The Guardian on changing the Equality Act:

A significant change to the 2010 Equality Act is being pursued by the government, which would redefine “sex” to refer specifically to a person’s sex at birth. That would be designed to make it legal for those who are transgender to be banned from single-sex spaces and events, such as book groups and hospital wards.

Book groups? Is it currently illegal to have all-women book groups? Really?

Currently, trans people can have their identity formally recognised by applying for a gender recognition certificate.

What does that mean? What does “their identity” mean? Identity isn’t a synonym for sex. This issue is such a mess of lies and obfuscation that it becomes necessary to re-write everything that’s said about it, because it’s always so misleading and confused.

This affirms their gender change in law, allowing them to update their birth or adoption certificate and have their gender recognised on a marriage or death certificate.

In other words they have state permission to falsify their sex on official documents.

That process is not expected to change, but the equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, wants to make a clearer distinction in law between those who are born a particular sex and those who transition or identify as a gender different from their birth one.

Between the normies and the magic people.

Those who advocate for sex-based rights say it would affirm hard-fought protections for those who are born biologically female. But the impact on trans people would probably be detrimental.

Only if you think they absolutely have to be able to say they are what they are not at all times and in all situations. If you think the detriment to billions of women is far less important than the notional detriment to a tiny number of trans people, you’re delusional.

Critics of changing the Equality Act also say trans people would feel they were being targeted, with the potential for real-world hostility towards them rising.

No, you know what’s doing that? All this deranged over-reach. Telling women to shut up and fuck off and kiss the ring. Bullying women while treating men who claim to be women like darling little kittens. Taking women’s rights away and giving them to men. That kind of thing.

Clarence Thomas says he followed the rules to the letter.

In a statement released by the Supreme Court, the justice said that he had followed guidance from others at the court and that he believed he was not required to report the trips.

“Early in my tenure at the court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” Justice Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines.”

No. That’s not credible. If you’re a Supreme Court justice and you just happen to have these billionaire Close Personal Friends who became your “friends” after you were appointed to the court, you know damn well that that’s an issue. Justices aren’t just random people off the street appointed to the court in a lottery. They’re supposed to know something about the law, and about the norms and expectations that govern people with extra power in relation to that law. He wasn’t some hayseed learning how to work the Xerox machine, he was A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. Come on now.

And another thing. There’s a tacky bit of attempted manipulation in there.

…and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the court, was not reportable,” Justice Thomas said. “I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure”

See what he did there? He says he made a strenuous effort to follow the counsel to keep the bribes secret – in other words he claims to have worked hard to do nothing about the bribes, so that we would admire his diligence and effort. It didn’t take any “endeavor” for him to fail to report the bribes; all he had to do was just not report the bribes, which was of course the easiest and pleasantest path to take. Tawdry as well as corrupt.

Trump is hoping to use his criminality as a campaign boost.

At one end of the palatial Donald J. Trump Grand Ballroom at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday, the former president made his first public comments about his arrest. At the opposite end of the hall — a space illuminated by 16 crystal chandeliers and bigger than four professional basketball courts — were several cardboard boxes stuffed with white campaign T-shirts.

[Interjection. What the hell is that “bigger than four professional basketball courts” for? How are we supposed to know how big that is?! Not everyone on the planet goes to professional basketball games. What is it with football fields and basketball courts as units of measurement? Cut it out.]

The shirts read “I STAND WITH TRUMP,” and had a date printed on them in bold type: 03-30-2023 — the day Mr. Trump was indicted by a Manhattan grand jury for his role in a hush-money scandal.

Tacky enough? Repulsive enough? I’m a criminal, elect me!

His legal calculation, according to aides and allies close to him, is that his pressure campaign against the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, will lead to his acquittal and deter other prosecutors from seeking additional indictments — though some of his lawyers have warned him that’s unlikely.

A bully to the bitter end.

“President Trump isn’t just right to speak this way, he has a duty to use his bully pulpit to expose corrupt and uncontrolled prosecutors,” said Rod R. Blagojevich, a former Democratic governor of Illinois who was imprisoned for corruption until Mr. Trump commuted his sentence in 2020. “I applaud him for it.”

Now there’s a classy endorsement!

The campaign has sent more than three dozen fund-raising appeals to supporters this week — each one referring to Mr. Trump’s legal battles. On Tuesday, one email solicited campaign contributions in return for T-shirts printed with a fake mug shot of the former president and the words “not guilty.” (The authorities in New York opted not to take an actual mug shot.)

Vote for the mug shot guy! His resort is as big as 275 baseball diamonds!

Y?CA Scotland.

