Imagine having JD Vance lecturing you from a great height.

Vice President JD Vance publicly berated European leaders on a host of issues from free speech to security and mass migration, as simmering tensions between the United States and its close allies boiled over at an international conference in Munich on Friday.

The vice president used the podium at the high-level security gathering that had been focusing on the invasion of Ukraine and the threat Russia poses to Europe and the rest of the world to raise social issues animating many on the American right.

Well great, because European leaders have nothing better to do than fret about US social issues from the pov of Trump Toady # 3.

The vice president’s comments were met with an icy reception and only scattered applause — and groans when he joked about how if American democracy could “survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk.”

Who says it’s a few months? Who says it’s not for the duration?

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius denounced Vance’s remarks during a session at the conference later in the day, saying in German that it was “not acceptable” that the U.S. vice president compared “the condition of Europe with the condition that prevails in some auto-authoritarian regimes.”

“This is not acceptable,” Pistorius said. “This is not the Europe, not the democracy where I live and where I conduct my election campaign right now. And this is not the democracy that I witness every day in our parliament. In our democracy, every opinion has a voice.”

“I was in the room in Munich for VP Vance’s speech,” Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., wrote in a post on X. “No talk about Russia, Ukraine, China. Just criticisms of our allies and focus on “the threat from within.” His speech is going to embolden our adversaries who will see this as a green light to act while America is distracted/divided.”

Just picking a fight with allies, in other words.

“The new American administration has a very different world view to ours, one that has no regard for established rules, partnership and grown trust,” German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier said at the conference Friday, prior to Vance’s comments.

“We have to accept that and we can deal with it. But I am convinced that it is not in the interests of the international community for this worldview to become the dominant paradigm,” said Steinmeier.

Well no, it’s not. It wasn’t in the Nazi period and it isn’t now.

It all goes back to the fallibility of the first person point of view.

It’s a lifelong struggle for everyone. Our wants are much clearer to us than everyone else’s wants, because we are the ones who have our wants, while it’s everyone else who has those other, much less vivid and urgent wants.

And by the same token we think much more highly of ourselves than of everyone else, because we know ourselves from the inside, while everyone else is…well, everyone else.

We learn about this struggle as we get older, and we try to correct for the personal point of view, when we feel like it, and when we know we’ll be arrested if we don’t.

It’s a survival mechanism though, so we hesitate to over-correct. We can perhaps justify selfishness as being good for the species if not necessarily for the less assertive members of the species.

At any rate, one of the things we spend a lifetime learning and re-learning and reminding ourselves of is the fallibility of the personal pov.

Except when we don’t. Except when we come up with a weird new ideology that claims the personal pov nullifies everyone else’s pov because it’s personal. Epistemology turned inside out and wearing a bright orange wig.

The fact that all human beings apart from one can see that Person1 is male is entirely beside the point when Person 1 insists he is not male.

Result: more and more people think like infants, and nobody knows how to do anything, and humans go extinct.

Trump the KGB agent:

Some leaders make history. Others have it thrust upon them when they fail to understand the moment. Donald Trump’s announcement that he has opened bilateral negotiations with Vladimir Putin over the future of Ukraine, which Putin invaded and where his armies have been accused of committing war crimes, is one such “moment”.

Keir Starmer must now decide whether he has what it takes to lead the country – or go down in history as an appeasement prime minister like Neville Chamberlain.

…

Chamberlain’s Munich Agreement traded a large chunk of Czechoslovakia for a commitment from Hitler that Germany’s imperial ambitions would end with the absorption of 3 million Czech citizens from the Sudetenland into the Reich. In 1938, the British prime minister was hoodwinked into believing that was a solemn written commitment from the fuhrer.

But Trump hasn’t been suckered by Putin. Trump is an enthusiastic collaborator with the Kremlin. Moments before he announced, on social media, that he had opened talks with Putin over the future of Ukraine, he acceded to most of Putin’s much-telegraphed demands.

In Brussels, Pete Hegseth, the US secretary of defence, said that Ukraine should give up on ever getting all of its territory back. He said that the US would never send troops there – not even as part of a peacekeeping mission – and that Ukraine can forget about joining Nato.

It’s worth repeating: those are all Putin’s demands. Ukraine will merely be kept informed, while Putin – the former head of the KGB – works out what to do with Ukraine in talks with a US president who is behaving as though he is an actual KGB agent.

After a Russian invasion of a European country, no KGB officer could have dreamt of sitting opposite a US president who had already threatened to colonise Nato-member Canada, or invade Greenland, which is part of Nato-member Denmark.

But here we are.

