The very first words of the Newsweek piece are a lie.

A small subset of conservatives online has expressed outrage at Johns Hopkins University over its non-binary-inclusive definition of “lesbian” in its glossary of LGBTQ+ terms.

The people outraged are far from exclusively “conservatives” and there’s nothing “inclusive” about defining women as non-men – especially when the Johns Hopkins definition of “gay” does not match that insulting (and useless) definition of “lesbian.”

The Baltimore-based university, a major hub of medical research in the U.S., maintains an extensive glossary of definitions for terms relevant to the broad LGBTQ+ community. The definitions are often updated with greater inclusivity in mind, and as the medical establishment’s understanding of gender and sexual identity evolves.

Again, it’s not “greater inclusivity” to exclude and insult half the population. Pious vocabulary can’t disguise the gross offensiveness of this move.

On Monday, the glossary’s current definition of “lesbian” came under attack from right-wing users on social media.

Again – not right-wing. Feminists mostly. This guy – Thomas Kika – is just blatantly lying and Newsweek editors aren’t correcting him. This is Pink News-level crap.

As the university defines the term as “a non-man attracted to non-men,” the users accused it of attempting to “erase” women. They also pointed to the glossary’s listing for “gay man,” which does not use similarly non-binary-inclusive language.

Exactly so. It’s not conservative for women to expect equality in definition.

The flare-up comes amid a broader backlash among conservatives to LGBTQ+ rights and the embrace of queer communities by society. 

Fuck off, Mr Kika. It comes amid Trump’s many crimes, too, but it has nothing to do with them. We are very much pro LG rights; what we oppose are the competing claims to invented rights from trans activists.

Victory!

CNN goes through some of Trump’s lies about his activities:

In his speech in Georgia on Saturday, Trump mentioned a photo that was included in the indictment. The photo, which was taken at Mar-a-Lago, shows a toppled box from which papers had spilled out onto the floor.

Trump said: “I looked – it looked so orderly and nice. Somehow somebody turned over one of the boxes. Did you see that? I said, ‘I wonder who did that? Did the FBI do that?’”

Facts First: The suggestion that it’s even possible that the FBI might have turned over this box is nonsense. According to the indictment, the photo was taken in December 2021 by Trump aide and accused co-conspirator Walt Nauta, who the indictment says texted the photo to another Trump employee with the words “I opened the door and found this…” The FBI did not execute its search warrant at Mar-a-Lago until August 2022, eight months later, so it could not possibly have done the toppling.

But of course trumpians will be careful not to know that; they’ll just believe what Sackofwind tells them.

In a Friday social media post, Trump also claimed that the photo of the toppled box did not show any “documents” at all: “The Box on the floor which was opened (who opened it?) clearly shows there was no ‘documents,’ but rather newspapers, personal pictures, etc. WITCH HUNT!” He said in the speech in Georgia: “But the box that was turned over – it had newspapers, it had pictures, it had clippings, it had all sorts of things. Nobody saw any documents there.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim that nobody saw any “documents” in the photo of the toppled box is false. While the photo does show newspapers and pictures among the materials that had spilled onto the Mar-a-Lago floor, the photo also clearly shows other unidentified papers in the pile – one of which prosecutors allege was classified and labeled with markings making clear it was releasable only to the members of an intelligence alliance composed of the US and four other countries.

And this is Trump’s Genius Mastermind method – he has all these boxes, see, lots of them, see, full of memorabilia from his fun time in the White House. They’re souvenirs, dammit! Not classified documents, souvenirs!

In the Georgia speech, Trump said of the 37 federal charges on which he was indicted in the documents case: “They take one charge, and they turn it into 36 charges. You saw that. Everybody was amazed. Lawyers on television … they’re not usually the best lawyers, but some are very good – they say, ‘We’ve never seen anything like it; they took one charge, and they made it 36 different times.’”

Sigh. We don’t even need to read Daniel Dale’s rebuttal. No, lawyers didn’t say that, because it would be asinine. It’s one crime committed 36 times.

Of the 37 charges in the federal indictment, 31 are for allegedly violating the same statute, against “willful retention of national defense information,” but each charge is for allegedly retaining a different classified document.

Same statute, different document. Mkay? We clear?

It’s worth noting that Trump could have conceivably faced far more than 31 charges for willfully retaining national defense information; the indictment says 102 documents with classification markings were found during the August 2022 search of Mar-a-Lago, 38 other such documents were returned by Trump in June 2022 in response to a subpoena, and 197 more were returned by Trump in January 2022 “after months of demands” from the National Archives and Records Administration. As is also standard, prosecutors used their discretion to file charges over only some of the documents.