First: “We refer to our primary audience as self-identifying young women and girls.” Why self-identifying? Why not just young women and girls? Silly question. Because that would be transphobic. It has to be a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact, because otherwise it’s exclooosionary.

But the YWCA has always been for young women and girls, just as the YMCA has always been for young men and boys. They’ve never been the YSIWCA ad YSIMCA. It was always an objective observable fact, not a self-identifying mental state. Why change it? To appease people who go off like sirens if they’re not appeased.

And then, not satisfied with having already given away the W to people who call themselves women, they do it all over again but worded differently. Their audience is inclooosive of people of marginalised genders – which are who now? Plural marginalised genders? What are we talking about? How do we know? Why is the fog so thick? And “who feel comfortable in a space that centres the experience of young women and girls” – but you’ve just revealed that you don’t center the experiences of young women and girls. You’ve just announced that you think of girl-being as a matter of self-identifying rather than fact or body, so you don’t center the experiences of young women and girls, you center the experiences of people who tell you they think of themselves as women or girls.

You can’t do both. You can’t insist that being female is a matter of “identifying as” and still pretend you center the experience of female people.

That went well.

A very reasonable, compassionate, justice-seeking group. I especially like the “Bye bitch!”

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on Grounds for removal.

Screechy’s Comprehensive Guide to SCOTUS:

Thomas: The recent revelations of the depths of his corruption notwithstanding, a sincere right-wing nut. As Elie Mystal said today, he would have voted the same way regardless of what gifts he got. He really believes in all this stuff. He’s even got a few idiosyncratic non-stereotypical conservative views (like on the Confrontation Clause, where he’s made some pro-defendant rulings). But don’t underestimate the “nut” part — he is on record as saying that there is no Constitutional obstacle to, say, Alabama declaring the Baptist Church as the Official Church of Alabama.

Alito: Complete and utter right-wing hack. Has no consistent legal philosophy or principles, and will always rule in the short-term interests of the GOP, and deal with any implications of that precedent later (by which I mean: ignore them).

Roberts: Right-wing dealmaker. Whether because of his natural inclination, or his role as Chief, is very concerned with the Court’s reputation and legitimacy. So he consistently pushes the Court to achieve conservative results in ways designed to not provoke too much outrage. Will happily cut backroom deals towards that end.

Kavanaugh: Not entirely sure of him yet, but seems closest to Roberts except for being a psycho personally who will happily “stick it to the libs” in retaliation for the perceived injustices against him.

Gorsuch: A less radical version of Thomas. Does have actual principles, and so will occasionally surprise with seemingly non-conservative rulings (readers of B&W will be disappointed to be reminded of his ruling in a trans rights case), but still pretty conservative, so he’s going to be a mostly-reliable vote for the conservative bloc.

Coney Barrett: Don’t have a good read on her yet, but my impression is a mix of Alito and Roberts — not quite as hacky as Alito, but doesn’t give a shit about being seen as reasonable.

Kagan: Occasionally frustrating in her naive belief that the conservatives can be reasoned with, and a little too “faculty lounge, can’t we all get along,” but fine. Probably a useful asset to have on the Court because she’ll cut deals with Roberts to make the Court less horrible.

Jackson: too early to say, but seems willing to call out bullshit, which is good since she’s got a couple of decades of writing dissents to look forward to.

Sotomayor: Has had just about enough of this bullshit, but not (yet) prepared to just completely blow shit up.

Clarence Thomas seems to be greedier than most Supreme Court justices.

“Justice Thomas Reports Wealth of Gifts” was the title of a December 2004 front-page story in the Los Angeles Times, detailing how Clarence Thomas had received gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars over the prior six years — far more than the other justices on the Supreme Court at the time.

So he stopped reporting them.

The story appears to have marked a turning point for Thomas and his public disclosures of gifts. Since the news account was published 18 years ago, Thomas has reported receiving just two gifts, according to a Washington Post review of his financial disclosure forms posted online by nonprofit groups Fix the Court and OpenSecrets.

Missed the point rather, didn’t he. It wasn’t the reporting that was the problem, it was the quantity and quality of the bribes.

[Harlan] Crow has also donated money in support of Ginni Thomas’s work,Politico reported more than a decade ago. In 2009, she founded the nonprofit Liberty Central to harness the energy of activists in the growing tea party movement. She launched the group with $500,000 from an anonymous donor, stirring questions about whether such financial support created potential conflicts of interest for her husband on the bench.

Question no more. The answer is “yes.”

How does he know any of that?

But as you will all know there are a small number of people who do not identify with the gender that they were born into, and it can be incredibly stressful. And there are young people who are going through real anguish actually in relation to this, and I’m not gunna join those that just want to [arm shoots out] add to the abuse of that small group of people.

