Via the Sydney Morning Herald:

A lesbian community organisation will be forced to keep its events open to men, straight women and transgender women after the Australian Human Rights Commission refused to grant it an exemption from anti-discrimination laws.

The AHRC’s decision prohibits the group from staging a planned “Lesbians Born Female” event to commemorate International Lesbian Day. It also challenges traditional notions of sex as a biological concept as the commission concluded that sex is non-binary and changeable.

Ok Australian Human Rights Commission, let’s see all of you change your sexes. Go on, show us how it’s done.

“The commissioner submits that the word ‘sex’ is not a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits,” the AHRC said in its decision. “Nor is it a binary concept, limited to the ‘male’ or ‘female’ sex.”

But…it is. That is what it refers to.

It’s like on a farm. A cow (female sex) gives birth to a calf. The calf is either female or male. Same with horses, sheep, goats, donkeys, chickens, ducks – every farm animal you can think of. Same with animals you don’t see on farms – tigers, giraffes, elephants, kangaroos.

“‘Sex’ can refer to a person being male, female or another non-binary state. It is also broad enough to encompass the idea that a person’s ‘sex’ can be changed.”

No it isn’t. What are they smoking?

The verdict was welcomed by Equality Australia chief executive Anna Brown, who said if the application had been successful, already marginalised and vulnerable trans people would have been further excluded.

Well hey guess what, they could set up their own god damn community organization. They could set it up and exclude lesbians because it’s for trans people. They could have their own commorg and lesbians could have theirs.

I wonder if gay men in Australia are being told they can’t exclude trans men.

Carole Ann, a spokeswoman for the Lesbian Action Group, which submitted the application, said the AHRC’s stance “obliterated” biological reality. “It wasn’t unexpected, but it is still disgraceful,” she said. “It basically puts us back in the closet if we want to have any events for lesbians who were born female.”

Ann is due to speak in state parliament on Tuesday alongside former Liberal MP Moira Deeming, University of Melbourne academic Holly Lawford-Smith, and other prominent women campaigning for sex-based rights.

The AHRC’s ruling is based on changes made to the Sex Discrimination Act 10 years ago. Under the changes, sexual orientation and gender identity were included as protected attributes, the definitions of a man and a woman were repealed from the legislation, and references to the “opposite sex” were replaced with “different sex”.

Sure that’s how all this works – you just repeal the definitions of a man and a woman, and then no one is either any more. Change the words and you change the thing. Magic!

The commission said the changes to the act made it clear that for the purposes of state and federal law, sex was no longer fixed or binary.

And therefore women just can’t have any rights. Boom; done.

Brown said the intention of the new law was clear. “The Sex Discrimination Act was amended in 2013 to protect LGBTIQ+ people and explicitly protects trans women and non-binary people from unfair treatment,” she said.

But the “treatment” is not “unfair.” It’s not unfair to know that men are not women. It’s not unfair for women to avoid men in some circumstances.

The AHRC, which received 236 submissions for and against the application, said it was swayed by a submission that argued it was not appropriate or necessary to exclude trans, bisexual or queer women to allow lesbians to celebrate their culture.

The commission warned that granting an exemption could lead to further exclusion of, and discrimination against, trans women who are lesbians.

No trans women are lesbians, because trans women are men.

Baby talk. We’re stuck in baby talk, apparently forever.

Lying seems to be an occupational hazard of trans ideology. Not that being a trans ideologue is a real occupation, but it might as well be.

Of course Bell doesn’t oppose “care for trans kids.”

If your ideology causes you to tell lies like this in public, get rid of your ideology. It’s poison.

Originally a comment by KBPlayer on No No No.

My corporate lawyers employers really value getting inclusive awards and they sent us 10 commandments for Happy Pronoun Day.

Only about 4-5% of employees put pronouns in their signatures. The pronouns are in fact what you would expect – he for the blokes, she for the women, and nothing like they or zi. Annoyingly, this does include some colleagues that I like. No-one ever talks about it though, not in my hearing anyway.

The 10 commandments:-

1. Normalise pronoun sharing – this is to make an inclusive atmosphere, where everyone is comfortable expressing their gender identity. [And those who don’t believe in this feeling pretty damned uncomfortable. Everyone should genuflect so the Catholics feel comfy.]

2. Respect how others choose to identify. [I’d like to see a trainee identify as an Associate or a Partner, and what respect they would get.]

