy Rich – if you have diligently read the related reporting as the situation unfolded during the past years, there isn’t terribly much new. Except the witness testimonies, and really, Andrew, come the fuck on.

On a positive note, the BBC Newsnight interview during which Andrew demonstrates (unwittingly?) quite what pompous a**e he is, has been nominated for a BAFTA. This means that the interview is not being brushed aside any time soon, quite the contrary, it shall be treated with many re-runs and adverts like any other nominee, which is really great.

I do know this is nothing in the larger scheme of things. Such as Meghan crossing her legs at royal events despite knowing the protocol full well. I bet she regrets leaving the Windsor Funky Bunch.

Then, J.K. Rowling managed to break the Internet with her commentary to an opinion piece titled “Creating a more equal post-COVID world for people who menstruate.”
Rowling commented “I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?“

Can opened, worms everywhere. Not only was a petition to call the universe to unread their Harry Potters set up immediately, because Rowling’s comment was interpreted as transphobic. The problem, or one of many, is, of course, that twitter is no place to have any kind of meaningful conversations, let alone about topic like this, but here we are, you can’t shove the giant MF inflamed genie back in the bottle.

Rowling posted the following comment as an explanation to the first tweet, and it didn’t go down well, either: “If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. ‘If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

I am absolutely willing to further educate myself on this topic I clearly know very little about. I am particularly curious about the role that biological sex plays in this discussion. I do understand that transgender men can menstruate, and I know that many cisgender women don’t.
But if biological sex indeed does not exist, as has been suggested, what will be the basis of our, or anybody’s identities, not to speak of legal protection?

Now that I have the easier, non-touchy topics dealt with, let me round off with some good news: NARS Laguna Bronzer now exists in four different shades. I could just about get away with it, but given the months-long confinement, I might go for the new, lighter shade called San Juan. Were I to need a bronzer, which frankly hasn’t been the case lately.

Chanel was the first to present its cruise collection digitally – it was unveiled today. I don’t consider myself to be a big Chanel-fan generally, but of course wanted to see where the bar will be set for the future online fashion shows. It appears not terribly high. It was mostly like watching 90s perfume commercials. Maybe the fashion houses need longer than a two-month lockdown to figure out something completely new instead of making electronic versions of existing formulas. Vogue has the photos.

Reading tip for laughs: Samantha Irby’s We are never meeting in real life. I re-read this weekend. It’s absolutely hilarious, I needed the humour (​feminism, body image, race, sexuality, social standing, having a horrible cat for a pet – in case anything on the list resonates with you), and I would think so might you. I wrote about her book last year, here’s more.

Now, back to twitter to get enraged about stuff.