How does he know any of what he says? Ignoring the insult at the end for the moment, how does he know there are “people who do not identify with the gender that they were born into”? How does he even know what it means? How does he know it can be incredibly stressful? How does he know there are people going through real anguish about this? How does he know any of it?

The same way we know anything, you could say. How do we know Trump was president? How do we know Clarence Thomas accepts expensive presents and doesn’t report them? How do we know Trump was indicted on Tuesday?

But it isn’t the same way. There are important differences. None of those bits of knowledge are magical or inherently incredible. They don’t require unquestioning belief in other people’s claims about a magical inner identity that nullifies a humdrum external physical reality. They don’t take the form “Ignore what you see in front of you, accept that I am the opposite of what I appear to be, and that I go through real anguish because of it, while people like you are bovinely contented with the gender you were born into.” Starmer is talking about a bizarre belief about a hidden magical self as matter-of-factly as if he were talking about trade or inflation or the NHS. He’s talking about that bizarre belief and he’s treating it as far more important and more deserving of attention and solidarity than boring old women’s complaints about rape and misogynistic cops and not being listened to.

Even The Economist can’t get it right.

For many Americans, the great tragedy of trans rights is the story of how Republican governors and state legislatures are stigmatising some of society’s most put-upon people—all too often in a cynical search for votes. This newspaper shares their dismay at these vicious tactics. In a free society it is not the government’s place to tell adults how to live and dress, which pronouns to use, or what to do with their bodies.

Or what to do with their bodies? Of course it’s the government’s place to tell adults that in many circumstances. It can tell us not to use our bodies to rape or assault or strangle. It can tell us not to use our bodies to force our way past police barriers and into the Capitol in an attempt to overturn an election. It can tell us not to use our bodies to cheat in sports. It can tell us not to use our bodies to break into other people’s houses.

Yes there should be limits. Yes the government shouldn’t interfere with our private lives without a very good reason (violence, abuse, that kind of thing). Yes our bodies are mostly ours to dress or undress as we choose…but there are exceptions.

Journalists really should know how to avoid this kind of overstatement.

A flashback to last month when Hershey included a man in its celebration of International Women’s Day and many uppity women objected. The CBC reported that the man in question continued to act like a man.

Trans activist won’t be shut up by backlash to Hershey campaign

Of course he won’t. He’s a man taking what belongs to women; why would he shut up? He gets flattered by the CBC for doing it; why would he shut up?

An Ottawa-based transgender rights advocate says she’s not going anywhere after facing a barrage of online harassment for her role in a Hershey Canada campaign for International Women’s Day.

Fae Johnstone, a 27-year-old trans woman, was one of five women featured on limited-edition chocolate bars.

Fae Johnstone, a 27-year-old man who pretends to be a woman, was the only man featured on limited-edition chocolate bars in celebration of International Women’s Day.

“The tone of this campaign is not pushing a trans agenda. It’s celebrating women and girls and all of their diversity,” Johnstone told CBC’s All In A Day Wednesday.

Women and girls and all their diversity don’t include women. Dogs in all their diversity don’t include rabbits. Birds in all their diversity don’t include snakes. Shoes in all their diversity don’t include hats. Bicycles in all their diversity don’t include cars. Diversity is one thing and being something else altogether is another.

Despite the personal attacks, Johnstone said she’s undeterred from pursuing her advocacy.

“To have young trans women and girls see these chocolate bars and to see me on them — that sends a message,” she said.

You’re damn right it does – it sends a message that women and girls don’t get to have anything of their own, that men will always find a way to take everything back, that men matter and women don’t.

Open Democracy pushing stupid:

The EHRC wants to redefine sex. Here’s what it means for trans people

Subhead: OPINION: Proposal to rewrite the Equality Act is part of the right’s ideological war on trans people’s right to exist

No. That’s a lie. It’s a much repeated lie. Open Democracy should be better than that.

Trans people in the UK could face a significant rollback of rights if proposals made this week by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to redefine ‘sex’ in the landmark Equality Act are adopted by the government.

Genuine rights? Or specious “rights” invented just for trans people? Rights that are not rights should be rolled back.

The EHRC wrote to the government on Tuesday suggesting it should end rights and protections based on a person’s legal sex and instead base them on ‘biological sex’ for the purposes of the act, which came into force in 2010.

Because women need particular rights and protections for reasons that are rooted in their “biological” sex as opposed to anyone’s fantasy sex. Women can be raped. Women can be impregnated. Women are not as strong as men. All that makes a difference to who needs what rights.