3. Avoid assumptions. Unintentional misgendering can be hurtful and alienating. [Well I wasn’t much hurt when the woman at the laundrette called me Sir when I phoned to ask how much to clean a duvet. That’s my baritone voice for you. I was more hurt by the cost of cleaning a down duvet, not to mention heaving it to the laundrette.]

4. Demonstrates serious professionalism – shows that you are aware and sensitive to the needs of a diverse workforce and our clients. [See point 1.]

5. Foster trust and relationships [See point 1]

6. Encourages open communication [See point 1]

7. Saves time and reduces awkwardness [See point 1]

8. Promotes learning and awareness. Seeing pronouns in email signatures can prompt others to learn more about gender diversity and pronoun usage. It encourages education and fosters greater awareness about the experiences of transgender and non-binary individuals. [Hmmm I’d be a bit careful there. “Gender awareness” can have the opposite effect, that the aware become highly hostile to this enforced bullshit.]

9. Reflects personal values: Seeing pronouns in email signatures can prompt others to learn more about gender diversity and pronoun usage. [See point 8]

10. Affirms support for the LGBTQ+ community: Displaying your pronouns shows solidarity with the LGBTQ+ community. It sends a clear message that you are an ally and advocate for inclusivity and acceptance. [I choose my own allies and advocacy thanks].

Once more unto the breach dear friends – we will square the circle, we will we will we will.

A ‘balance between fairness and inclusion’: USA Cycling unveils new Transgender Athlete Participation Policy

Raises hand

Excuse me excuse me this is competitive sports you’re talking about. It can’t be “inclusive” at all times because of the competitive bit. The whole point of competition is to exclude everyone but the winner. Inclusion isn’t the goal.

Also, of course, what they mean by “a balance between fairness and inclusion” is inclusion of men who pretend to be women at the expense of women. You can’t “balance” that. You might as well try to balance a piano on your finger.

As of 17 July 2023, all transgender women who have transitioned after puberty are banned from competing in the women’s category at UCI-sanctioned events.

For non-UCI-sanctioned events, USA Cycling has devised a two-tiered system aimed at striking a balance between fairness and inclusivity in the sport.

That is, a balance between fairness to women and inclusivity of men in the women’s category in the sport. Put like that it doesn’t sound quite so fair and balancey, does it.

“The revision of our Transgender Participation Policy was a complex process guided by several factors. Foremost was the direction of our Board of Directors, who asked us to prioritize the balance between fairness and inclusion,” states USA Cycling CEO Brendan Quirk.

The Board of Directors asked them to prioritize the balance between fairness to women and inclusion of men, in other words it asked them to do the impossible.

Wait, what???

“Those who work in the field know there is a tendency for convicted sex offenders to claim they are trans women”?????? How can “he” say that?! It’s illegal and evil to say that anyone is lying about being a trans woman.

“But they are rarely trans women” he says. Blasphemer!!!

Maxim Australia Names Trans-Identified Male Football Coach In “Hottest 100 Women” List

A transgender former football champion has made the Maxim Australia’s Hot 100 list for the second year in a row, prompting confusion amongst Aussie netizens. The list, intended to highlight the most successful and beautiful women in entertainment, sports, and pop culture, ranked Danielle Laidley in 92nd place.

Laidley is a former star coach who played for the West Coast Eagles and North Melbourne in the Australian Football League from 1987 to 1997. He “officially” announced his transition in 2020, shocking many fans with his dramatic transformation from “Dean” to “Dani.”

Dean:

But wait, it gets better.

Laidley, who is over 6-feet tall, was arrested in May 2020 for stalking a woman after bombarding the victim, a former tenant, with over 100 menacing phone calls, emails and text messages.

”I am going to ram you with the car when you leave,” Laidley reportedly said to the woman, calling her a “slut” and a “cunt.” When police arrived, Laidley was wearing a dress, makeup, and a blond wig. A plastic bag containing 0.43g of methamphetamine crystals was found tucked into his bra.

During the trial, Laidley’s lawyer blamed his behavior on “gender dysphoria.”

Well there you go. Men who have “gender dysphoria” take it out on women, therefore, let’s hug them and pamper them and tell them how glorious and oppressed and lovable they are.

