Surprise surprise – Julian Assange and Donald Trump have things in common – and not just the predilection for sexual assault.

Julian Assange isn’t a Russia spy, but he is taking revenge on Hillary Clinton, and “if an anonymous or pseudonymous group came offering anti-Clinton leaks, they’d have found a host happy not to ask too many awkward questions,” James Ball, who worked with WikiLeaks when it made its biggest splash, in 2010, writes at BuzzFeed News.

Anti-Clinton animus isn’t the only thing driving Assange in 2016, after four years of self-imposed exile in a tiny apartment in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, Ball writes: Assange thinks himself “the equal of a world leader,” and the leak of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails “is his shot at reclaiming the world stage, and settling a score with Hillary Clinton as he does so.” Yes, Donald Trump, the main beneficiary of this hack, is now praising WikiLeaks, as are many of his supporters, while Assange has lost many fans on the liberal left, Ball says, but “neither Assange nor WikiLeaks (and the two are virtually one and the same thing) have changed — the world they operate in has.”

I’ve never admired Assange.

Trump and Assange have quite a bit in common, Ball says: Like Trump, “Assange is a gifted public speaker with a talent for playing the media, struggling with an inability to scale up and professionalize his operation, to take advice, a man whose mission was often left on a backburner in his efforts to demonize his opponents.” Neither seems bothered by Russia’s authoritarianism. And then there’s Trump and Assange’s insistence on getting everyone to sign nondisclosure agreements — the thing Ball says led to his estrangement with Assange:

Those working at WikiLeaks — a radical transparency organization based on the idea that all power must be accountable — were asked to sign a sweeping nondisclosure agreement covering all conversations, conduct, and material, with Assange having sole power over disclosure. The penalty for noncompliance was £12 million. I refused to sign the document, which was sprung on me on what was supposed to be a short trip to a country house used by WikiLeaks…Given how remote the house was, there was no prospect of leaving. I stayed the night, only to be woken very early by Assange, sitting on my bed, prodding me in the face with a stuffed giraffe, immediately once again pressuring me to sign. It was two hours later before I could get Assange off the bed.

The stuffed giraffe is a nice touch.

When beliefs about “gender” topple into full-on woo bullshit.

It’s a reply to a comment at the Huffington Post (which provides a link to the comment but not the reply, go figure):

Vanessa Sheridan ·

Director of Transgender Relations and Community Engagement at Center on Halsted

With respect, I would suggest that how the world relates to you has nothing to do with your femininity. Femininity comes from within, not from without. How others may or may not perceive you has nothing to do with your innate, invisible gender identity. That identity is self-determined (at least in an emotionally healthy person), and external forces are simply that: external and, for the most part, extraneous. Oh, it’s nice when other people validate and affirm your femininity, to be sure, but other people don’t deserve to be allowed to determine it for you. Your femininity is a direct result of an innate and very personal awareness. The influence of others in this regard is only relevant to the degree that you permit it to be. Speaking only for myself, no one but me gets to determine the extent of my femininity. What other people think about it is irrelevant–because it’s my life, my body, and my identity, not theirs.

No. That’s completely wrong. It’s nonsensical.

How the world relates to you has everything to do with your gender, because gender is social. It’s not a magical inner feeling, it’s the hierarchy that frames women as subordinate to men. There is no such thing as “innate, invisible gender identity” – you might as well talk about fairies and goblins. Gender is not self-determined, because it is, again, social. It’s imposed. It would be lovely to be able to say the imposition is external and therefore extraneous and have it be true, but it isn’t true: women are socially constructed as the subordinate inferior sex, and that’s why we’re still arguing about it after all this time.

This is the politics of idiots, in the Greek sense – a private person who lacked the skills to participate in public life aka politics – the affairs of the polis. Claiming that gender is just a thought in the gender-haver’s head, independent of other people, is idiotic in that solipsistic way.

Rebecca Solnit shared a discouraging story of random misogynist aggression from Mary Diaz:

Driving through the back roads this morning I was enjoying the energy of this pack of road bikers in front of me taking up 2/3 of the lane. Until one of them yelled into my open window “You fucking stupid cunt!” I was driving slow as I passed on the left and there were at least 30 men in this group – wasn’t sure how to navigate around them so I’d slowed down as I passed. A mile or so later I pulled over when I realized his comment had left me shaking. Then there they were pulled up across the street stopping for a break…

So she went over to talk to the leader about the random misogynist aggression.