JKR nails it. Again.

It makes no difference how politely the person who wishes to compel my speech makes the request. The very making of the request tells me the man in question thinks he has the right to control my language, and thereby, to control me. He is asking me to acquiesce in a lie, to pretend, implicitly, that he and I are the same. It is an act of dominance, which is why the women discussing this with you keep using the word ‘demand’, as opposed to your preferred ‘request’.

In the current political climate, any request to use opposite sex pronouns when talking about a trans-identified man carries a threat. It is highly disingenuous to pretend you don’t know that many women and girls have been put through absolute hell over the past few years, either for refusing to pretend men can be women, or for hurting an individual trans-identified man’s vanity, even unintentionally.

I’m assuming that if someone put a gun to your head and told you to hand over all your money you wouldn’t much care how sweetly they’d asked. That’s where increasing numbers of women are on this issue. They’re sick of having a metaphorical gun held to their head, of the ever-present threat of being investigated, reported, harassed, sacked, defamed and dragged into court – simply because they won’t pretend men are women.

All you’ve been doing for the past two days is prove exactly how shallow your understanding is, not only of this issue, but of what women have already lost and endured. This makes your patronising ‘just be nice, ladies,’ lectures even more offensive.

Originally a comment by Steven on As they wish to be addressed.

There is a massive equivocation fallacy here.

We generally allow people to choose their own proper names. In our society, most people go by whatever name their parents gave them, but they can pick a different one if they like. As a practical matter, if someone introduces himself as “Fred”, I’m going to address him as “Fred”, and I’m not going to demand that he produce some document to prove that “Fred” is his “real” name.

Even when we happen to know that someone is going by a name other than their given or official or legal name, it is considered courteous–we generally extend the courtesy–of addressing them by the name that they announce. Perhaps the most commonplace example of this is someone who chooses to go by their middle name rather than their first.

Occasionally someone will claim some impractically long and grandiose name for themselves, and insist that everyone use it, but this is usually performative, and understood as such. (See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screaming_Lord_Sutch, also https://xkcd.com/327/)

Personal names in English are gendered, and trans people sometimes change their name to one that matches their announced gender rather than their biological sex. This can cause some confusion or awkwardness on initial introduction, but after a while most people find that they can roll with it, because–in the end–it’s just a name.

Pronouns are completely different. Pronouns are not like proper names. Pronouns are not arbitrary labels that people can choose. Pronouns are part of the language. No one owns or dictates or controls language (Académie Française notwithstanding). Language exists as a shared convention, embedded in the minds of all the people who use it.

Words mean what people think they mean. Really, they do. There is no other way to define or ascertain the meaning of words. When a man announces that he uses she/her pronouns, that neither makes him a woman nor changes the meaning of those pronouns to somehow encompass him. What it is is an implicit lie, coupled with a demand that everyone else participate in that lie with him.

Immediately, this breaks the language. It causes confusion and ambiguity as people contort their speech and their understanding to accommodate the lie.

But what these demands that people use the wrong pronouns really are are demands for submission. They are demands that everyone else do an absurd thing–and the absurdity is the point. If it were a reasonable demand, people might do it because it is reasonable. But it is absurd, and the only reason to do it is to demonstrate submission to the person making the demand. It is a kind of kowtowing.

We shouldn’t do it.

Very bad news.

Senate confirms RFK Jr. as Health and Human Services secretary

The Senate voted on Thursday to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Health and Human Services secretary, a victory for President Donald Trump after Kennedy faced intense scrutiny over his controversial views on vaccines and public health policy.

“Controversial” is a weasel word. They’re way more than controversial; they’re wack, they’re wrong, they’re harmful. First do no harm, unless it’s a Kennedy doing it.

He’s anti-vax and he lies about it.

During confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, Kennedy denied being anti-vaccine, telling senators instead that he is “pro-safety.” He went on to say, “I believe that vaccines play a critical role in health care.”

At one point, Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, asked Kennedy if he agrees that the evidence shows vaccines do not cause autism, citing dozens of studies. Kennedy began to say, “If you show me those studies, I will absolutely –,” at which point Sanders jumped in to say, “That is a very troubling response because the studies are there. Your job is to have looked at those studies as an applicant for this job.”

It’s not the first time Kennedy has said he’s not “anti-vaccine,” but as a CNN fact check from 2023 noted, despite those claims, Kennedy has been one of the country’s most prominent anti-vaccine activists and has for years used false and misleading claims to undermine public confidence in vaccines that are indeed safe.

Which is a strikingly wicked thing to do.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on As they wish to be addressed.