Laidley’s inclusion on Maxim Australia‘s Hot 100 list prompted discussion on social media after lawyer and commentator Katherine Deves called attention to it on X (formerly Twitter).

“Fucking hell. The level of piss taking with this is of epic proportions,” one user responded to Deves.

“Seriously? Is stalking women ok if you’re a man in a dress,” another asked.

Yes, yes it is. Gender dysphoria excuses everything.

H/t Rev David Brindley

Sidney Powell has pleaded guilty.

Sidney K. Powell, a member of Donald J. Trump’s legal team after he lost the 2020 election, pleaded guilty on Thursday morning to six misdemeanor counts instead of facing a criminal trial that was to begin next week. She was among 19 defendants, including Mr. Trump, who were indicted in August for their efforts to subvert the election results in Georgia.

Ms. Powell, 68, who appeared in a downtown Atlanta courtroom, was sentenced to six years of probation for conspiracy to commit intentional interference of election duties. That is a significantly less-severe outcome than she would have faced if found guilty of the charges for which she was originally indicted, which included a violation of the state racketeering law.

And she has to pay some fines and apologize to the people of Georgian and blah blah but also – also – also – she has agreed to testify.

Prosecutors said in court that Ms. Powell had given them a recorded statement on Wednesday as part of her plea deal. She has agreed to testify against any of the 17 remaining defendants. Ms. Powell has also agreed to turn over documents in her possession related to the case.

Gee, I wonder whose guts have turned to water today.

The guilty plea was a blow to Mr. Trump, who faces the most charges of any defendant along with Rudolph W. Giuliani, his former personal lawyer. Both men face 13 counts. Significantly, it means that a member of the Trump legal team will cooperate with the prosecution as it pursues criminal convictions related to efforts to keep the former president in power after he lost the 2020 election.

Why yes, that does seem significant.

Few defenders of Mr. Trump promoted election fraud theories after his 2020 defeat to Joseph R. Biden Jr. as stridently as Ms. Powell. In high-profile appearances, often alongside other members of the Trump legal team, she pushed conspiracies involving Venezuela, Cuba and China, as well as George Soros, Hugo Chávez and the Clintons, while baselessly claiming that voting machines had flipped millions of votes.

So, morally speaking, she shouldn’t get off so lightly, but then again, if she cuts Trump loose it’s probably worth it.

Poor Willz, he’s so transparent. (No not that way, the usual way.)

Tss. He doesn’t feel sorry for anyone. It’s not in him. He’s far too obsessed with his own precious self to spare a moment to feel sorry for anyone else, let alone people he hates as much as gender-disobedient women.

And as for angry, nasty? Really, sir? Really? You are calling us angry and nasty?

He’s an excellent spokesman for his cause. Long may he rave.

The hilarity has generated even more hilarity.

I daresay by now there’s a whole library’s worth of tv companies wanting to do a show where Willoughby and someone hyper famous and talented and busy would spend a week together giggling and gossiping and painting their toenails.

One genius remembered there’s a source document – Willz put his pathetic fantasy on Twitter way back last year, minus the tv company.

I remember that now that it’s been dredged up. I remember the rage. We are not men’s stupid shallow caricatures of women we are real people.

Update: I was pretty sure I’d done a post on it, and I wasn’t wrong. Spa day with Wilz.

Originally a comment by Mostly Cloudy on Decency and Julia.

Der Durchwanderer @41

If we are to be judged by how our words might one day be used by the spiritual descendents of our current political enemies, then none of us should write anything at all, because that is a game none can hope to win. Unless you are fanatically certain that history does indeed have a singular arc and that you will somehow always land on the correct side of it forevermore, that is.

You have a point there. We know that Martin Luther King, for instance, would not have approved of the politics of Rand Paul, and would be dismayed to hear Paul appropriating his words.

I suppose my main issue with George Orwell is that he helped make anti-intellectualism respectable in British society.

Orwell’s status as *the* archetypal literary defender of democratic society against totalitarianism meant that the numerous attacks on intellectuals in Orwell’s work gained a special status.

And since anti-intellectualism in British society has been mainly, since the Thatcher era, associated with the political right, there’s a similarity between Orwell’s comments on intellectuals as “disloyal”, deracinated, and treacherous, and those of later figures like Thatcher and Farage.

This might also explain why “The Sun” was able to recruit Orwell into an editorial describing people opposed to Thatcher’s government as people its readers needed to be “vigilant” against.