The pack leader interjected “aww come on hon…don’t get emotional…didn’t mean anything by it… just a bunch of guys…all worked up on adrenaline….wasn’t personal…” And there it was my anger and it was clear and sharp. I pointed at him and said “YOU do not call me ‘hon.’ YOU do not tell me not to be emotional. You think you’re allowed to get emotional and verbally assault a stranger and then deny them the right to react?” He stammered dumbly but I kept going not quite as shaky “Whoever said that…you hurt me. I want you to know that your words had an impact.” I felt completely ridiculous right then but he tried once again muttering about guys and their egos and getting caught up in the intensity (of the ride)…competition and anyway it was just a joke…

Nope, calling a woman “You fucking stupid cunt!” out of the blue is not a joke. Between friends it could be, but between total strangers passing on a road it could not. She told him that and some more and went back to her car.

As I pulled out one of the men peddled up grabbing my open window and looked me all the way in the eyes. “It was me…who said it. I’m sorry. Thank you for slowing down…I get worked up sometimes. I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.” And he was. So I said thank you awkwardly and drove away.

What I find so discouraging about that is the utter randomness and lack of motivation. People on my wall are saying he was angry, but that’s not in the story – they’re reading it in. In the story he simply shouted it at her for no reason. Maybe he was tired and hitting a wall, so he called a random passing woman a fucking stupid cunt. Or maybe it was something else in his head, but whatever it was is not in the story. All we have in the story is a man exploding with misogynist loathing at a total stranger for no reason. That kind of thing makes me think we’re all doomed. Melting glaciers, and misogyny that will never die.

The WHO has a new plan.

Single men and women without medical issues will be classed as “infertile” if they do not have children but want to become a parent, the World Health Organisation is to announce.

In a move which dramatically changes the definition of infertility, the WHO will declare that it should no longer be regarded as simply a medical condition.

Why not just call them unwillingly childless or similar, instead of hijacking a perfectly good word that means something different?

Because hijacking the existing word will create a new right.

The authors of the new global standards said the revised definition gave every individual “the right to reproduce”.

Oh yes? Sounds like a rapists’ charter, to me.

Until now, the WHO’s definition of infertility – which it classes as a disability – has been the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex.

But the new standard suggests that the inability to find a suitable sexual partner – or the lack of sexual relationships which could achieve conception – could be considered an equal disability.

If men have a right to reproduce, that implies that women have an obligation to do the actual reproducing for them, whether they want to or not.

Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, said: “The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.

“It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should  have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard.  Countries are bound by it.”

This is a very bad idea. It ignores the drastic asymmetry – that reproduction requires the very physically demanding work of gestation and birth from a woman’s body. If men have a “right” to that then they have the right to force women to do that work. That’s not a good idea. The fact that women get pregnant is one of the roots of, or pretexts for, their subordination. If men now have a “right” to reproduce, that just subordinates women further.

Don’t go thinking Canada is perfect.

The Federal Standing Committee on Finance heard from a variety of speakers about economic disparities, including gender inequality, Tuesday in Charlottetown.

The only problem? The committee didn’t have any female members present.

Because women are such a tiny minority that such a committee can’t possibly be expected to represent them?

Jenny Wright, executive director of the St. John’s Status of Women Council, posted a tweet Tuesday highlighting the irony of the fact that she was about to speak in front of an all-male government panel about income inequality for women.

https://twitter.com/JenEWright/status/788364286854729732

Nine members; nine men. Marvelous, isn’t it?

“Any standing committee like this needs to go for gender parity,” Wright told Yahoo Canada News after the presentation, adding the diversity of presentations called for a diversity of panelists. 

Other speakers included representatives for not just groups like hers but also small businesses and provincial governments, she said.

She addressed the committee members about the importance of using gender analysis tools when creating budgets, she said, and the need to include measures like national childcare programs and a national minimum wage in order to reduce gender wage disparity.

“I was urging them to listen to the World Health Organization and other organizations who have been calling on all governments to use gender assessment tools when they’re putting together budgets,” Wright said. She was disappointed that none of the panel members had any follow-up questions or comments on the matter when given the chance to respond.

That’s ok. They can speak for women.

The committee met on Persons Day, which celebrates the 1929 court decision that legally defined women as persons under law. It’s also one day after an Oxfam report highlighted the income inequality women still experience in Canada and around the world.

It’s astonishing, isn’t it? Less than a century ago, women were not persons under law. Women were like dogs and cats, pots and pans, goods and chattels. Stuff that men owned.

Other organizations and governments have provided frameworks that can be used by our government to implement budgetary measures that can help reduce these disparities, Wright said.

“The policies have to ensure that women are less reliant on services and contributing more to the economy,” she said. 