A matter of politeness, then, even if that requires one to indulge a certain fiction. Yet I also accept that it is easier for me — a man —to take this view, or grant this indulgence, since doing so comes at no cost to me whatsoever.

I would argue that there is a cost to anyone and everyone indulging in this fiction. It is a surrender to someone else’s rude, unreasonable, reality-denying demand. The power relationship isn’t what you think it is. You’re not deigning to play along, you’re following orders. That’s certainly how those making the demand see it. You might think it’s condescension, but it’s actually submission. Your compliance and submission with pronouns emboldens these men to demand more and more.* Your initial cooperation makes it harder for you to say “No” when the demands become even more unreasonable and obtrusive, particularly when those paying the price are people other than you. Just ask Sandie Peggie how that escalation plays out. I’ll bet it all started with Upton getting a rainbow lanyard with Her/She beside his name. Was that too much to ask? Turns out it was. But you don’t think so. You think it’s “reasonable.” Think again.

Your being a “good ally” to the man whose “certain fiction” you are indulging ends in real harm to women. Ask yourself why “[n]o one is seeking access to spaces previously reserved for men and reserved such for good reason.” If you can see the danger to women as being “at no cost to me whatsoever” I feel sorry for all of the women in your life, because they deserve -and need- better than you.

*There’s an on line, two-panel editorial cartoon I can never re-find when I need it. Panel one shows a woman agreeing to use a TiM’s preferred pronouns because it seems to be such a small thing to ask. Panel two shows the woman being bowled over by the torrent of additional demands the TiM imposes on her.

That’s the whole thing right there.

No no no no no no no. It is a fact that men are men. It’s so much a fact that it’s a tautology. It’s not a belief, it’s a fact. We’re not confused, you’re confused.

Alex Massie in the Times:

Let us consider pronouns for a moment. In general, I think it reasonable to address people as they wish to be addressed. Much of the time this will be of little consequence. A matter of politeness, then, even if that requires one to indulge a certain fiction. Yet I also accept that it is easier for me — a man —to take this view, or grant this indulgence, since doing so comes at no cost to me whatsoever. No one is seeking access to spaces previously reserved for men and reserved such for good reason.

Yes, that, but also, it’s not really something that comes up all that much, is it. Everybody says it all the time – “Just address people the way they ask” – but in real life people don’t ask. That’s not how it works. There can be uncertainties on introduction about whether to use first name or last name plus Mwhatever, which can get into further uncertainty about Ms or not Ms, but that’s pretty much all. It’s certainly not the case that people regularly ask or tell others to call them something fictional. Or it certainly was not the case that people did that until very recently. This bizarre new custom of demanding to be called something fictional is a brand new custom, and a very silly one.

Updating to add relevant cartoon cited by Your Name’s not Bruce and sent to me by Peter N.

Call the cops! This terrible woman here said this dainty trans woman is a man!

NHS staff considered calling in police to investigate a nurse who complained about having to share a changing room with a transgender doctor.

An employment tribunal heard that Dr Beth Upton and consultant Dr Kate Searle discussed reporting Sandie Peggie for potential criminality for “misgendering” on Christmas Eve 2023.

Ms Peggie, who has three decades of experience in the NHS, had challenged Dr Upton for being in female changing rooms, due to her belief that the medic is male and should not have been there.

No not her “belief” you damn fools: her awareness. It’s trans that’s the belief; being is just being.

The tribunal heard that Dr Upton ultimately decided against reporting Ms Peggie to Police Scotland due to uncertainty over whether a crime had been committed and a reluctance to become embroiled in a “labyrinthine” process.

But not at all, of course, due to any reluctance to fuck up Ms Peggie’s life.

The Washington Post tells a slightly different story about the words scientists are forbidden to use.

“Women.” “Diverse.” “Institutional.” “Historically.”

At the National Science Foundation, staff have been combing through thousands of active science research projects, alongside a list of keywords, to determine if they include activities that violate executive orders President Donald Trump issued in his first week in office. Those include orders to recognize only two genders and roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The search is driven by dozens of flagged words, according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post and two NSF employees…

…

Previously published health documents have been expunged from public-facing websites in the wake of a Jan. 29 memo from Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, that was sent to all agency leaders. The memo instructed agency forms to record only an individual’s sex and not gender identity.

…

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, staff were given a list of about 20 terms to guide decisions to remove or edit content on the website. Those words include: gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, biologically male, biologically female, he/she/they/them.

Part of what’s unclear here is who made this list and who gave it to staff. Is it a list from the Trump people or is it a list from CDC bosses?