And conservatives like William F. Buckley, Norman Podhoretz and Michael Medved also shared the anti-intellectual views of their British counterparts. Hence why they too were able to use lengthy quotes from George Orwell’s work in their attacks on the political left.

Those are the implications I am making- Orwell’s strong dislike of intellectuals make him a uniquely attractive writer for the modern-day political right.

And this might answer the question I raised earlier, that puzzled my teenage self. *Why* is this revolutionary socialist writer always being quoted, so often by defenders of tradition and capitalism?

Is it because of his undeniable literary merit? Maybe.

Is it because his plain style of writing makes it easy for other writers to understand and quote his work? Maybe.

Or is it because Orwell’s dislike of intellectuals (who, by definition, aren’t happy with the status quo) makes him uniquely attractive to these defenders of tradition and capitalism?

If you want to read someone who’s written about this aspect of George Orwell’s work much better than I could, read the chapter on George Orwell in Stefan Collini’s excellent book “Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain.”

Human rights? You sure about that?

One – get those clapping hands out of my face. Clapping at us is not the way to persuade or convince us of anything.

Two – yes using specialty pronouns damn well is optional. People don’t get to pick out their very own pronouns as if they were a party dress and then force other people to use them. My words are not yours to control.

Three – of course it’s not “a huge form of support, respect & love” – don’t be so ridiculous! Calling a man “her” is neither support nor respect nor love.

Four, why do trans people get their very own special day about 700 times a year now? Why do they get to suck up so much oxygen? Are their delusions about their sex really the most urgent thing we have to think about? More urgent than climate change or Hamas or Trump or Putin or poverty or war? Or, by the way, the staggering rate at which rape goes unpunished?

Put your stupid pronouns away and do something useful.

Oh good god can you imagine???

A week with Willoughby???

Of course she wouldn’t do it ffs. First of all she has better things to do, obviously, but second plus third through billionth: with Willoughby. Of course she wouldn’t spend a week with Willoughby: he’s a boring rude self-obsessed demanding bad-tempered shallow blob of nothing. What would this fun project have in it for her? Not a damn thing. It would be hell from beginning to end. Of course she “wouldn’t do it.”

And look at how that utter dimwit thinks women spend their time. Clothes shopping and health spa. That’s how profound their idenniny is – they think they’re Barbie dolls.

Prison for pronouns eh?

JK Rowling has said she would happily do a spell in jail if a future Labour government makes it a hate crime to deliberately call someone by the wrong pronouns. The Harry Potter author said she would rather do time for misgendering than submit to “compelled speech”.

She spoke out after The Mail on Sunday revealed that Labour plans to introduce stricter sentences for abuse targeted at transgender people.

This would bring transphobic abuse into line with assault and harassment motivated by hatred on the grounds of race or religion, which are punishable by up to two years in prison.

What does that mean? It’s not “abuse” to use normal pronouns, nor is it harassment. If anything it’s the other way around – it borders on abusive to try to force other people to use the wrong pronouns when referring to One’s Precious Self.

And is Labour seriously contemplating jailing people for two years for using normal pronouns? While 99% of rapes go unpunished?

Replying to a post on Twitter/X, Rowling said: “I’ll happily do two years if the alternative is compelled speech and forced denial of the reality and importance of sex.

“Bring on the court case, I say. It’ll be more fun than I’ve ever had on a red carpet.”

The court case could be fun. Two years in prison not so much.

H/t Mostly Cloudy

Hur hur woman of the year event hur hur

Meanwhile in Ghana:

Awusife Kagbitor paces anxiously on a dry patch of land overlooking her collapsed and completely submerged three-bedroom home in Mepe in Ghana’s Volta Region. She says she saw water gushing into her house from a nearby stream, and within 10 minutes the water level had reached her neck. On hearing that his mother’s home was flooding, her son Kenneth rushed to the scene and swam his way through the rising waters to save his mother and young siblings.

The 56-year-old farmer is one of thousands of victims of the floods in south-east Ghana. It’s a disaster she is struggling to come to terms with. They were taken unawares and couldn’t salvage anything, she tells me as beads of tears roll down her face. “My entire farm is under the water and so is my house. I was only able to take my clothes. It took me about 14 years to build this house – there is nowhere to go, there is no other land to build on,” Ms Kagbitor said.