Be grateful, Don. It could be way worse.

It’s all or nothing, I tells ya, all or nothing.

In the bin with her! She doesn’t do it abjectly enough so into the bin.

“You don’t pretend I am what I’m not, so into the bin with you. Saying men are a group separate from women is wrong. You have to utter the lies exactly as we tell you to utter them, or it’s the bin for you.”

Well when you put it that way…

This is an interesting little detail. Trump isn’t even paying Walter Nauta: he’s making the campaign pay him. I think we’ve been reminded that’s illegal via all the other ways Trump has flouted campaign laws.

When Trump left the White House, Nauta was part of the post-presidency transition, serving for another six months while still in the Navy. Trump indicated in a social media post that at some point, Nauta “retired” from military service and “then transitioned into private life as a personal aide.”  

Federal Election Commission records show that beginning in August 2021, Nauta was paid by Trump’s “Save America PAC,” compensation that included salary, travel expense reimbursement and bonus. He later appeared on Trump’s 2024 campaign payroll. He has remained on the payroll in 2023. It is unclear if he received any funds from 45 Office, Trump’s official post-presidency office.

So far I can’t find any news media reporting this. Speak Up for Women has a statement on Twitter:

Speak Up for Women statement regarding the granting of diversion for Albert Park assailant.

New Zealand has a shameful record of family and sexual violence. A main driver of this is that male violence is excused and minimised. This Court decision to grant diversion to the man who assaulted the 70 year old grandmother at the Let Women Speak event in Albert Park is part of a dangerous cultural shift the political class has endorsed – that the use of physical violence is to be expected and excused in retaliation for words or beliefs that don’t align with theirs.

Men are taking advantage of this new loophole to abuse, threaten and assault women because of the “words are harm” claim promoted by a loud minority.

We extend our aroha to the victim and we will not stop our public opposition to radical gender ideology.

NZ Media Watch comments:

This afternoon we spoke with the advocate of the 71 year-old lady violently assaulted in Albert Park.

On May 22nd the victim was advised by @nzpolice: I am emailing to let you know that diversion has NOT been approved by the diversion officer due to the serious nature of the offence.

Yesterday –June 12th– the accused was scheduled to appear in Auckland District Court. At the last possible moment police advised the victim: The defendant has been granted diversion and the hearing has been adjourned to allow him to complete his diversion. I have been advised as part of his diversion he will be asked to pay [the victim] $1,000, do counselling, complete community work, and to write an apology letter.

The victim has opposed diversion throughout the process and feels thoroughly let down by NZ Police, the Ministry of Justice, and Victim Support. She considers diversion to be an outright miscarriage of justice, that a conviction and the naming of her assailant ought to be the absolute minimum outcome.

We agree.

Disgust is all I have.

For some reason Trump has been unable to hire new lawyers to help him clear up this little misunderstanding.

Trump and his legal team spent the afternoon before his arraignment interviewing potential lawyers but the interviews did not result in any joining the team in time for Trump’s initial court appearance scheduled for 3pm ET on Tuesday after several attorneys declined to take him as a client.

Trump has also seemingly been unable to find a specialist national security lawyer, eligible to possess a security clearance, to help him navigate the Espionage Act charges.

The last-minute scramble to find a veteran trial lawyer was a familiar process for Trump, who has had difficulty hiring and keeping lawyers to defend him in the numerous federal and state criminal cases that have dogged him through his presidency and after he left the White House.

This is the downside to being a conspicuously bad person. People don’t want to deal with your shit, even for lots of money.

Among the Florida lawyers who turned down Trump was Howard Srebnick, who had discussed defending the former president at trial as early as last week in part due to the high fees involved, but ultimately declined the representation after conferring with his law partners, the person said.

Oh boy, high fees, but…um…oh the hell with it, it’s not worth the torture.

Part of the problem of recruiting new lawyers has been Trump’s reputation for being a notoriously difficult client who has a record of declining legal advice and seeking to have his lawyers act as attack dogs or political aides rather than attorneys bound by ethics rules, people close to the process said.

Along with his reputation for being a complete asshole, a reputation which is bolstered by the thousands of hours of video we’ve all seen of him being a complete asshole.

It all makes sense now – straight people can be “queer.” Who knew?!