“What I got from that committee was absolute crickets. It was really frustrating to see that they couldn’t find a question for how economic policy relates to half the population.”

Half, yes, but the half that doesn’t count.

Meghan Murphy says why she will no longer write for Rabble.ca.

This has been a long time coming for a number of reasons, but I chose to stay on in the past because I knew that if I left, never again would we see an abolitionist or radical feminist voice or analysis there, and I felt it important to ensure a feminist analysis existed in a space that claims to be a progressive and leftist one.

Recently, I felt I had no choice but to draw a line due to a decision made by a number of editors to publish, then remove (about seven hours after publication), a piece I wrote that was critical of the dehumanizing language Planned Parenthood has adopted to discuss women, reproductive rights, and women’s reproductive capacities.

Women’s rights exist because women are discriminated [against] on the basis of sex — because they are the only people on the planet who can get pregnant. Erasing that reality poses a serious risk to hard-fought-for protections women have and to our ability to claim discrimination on a legal basis.

After my piece was removed from the site, I waited for an editor to contact me to explain, 1) That this had happened, and 2) Why this had happened. No one contacted me, so I emailed the then-news editor (who had removed the piece) and the blogs editor, asking what was going on. The editor who removed the piece never responded to my query or accounted for her decision/actions, instead, the male blogs editor responded to me saying only, “Your article was removed because it contained transphobic language and violated our journalistic policy.” I responded, asking what specific “transphobic language” was contained in the article. I looked over the journalistic policy numerous times (and was, of course, already familiar with it) to see if something had changed within it, but could not find anything that defined any of the the language used in my article as “transphobic.” My follow up question was ignored by both the news editor and the blogs editor. To date, I have not heard from a single editor at rabble about this issue or my question.

I find that horrifying, but unpleasantly familiar.

This is censorship. As far as journalistic ethics go, editors should not remove already published pieces unless there is a libel or legal issue. Beyond that, many feminists and many progressives find various aspects of the current/popular discourse around “gender identity” troubling for numerous reasons. These debates should be heard, not silenced.

Historical revisionism and baseless accusations of “phobia” (which, in the current context of this debate, is a term equated with some form of “bigotry”) have no place on the left or in our so-called progressive, self-proclaimed “feminist” publications. Women are allowed to speak about their own realities and oppression. It is not our job to accommodate men in our movement, nor is it our job to validate the chosen “identities” of a few individuals.

It’s especially not  our job to validate the chosen “identities” of a few individuals at a time when the meaning of the word is so unsettled and contested and just plain incoherent. People like to say “anyone can identify however they choose” but that’s not actually true, unless by “identify” we mean just “think of inside one’s own head.” Sure, internally, we can all “identify” i.e. fantasize any way we like. Inside our heads we can be Elizabeth Tudor one minute and a fighter pilot the next. But can we “identify” any old way we like in the external world? No. Crossing borders we can’t do that, showing photo ID in various situations we can’t do that, on the job we can’t do that – and so on. I can identify as French inside my head if I like, but if I try it outside my head my French will be way too halting and clumsy to fool anyone. Donald Trump can identify as presidential, and many people will validate his identity, but more people won’t. External identity is social, and it just is not true that we all have to validate any and every identity other people might choose. It’s not even close to true.

I hope my decision to push back and to speak out publicly about this will lead rabble and other progressives/progressive organizations/media outlets to consider what they want political debate to look like. Perhaps nothing will change. Either way, I consider this response to and treatment of my work to be unacceptable and unethical and I will not stand idly by while women are erased, while feminist activism and theory is silenced and marginalized, and while history is rewritten in order to avoid offending a small minority of people and to avoid controversy.

The so-called left is failing badly when it comes to critical thought and analysis, but also when it comes to upholding principles and ethics that are imperative to ensuring political discourse is rigorous, honest, and rooted in a genuine desire to create a better, more equitable society, free from violence and oppression. I will not stand by and watch censorship and silencing replace critical thought and while women — the group of people who remain at the bottom of the social hierarchy, raped and beaten and murdered daily by men — are made to shut up about their own oppression and the source of that oppression.

My politics and work have never been determined by what makes others feel comfortable. Liars and cowards are aplenty. And if that’s who the left wants speaking for them, we are destined for failure.

The feminist movement has never shied away from speaking the truth, and we are not about to start now.

It’s so interesting, in a sickening way, that women are the one subordinated group that the left is willing to throw under the bus.

Another Savita Halappanavar, this time in Italy.

Italian prosecutors have begun an inquiry into the death after a miscarriage of a woman of 32 who was pregnant with twins.