Elsewhere the cruise ships ply to and fro.

The Times Scotland:

JK Rowling brands Scottish Greens a ‘disgrace’ over trans protest

Author hits out at politicians who stood beside activists swearing at women

Author doesn’t “hit out at” anyone, of course.

JK Rowling has branded the Scottish Greens a “disgrace” after its councillors stood alongside protesters “campaigning against women”.

The author hit out 24 hours after speaking at a feminist event in Glasgow, organised by Filia, an international organisation campaigning for women’s human rights.

The author did not hit out.

Reacting to video of the protest posted on social media, Rowling said: “That elected officials from the Greens stood proudly beside protesters screaming ‘f*** you’ at women, including those from Afghanistan and Africa, who were meeting in Glasgow to discuss sex-specific harms such as FGM [female genital mutilation] disgraces them and their party.”

The author was responding to a post from another activist who was discussing the protest outside the conference and the Green councillor’s presence.

This is really sloppy journalism. The Times “reporter,” Mike Wade, is apparently talking about Twitter, but never manages to say so. She was responding to “a post” where, bro?

Anyway. He ends on a more cheerful (and less sloppy) note.

Rowling stunned the crowd on Sunday by speaking for nearly an hour about sexism and the bullying facing women. The author, who is outspoken on women’s rights, received two standing ovations from the audience.

“The crowd went absolutely wild,” one audience member said. “She doesn’t do talks. She doesn’t do public appearances. She has had death threats, and yet she chose to do this for a feminist, grassroots organisation which shows just how committed she is. It was joyful and buzzing and everyone was walking on air [after] seeing her.”

She was a surprise panelist, because imagine the chaos there would have been otherwise.

No matter how hard he tries.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of tigerhood by those hateful people’s standards.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of oaktreehood by those hateful people’s standards.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of mountainhood by those hateful people’s standards.

No matter how hard I try, or what I wear, or what I say, or what surgeries I get, I will never reach an acceptable version of planethood by those hateful people’s standards.

Sorry, Dylan, that’s just how it works. There are some things we can become via trying hard, and there are other things we can’t. We can become teachers, lawyers, journalists, legislators by trying hard. We can become better people by trying hard. We can’t become other species, or furniture, or celestial bodies by trying hard. Some ontologies are simply closed to us.

A thread that’s quite relevant to what I was just saying about the impossibility of believing the dogma, and the strangeness of the fact that the impossibility goes unmentioned.

That. You can repeat the nonsense all day long, but you cannot state the truth.

It’s utterly bizarre.

Nathan Williams at The Critic on “queerphobia”:

Last week I wrote an article about the nasty treatment people in the Green Party have faced when they have questioned the prevailing ideology on gender and sex. The exact figure depends on the question asked, but in general a majority of the public agree that biological sex is real and matters (these are known as “gender critical” or “GC” beliefs). The party appears to be calling most of the electorate “bigots”, which is not a great electoral strategy.

But on the upside, it’s such fun.

The Green Party has now issued a document that seeks to correct this, by branding almost the entire population as bigots. Their long awaited Queerphobia guidance is nine pages of near incomprehensible word salad.

…

These are sensitive issues where different people will draw the dividing line in different places. It’s precisely the sort of subject where we need to feel free to speak honestly and respectfully — about, for instance, the potential harms of choking, or autoerotic asphyxiation. The guidance prohibits such a debate, however, by defining it as bigotry to question any form of sexual attraction, whilst also making it a further offence to point out the obvious dangers of having no boundary.

Listen here, choking is kink, and kink is a good thing, and it’s sacrilege to say otherwise.

At least we’re on steadier ground with familiar terms like “lesbian”, right? If only. Unsurprisingly, the word “lesbian” is here assumed to refer to anyone who is attracted to women and identifies as a woman, so it includes trans women. But in a twist I wasn’t expecting, it can also include trans men if they wish to describe themselves as lesbian. The guidance is clear that trans men are real men and indeed are male (more on that later). So, the guidance is saying that it’s possible for someone to be male, and in every sense a man, but also a lesbian.

It’s really very simple. It goes like this: whatever the good people say is right.You’re welcome.

Where things get serious is in the section on transphobia, when the document strays into territory that could lead to the party breaking the law. As you might expect, the guidance takes the most extreme line on issues of sex and gender. Whilst the question of what the word “woman” means appears to have finally been settled in the rest of the country, the Greens have jumped the gender fluid shark to redefine “male” and “female” as well.