Then what does “queer” mean? Interesting? Special? Better than all those boring beige people in long term relationships (commonly known as “marriages”) with someone of another gender?

Dennis isn’t having it.

Give that child a scholarship to a university of her choice.

Guest post by Jonathan A. Gallant

I invite truly virtuous individuals to join my new organization “Electron Justice”.  We are dedicated to decolonializing electricity by eliminating all the terminology of the colonialist, Eurocentric, heteronormativist old culture we must overturn.

For example, consider the coulomb, the unit of electric charge.  It is named after the engineer and electrical experimenter Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, who was also a militarist and a colonialist.   He served in the French army for 28 years, retiring with the rank of captain right after the French Revolution.  Part of his military service was spent overseeing military construction in Martinique, a Caribbean island where black slaves labored on plantations, and which remains a French colonial possession to this day.  

The family of James Watt obtained its wealth from Watt’s father’s shipping business, which was partly involved in the slave trade.  Moreover, James himself was a long-time friend of the philosopher Adam Smith, the famous proponent of (gasp!) market capitalism.  Alessandro Volta was an aristocrat, named a Count by Emperor Napoleon in 1810.   The father of André-Marie Ampère was a counter-revolutionary who was guillotined by the Jacobin revolutionary government in 1793.   No connections between Georg Simon Ohm and obvious forms of wrongthink have been discovered.  However, since he died in 1854, it is certain that Ohm never filed a DEI statement, as is now routinely required for all academic candidates in Mathematics, Physics, and Electrical Engineering.

On these grounds, we call for abolition of all the electrical units—coulombs, watts, volts, amps, and ohms–named after these malefactors.  Even if their association with retrograde practices and ideas is a little vague in some cases, there is no question that they are all old white men.  Therefore the continued use of units named after them could discourage members of marginalized communities and female persons from following electrical pursuits, such as studying Physics, charging their cellphones, or replacing a light bulb.  On the contrary, we demand that electricity be granted a new set of diverse, equitable, and inclusive units. 

In order to raise consciousness about our cause of Electron Justice, we are beginning a campaign of direct actions.  Until the electrical units are changed, wherever we go we will turn off the lights or blow the fuses:  our motto is “No Justice, No Current”.   

The Argus, a local paper in Brighton and Hove, reports:

Police have made an arrest after online threats to kill campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen.

A Twitter account in the name of Layla Le Fey posted threats to the campaigner also known as Posie Parker.

Here’s a surprise. The story had said police arrested a woman after the online threats. It said it just a few minutes ago, but now they’ve changed it. There were many objections and I’ll be damned for once someone paid attention. Unfortunately they do say “a woman” later in the story. Inch by inch by inch we’ll win this war.

One tweet said: “I’m a trans woman and I’m not ashamed to admit I’d be happy to physically kick the s**t out of you pull your eyes out and break your spine.

“I live in Portslade, East Sussex, UK. If you want to prove your point that some trans people are extremely violent, I’m game.”

Women rarely do that kind of thing, and women rarely even threaten to do that kind of thing, probably because we know we can’t carry through and because the threat might attract violence to us.

Another tweet made a threat to burn down her house. “I’d be interested in setting fire to her house with with her in it,” the tweet said.

That’s a threat to burn down her house and kill her.

Uhhhhh…for what purpose?

I guess we’re supposed to gasp and say “Wow Willoughby is so hot.” But that’s stupid. We know he uses filters and extremely heavy makeup…but anyway what woman age 57 posts selfies like that? He’s trying to look like a teenage beach bunny or some shit but we know it’s fake so why do it??? Why isn’t he embarrassed to do it? Why doesn’t he look at it and realize what a fool it makes him look?

That open mouth thing – we know why models and actors do that, and why photographers tell them to do that, but why does Willoughby think that means he should do it? While pretending to be a woman? Why doesn’t he get that we don’t think “Phwoarrrrrr,” we think “Ewwwww.”

Who made him so desperate for attention? Who did this to you, Jonathan?

I’d share the tweet itself but he deleted it. Too late!

One more…the review hosted by LSE blogs:

In Underflows, Cleo Wölfle Hazard invites us into the hydrological, cultural and epistemological dynamics of both public imaginaries of water and water-related networks as well as the researcher relationships and ‘straight science’ norms that excise affect, care and kinship from the processes of knowledge production and communication. In doing so, he unpacks the settler-colonial land relations that shape water imaginaries and, by extension, water governance throughout the increasingly drought-stricken, dammed and extracted west coast of the US, tying in critiques and analysis with a queer and trans orientation to the world.