The family of Valentina Milluzzo said the doctor treating her refused to abort the foetuses because he was a “conscientious objector” to abortion.

The hospital involved has categorically rejected the family’s claims.

…

Milluzzo was admitted to Cannizzaro hospital in the Sicilian city of Catania on 29 September after suffering complications and going into premature labour in her 19th week of pregnancy. She had had fertility treatment at another health centre.

She was in a stable condition in hospital for more than a fortnight but on 15 October her blood pressure and temperature dropped and her condition worsened.

According to the family’s lawyer, one of the foetuses was suffering breathing problems. The lawyer alleges that the gynaecologist refused to abort the foetuses in order to save the mother and said: “As long as it’s alive, I will not intervene.”

No action was taken while the troubled foetus was still alive and hours later both had died, the lawyer said.

Overnight, the mother’s condition deteriorated and she contracted an infection. On 16 October she was transferred to intensive care, where she died.

Apparently all the doctors in that hospital refuse to perform abortions.

A senior doctor at the hospital, Paolo Scollo, told the Corriere website that all the doctors in his department were “objectors”, and external doctors were called in when necessary. “However, in this case we’re talking about a spontaneous miscarriage, no external help was needed. So we do not think the doctor was negligent,” he said.

But sometimes a miscarriage does need external help – as in the case of Savita Halappanavar, for instance.

70% of doctors in Italy refuse to perform abortions.

Yesterday’s treat, by way of surreal punctuation to the three nausea-inducing debates, was a “traditional” event that “traditionally” features lashings of “good-natured” jokes between rival presidential candidates. Groan. Must we? Must we have things like the White House reporters’ dinner and the Al Smith dinner and “roasts”? The whole thing is excruciating. Last night’s was of course especially excruciating. (I’ve never seen an Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner before, and I’m glad I haven’t. Not the least of the horrors of this one was the prominence of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the guy who complained about the New York Times’s reporting on the Catholic church’s enabling of child-raping priests. Dolan protected the child-raping priests for decades.)

It was tense even before they started. Reporters tweeted that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump entered the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner from separate sides of the room, and didn’t even shake hands (which at this point really isn’t a surprise).

But there was hope that Thursday night’s event could serve as a comedic salve for the nation following three decidedly nasty presidential debates. The fundraising event for Catholic charities — now in its 71st year — traditionally is a time for the candidates to offer jokes about themselves and their opponent.

Oh don’t be so silly. Why do they have to go through some absurd joke-swapping ceremony? This isn’t a damn game show.

The Times seems to find it uncomfortable too:

By the end, facing cascading and uncomfortable jeers from a crowd full of white ties and gowns, he had called Hillary Clinton Catholic-hating, “so corrupt” and potentially jail-bound in a prospective Trump administration.

“I don’t know who they’re angry at, Hillary, you or I,” Mr. Trump said sheepishly from the dais, turning to his opponent amid the heckling.

It seemed clear to everyone else. Mr. Trump was being booed at a charity dinner.

So it went at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in Manhattan, a presidential campaign ritual of levity and feigned warmth — upended, like so much else in this election season, by the gale-force bid of Mr. Trump.

Breaking with decades of tradition at the gathering once he took the microphone, Mr. Trump set off on a blistering, grievance-filled performance that translated poorly to the staid setting, stunning many of the well-heeled guests who had filed into the Waldorf Astoria hotel for an uncommon spectacle: an attempted détente in a campaign so caustic that the candidates, less than 24 hours earlier, declined to shake hands on a debate stage.

It’s a gruesome idea, isn’t it. It looks like telling the electorate, sitting out there in OrdinaryPeopleLand, that the whole thing is a fake set up by the rich people attending the dinner.

Trump produced some “jokes” at first, but then – entirely predictably – recycled his familiar bullshit.

Mr. Trump said Mrs. Clinton was merely “pretending not to hate Catholics,” an allusion to hacked correspondences from Clinton aides that appeared to include messages criticizing Roman Catholic conservatism.

He wondered aloud how someone like Mrs. Clinton — “so corrupt,” he said — could sell herself to the American people. “What’s her pitch?” he asked. “The economy is busted, the government’s corrupt, Washington is failing. Vote for me.”

He fake-griped that “all the jokes were given to her in advance.”

By then, he had decisively lost the room. Those on the dais with him seemed to almost visibly writhe away from him at points — brows furrowing, smiles turning to grimaces. One man beside Mr. Trump became a viral sensation on social media, his face frozen and eye bulged by a quip gone awry.

There was at least one joke that got nothing but loud boos.

Traditions are weird.