According to the guidance, all trans women are not only “real women” but are female. Remember that many trans women — likely the majority, though there’s a lack of good data — have undergone no medical transition. They are legally and physically no different from a typical male. According to the document, though, by uttering some magic words, they have transformed their sex such that they are now female — despite having the same gametes, chromosomes, hormones and physical characteristics that they did when they were male.

Well that’s the dogma. We’re not allowed to question it. Questioning it will be greeted with rage, ostracism, punishment, contempt, disgust, shunning, loss of friends, possible loss of job and career.

When I asked one of the authors how they could justify their claim that trans women are female, I was pointed towards a website. Nothing there provided any evidence that humans, uniquely amongst mammals, are able to spontaneously change their own sex. Apparently the key line is that “bio-essentialism plays into the hands of extreme right-wing ideologies”. Personally, I think basing your politics around an obvious untruth, so that it’s the Trumpian lunatics who end up looking like the sensible ones, is what plays into the hands of extreme right-wing ideologies — but perhaps that’s just me.

A party that aspires to power is not only promoting such a belief, but suggesting that it is an offence not to believe. 

Others don’t suggest, they shout it as loudly and often as they can.

 As I wrote in my previous piece, the party has apparently received advice confirming that members cannot be discriminated against or censured for holding gender critical beliefs without a breach of the Equality Act (EqA).

…

The legal advice confirms that members can not only have GC views but express them: for instance, saying “the majority of transwomen are intact males” is a lawful, protected statement of gender critical beliefs. The party seems to think its guidance can ignore the law — even if its own lawyers say otherwise…

It might seem bizarre that a political party would issue an anti-discrimination policy that breaks anti-discrimination law, but we’ve been here before. Last year the Liberal Democrats adopted a definition of transphobia every bit as draconian as the Green Party’s — including a prohibition on referring to a trans woman as a “biological man”

Look, it’s not that it’s illegally forbidden or anything, it’s just that it’s not allowed.

I’ve been observing a discussion, or more accurately a pile-on, on a friend’s Facebook post that dissents (very politely) from the gender dogma. It’s a sight to behold, grown-ass adults flying into verbal rages because people can’t believe that men are literally women. David Gorski is there, Matt Dillahunty is there, Hayley Stevens is there, Ashley Miller is there – all of them furiously reiterating the dogma and name-calling anyone who doesn’t submit.

The spectacle has caused me to do another round of the “could I believe it if I really tried hard enough?” routine. Nothing has changed. I still, to this day, to this minute, cannot for the life of me understand how adults can expect other adults to nod enthusiastically to the claim that sex is in people’s minds rather than their bodies. I still cannot understand how adults can expect us to agree that we can all change our sex with the power of thought. It’s an inherently outlandish claim – it’s like saying people can fly or live forever or travel back in time.

I still don’t get it. I never will. They didn’t think that themselves ten or fifteen years ago, so how do they manage to convince themselves that everyone must think it now and that everyone who fails to do so is an extremely bad person? I’ll never never never understand it.

More gag ordering for Trump:

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan has put into writing her limited gag order that bars Donald Trump from making public statements about witnesses who might testify against him in the federal election subversion case as well as prosecutors and court staff.

Trump’s public statements pose “grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings,” especially those that could be construed as harassment and intimidation, Chutkan said in the order released Tuesday.

The written order expands upon what Chutkan articulated during Monday’s hearing about restricting what Trump can say while awaiting trial.

I’m seeing a lot of headlines saying it won’t make a damn bit of difference.

Trump has publicly railed against the so-called gag order, calling it “unconstitutional” and vowing to appeal.

Like he knows what’s constitutional and what isn’t. Please.

Chutkan made clear that the main reason she is imposing the order is that Trump’s statements could prompt intimidation and harassment. She pointed in particular to his statements about special counsel Jack Smith and his office and possible witnesses like former Attorney General Bill Barr, Gen. Mark Milley and Pence, as well as his statements about court staff in a civil fraud case he’s facing in New York.

“Defendant has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are liars, or ‘thugs,’ or deserve death,” Chutkan said in the written order. “The court finds that such statements pose a significant and immediate risk.”

That’s exactly why he makes them.