Or, to put it less flatteringly, attaching the absurd and decadent pseudo-politics of “trans” to a real and terrible ecological disaster. There is plenty to say about the drought-stricken, dammed and extracted western US (the reviewer errs in saying west coast, because the damming is mostly inland), but a connection to “a queer and trans orientation to the world” is decidedly not one of them.

Through the story of a salmon-costumed confessional performance art project undertaken by the author and his collaborator and partner July Hazard, we glimpse what even the ‘straight’ scientists working within the disciplinary bounds and normative scripts of their field might gain from ‘queering’ or ‘transing’ science in a way that makes room for affect, care and interspecies kinship.

Do we though? Do we glimpse that? Somehow I doubt it.

More on queering the fish:

Rivers host vibrant multispecies communities in their waters and along their banks, and, according to queer-trans-feminist river scientist Cleo Wölfle Hazard, their future vitality requires centering the values of justice, sovereignty, and dynamism. At the intersection of river sciences, queer and trans theory, and environmental justice, Underflows explores river cultures and politics at five sites of water conflict and restoration in California, Oregon, and Washington.

But there is no intersection of river sciences with queer and trans theory. Those two items don’t intersect. You might as well say Manhattan’s Riverside Drive intersects London’s Kensington High Street. It doesn’t. They’re thousands of miles apart.

Incorporating work with salmon, beaver, and floodplain recovery projects, Wölfle Hazard weaves narratives about innovative field research practices with an affectively oriented queer and trans focus on love and grief for rivers and fish. Drawing on the idea of underflows—the parts of a river’s flow that can’t be seen, the underground currents that seep through soil or rise from aquifers through cracks in bedrock—Wölfle Hazard elucidates the underflows in river cultures, sciences, and politics where Native nations and marginalized communities fight to protect rivers. The result is a deeply moving account of why rivers matter for queer and trans life, offering critical insights that point to innovative ways of doing science that disrupt settler colonialism and new visions for justice in river governance.

You what now? How did “settler colonialism” get in there?

It’s hilarious but it’s also intensely annoying, watching a boutique gender-haver try to attach xirself to the politics of indigenous people as if boutique gender were comparable to genocide and mass displacement.

Another Sokal hoax. Has to be. Right? Right?

Wait there’s more.

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on A uniquely favorable jurist.

This NYT article reports on the clerk’s explanation for how Cannon was assigned to this case. In a nutshell:

Judge Cannon’s handling of the prior case was irrelevant. The “low number” rule Rob reports Ken White mentioning was not in play here.

Her assignment was “random” in the sense that judicial assignments usually are — that is, strictly speaking, although there were 10 judges who were eligible to receive the case, it was not a 1 in 10 chance, because that’s weighted by how full each judge’s caseload is, and 3 of those 10 judges are senior judges (semi-retired) who have smaller dockets and are at or close to their limit.

There is nobody, in the clerk’s office or otherwise, who sits down and says “hmm, who do I think should get this case?”

Short of trying to file in a different division, or a different district entirely, there wasn’t anything DOJ could have done to avoid the assignment — and filing somewhere else might have led to venue challenges, motions to transfer, etc.

Trump was able to get Cannon assigned to his civil case because he filed it in the division where she was one of only two judges. Even then it was not a sure thing, as another civil case he filed (against Clinton et al) got assigned to Judge Middlebrooks instead. It’s not like that division in Texas where the abortion pill case got filed because there’s exactly one judge and it was a virtual guarantee they’d get their anti-choice hack assigned.

Moral monster Willoughby

Immediately followed by ridiculous fake dressup Willoughby

Festive interlude.

Excuse me?

The two halves of the tweet disagree with each other. The first two curt bossy sentences just issue an order, without of course any authority to do so. The rest of the tweet pretends to give reasons for the curt order.

First of all, it’s just gibberish. Bits of vocabulary aren’t “required.” What are they gonna do, arrest us? Give us an F? Sue us? Carve us up? They’re not in a position to tell us what words to use or else.

Second, pronouns, like verbs and nouns and prepositions and the like, are neither preferred nor required, they’re just part of language. Use them correctly if you want to be understood, use them creatively if you don’t care about being understood. Next question?

But the intent behind the absurd claim is less trivial. The intent is to bully us into submitting to a new and stupid ideology that says men can become women by saying they are women.

No.