Either way, frankly, “pregnant person” and “pregnant people” should be banished from medical content. Obfuscation should never be the goal.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NSF’s review. According to an internal document and people familiar with the review process, NSF staff must analyze the keywords within grants and determine whether they are in violation of an executive order, providing a justification if they determine they are not. For example, the word “accessibility” would be flagged if it is used in the context of DEI, but is not if it is about data accessibility, the document explains. An internal email sent as an update clarifies some “edge cases,” including that the socioeconomic status of individuals is “implicated” in the executive order, but rural communities are part of geographic diversity and are not.

This is all so vague and passive voice and agent-avoiding. “would be flagged” BY WHOM? An internal email FROM WHOM? I can’t tell. It’s not clear whether it’s Trump’s goons or the managers at the NSF.

Trump has ordered scientists to stop using the word “women.”

The word “men” is still allowed.

UC San Diego scientists say they’re still in “stop and start chaos” despite a recent pullback on a federal funding freeze. Researchers say their work is now at risk if it contains language deemed problematic by the White House, including the word “women.“

In his first week in office, President Donald Trump issued executive orders rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Now staff at the National Science Foundation are scouring thousands of research projects for dozens of words that could violate those orders. The agency already notified scientists to halt work that doesn’t adhere to Trump’s directives.

The list of banned words circulating at the National Science Foundation and science circles across the country includes: women, disability, bias, status, trauma, Black, Hispanic communities, as well as socioeconomic, ethnicity and systemic.

So…scientists can still do research on men, but not on women? And nobody in charge saw a problem with that?

H/t Piglet

Journalism: STOP DOING THIS.

Hampshire woman appears in court charged with raping girl

Wilson, wearing a pink headband and all-black clothing, spoke only to confirm her preferred pronouns of ‘she/her’ when asked by the court’s legal advisor.

READ MORE: Former teacher accused of rape appears in court

Wilson faces a charge of sexual assault against a boy under 13 and causing or inciting a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity.

A WOMAN charged with rape and sexual assault against children has appeared in court.

Despite ALL CAPS we can see he’s not A WOMAN.

Maddison Wilson, 37, who identifies as a woman, made her first appearance at Southampton Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday in a five-minute hearing.

He can identify as a pissoir if he wants to, but that doesn’t mean he is one. He’s not a woman, either.

Wilson, wearing a pink headband and all-black clothing, spoke only to confirm her preferred pronouns of ‘she/her’ when asked by the court’s legal advisor.

Wilson faces a charge of sexual assault against a boy under 13 and causing or inciting a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity.

Here’s an idea: how about not asking men accused of rape what their fucking preferred pronouns are.

Dumb and dumber.

A Republican Congressman from Georgia has introduced a bill to the House of Representatives that would give a new name to Greenland as President Donald Trump continues his efforts to purchase the island.

Named the “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025,” the bill, introduced by Rep. Earl “Buddy” Carter, seeks to rename the island from Greenland to a more colorful Red, White and Blueland. 

The act would direct the new Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to oversee the change and implement it on official documentation and maps to refer to Greenland by the updated name.

Let’s simplify this. Just rename every country with a nice simple easy to pronounce white person type name. France could be Sally, Russia could be Jim, China could be Kathy, Brazil could be Joe.

Smaller countries could have pet names, so as not to use up all the names too fast. Belgium could be Spot, Ireland could be Mittens, Iceland could be Snoopy.

H/t Mosnae

Are words magic? Or no?

On Tuesday the White House broke with decades of precedent and blocked Associated Press reporters from attending two of President Trump’s media availabilities. The AP said it was blocked because it hasn’t changed its stylebook entry for Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America.”

The newswire’s executive editor, Julie Pace, immediately condemned the action. And in a followup letter on Wednesday to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, she signaled a likely legal challenge.

The actions “were plainly intended to punish the AP for the content of its speech,” Pace wrote, adding that “the AP is prepared to vigorously defend its constitutional rights and protest the infringement on the public’s right to independent news coverage of their government and elected officials.”

At Wednesday afternoon’s briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested the ban may remain in place.

Leavitt confirmed that the dispute is over a body of water. “It is a fact that it is now the Gulf of America,” she said.

Ahhhhhhh no it isn’t. That’s where you go so very wrong. It also, by the way, wasn’t a fact that it was the Gulf of Mexico.

The fact would be something like: the official name of this body of water is, in English, the Gulf of Mexico. The new fact would be the same but with the final word changed from “Mexico” to “America.” There are no facts about what the body of water’s name actually is, because names for bodies of water and mountain ranges and planets are human inventions rather than facts.

This does not change just because it’s Trump who says the new name is Gulf of America.

Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on All your words are wrong.

I think one of the big problems we have as a global society, is this idea of “basic respect” minus the idea of “basic respectability”.

You see it with the Republicans in America. They’re not respectable people.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing inherently disrespectable about being poor, about going through rough times or anything like that. What is disrespectable is – relying on federal aid and then voting to take it away from other people.

This is why the leopards have been feasting, the Republicans who are now crying about how their funding has been cut – knew it was going to happen, they just didn’t expect it to happen to them. That’s not respectable.

Similarly, the whole trans debate – it is a demand to respect something that just isn’t respectable. Strip it down to its core, and we just don’t believe what the trans are saying is true.

Demanding people say things that they don’t believe are true for your personal comfort is not respectable. Threatening to commit suicide if they don’t, is not respectable. Trying to silence any and all debate against what you say is not respectable. Throwing temper tantrums like a toddler when people don’t comply is not respectable.

So why should we respect it?

This guy…

[NC is Naomi Cunningham, the barrister representing Sandie Peggie; DU is Upton]

“Real safety” ffs – he’s a man, intruding on the women’s changing room, claiming to seek “safety” from a woman who doesn’t want a man in the women’s changing room.

“Why would I make it up?” he says – oh I don’t know, maybe for the same reason you made up being a woman? Because you make shit up???

Hey dude how about YOU treating colleagues with respect? By not invading their changing rooms for a start?

What an unbelievable shit this guy is.

Also Naomi Cunningham is a rock star.

Former Fox News personality says Ukraine just has to submit.

Donald Trump’s newly appointed defence secretary told allies on his first international trip that the US was no longer “primarily focused” on European security and that Europe would have to take the lead in defending Ukraine.

Pete Hegseth, speaking to defence ministers at a lunchtime meeting in Brussels, said Europe had to provide “the overwhelming share” of future military aid to Kyiv – and recognise that restoring Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders was unrealistic.

The Pentagon chief said he was “here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe”, though the language was notably toned down from a draft briefed in advance to the press.

This is a tv personality, remember, not someone with decades of experience relevant to being a top government official.

He also reiterated Trump’s position that “stopping the fighting and reaching an enduring peace” in Ukraine is a top priority – and that Kyiv must recognise that it cannot win back all the land occupied by Russia.

“We must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective,” Hegseth said, sketching out an initial position for any peace negotiations with Russia.

“Chasing this illusory goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering,” he added, though this could be interpreted as effectively acknowledging the annexation of Crimea, and large parts of the Donbas by Russia.

This could be interpreted as effectively handing Crimea and large parts of the Donbas to Russia on a plate.

The winnowing continues.

The next stage of the Trump administration’s efforts to slash the federal workforce is underway.

Agency leaders have been told to begin preparations for large-scale layoffs, known as reductions in force, or RIFs, under an executive order President Donald Trump signed Tuesday. They will work with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to carry out the mandate, expanding the role of the billionaire’s team in reshaping federal government operations.

Titled “Implementing The President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative,” the executive order also severely limits federal departments’ ability to bring on more staffers and mandates that agency heads closely coordinate with their DOGE representatives on future hiring plans. Once the hiring freeze that Trump put in place is lifted, agencies will only be allowed to replace one of every four employees who leave and hiring will be restricted to the highest-need areas.

Yay. A week or two more and it will be as if the New Deal had never happened.

The order specifies that the reductions would not apply to public safety, immigration enforcement or law enforcement.

You know – the stuff that matters. Frivolous crap like public health, education, weather, national parks, the environment, labor, global warming, poverty, opportunity, disaster relief, and the like can just die off. Enjoy the ride.

The BBC repeats the lie yet again.

A transgender doctor is “only asking for basic respect” when it comes to having their gender identity accepted, an NHS employment tribunal has heard.

But it isn’t “basic respect” he’s demanding. It isn’t “basic respect” to pretend a man is a woman. It’s way beyond basic, and it’s not actually respect.

How about we start demanding some basic respect? Step one would be to tell these bullies to stop ordering us to pretend they are the opposite sex. We all have our own lives and concerns and goals, and we’re fed up to the back teeth with being told to waste a ton of intellectual energy on entitled brats who want us to devote a lot of our attention to them. No can do, children. We don’t know you and we don’t want to know you, and we sure as hell don’t want to jump just because you tell us to jump.

Dr Beth Upton also repeatedly insisted on being a woman after being called a man by lawyers during cross-examination.

You mean he insisted that he is a woman, or you mean he insisted on being called a woman. A man’s insisting on being a woman is just futility.