Over the last few years, the government has ensured appointments to the EHRC reflect its political agenda. This was highlighted in a letter raising concerns about the independence of the EHRC to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) in June 2022, sent by Stonewall and Disabled People Against Cuts on behalf of 26 LGBTQ+ charities and allies.

Ah Stonewall – well great, women’s rights will for sure be safe with them.

The EHRC’s suggestion that we define sex using so-called ‘biological sex’ is likely to amount to the same process that currently applies to legal sex – whatever is recorded on the birth certificate – but with the deliberate disapplication of the Gender Recognition Act.

The group’s letter to the government gives several examples of how the EHRC envisions this would apply in practice. Any single-sex women’s space (such as a hospital ward), women’s association (such as a book club for women) or lesbian association would be allowed to exclude trans women automatically. 

Yes, and? Women should not be allowed to have single-sex spaces like hospital wards and associations such as book clubs? Women should be forced to allow men everywhere? Isn’t that just a bit rapey?

The letter states that the current illegality of doing so “impact[s] on freedom of association for lesbians”. To support this point, the EHRC cites ‘FiLiA’, a campaign group that runs an annual conference promoting so-called ‘gender critical’ ideas.

This is despite the fact that trans lesbians are simply a subcategory of lesbians, much like (for instance) disabled lesbians. There is no more reason to create a provision to allow associations to discriminate against trans lesbians than there would be for any other group of lesbians.

No. That’s not a fact and it’s extremely not true. Swap the word “fake” for “trans” and maybe you can grasp why. A big onion is still an onion; a fake onion is not an onion, because that’s what “fake” means. Tall lesbians, clever lesbians, French lesbians, working class lesbians, academic lesbians – all are still lesbians, with one added thing we’re told about them. Trans lesbians on the other hand are men, so not lesbians. (I suppose the “trans” could mean women who identify as men and are attracted to women, but in practice it doesn’t. In practice it means men who pretend to be lesbians.)

Women sometimes need to get away from men. Deal with it.

Lawyers and journalists comment on the news about the depth and breadth of Clarence Thomas’s contempt for ethics rules.

Steve Benen at the Maddow blog notes that Clarence Thomas has been pretty clear about his indifference to ethics.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is no stranger to questions about his ethical standards. The far-right jurist has, for example, faced awkward questions about incomplete financial disclosure forms. There have been related concerns about his appearances at wealthy conservatives’ political retreats, as well as his wife’s activism/lobbying on matters before the court.

And bless his heart he’s simply ignored all the concerns.

If you have a good memory, these revelations might ring a bell. The New York Times reported 12 years ago on the “ethically sensitive friendship” between Thomas and the GOP financier. Despite the fact that Crow’s company had multiple cases in the federal court system, the Times found that he’d showered Thomas with lucrative gifts, including a massive check to the justice’s wife to start a lobbying organization.

ProPublica, however, has advanced the story to a stunning degree, uncovering the details of Thomas’ travel “by drawing from flight records, internal documents distributed to Crow’s employees and interviews with dozens of people ranging from his superyacht’s staff to members of the secretive Bohemian Club to an Indonesian scuba diving instructor.”

Who played a major role in putting Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court after and in spite of Anita Hill’s testimony? Joe Biden, that’s who. Who rescued Thomas by hanging Hill out to dry? Joe Biden. Ironic, ain’t it.

Whaddya know. Clarence Thomas has been taking bribes for more than 20 years.

The bribes take the form of luxury vacations on the private plane and the Luxury Yacht of “real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.”

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

Supreme Court justice flouts the law.

In a statement, Crow acknowledged that he’d extended “hospitality” to the Thomases “over the years,” but said that Thomas never asked for any of it and it was “no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends.”

But it is different. Unless their many other friends are all Supreme Court justices then it is different. Some jobs require people to be especially particular about what kind of favors and “hospitality” they can accept, let alone accept without reporting.

Through his largesse, Crow has gained a unique form of access, spending days in private with one of the most powerful people in the country. By accepting the trips, Thomas has broken long-standing norms for judges’ conduct, ethics experts and four current or retired federal judges said.

“It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW.

It corrodes public trust and it probably corrodes the justice who accepts the subsidy. Clarence Thomas is revealed to be thoroughly corrupt. Not a good look and not a good reality.

Thomas’ approach to ethics has already attracted public attention. Last year, Thomas didn’t recuse himself from cases that touched on the involvement of his wife, Ginni, in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. While his decision generated outcry, it could not be appealed.

He’s thoroughly corrupt and we can’t do anything about it.

Pro Publica gives us a bit of comic relief.

In Thomas’ public appearances over the years, he has presented himself as an everyman with modest tastes.

“I don’t have any problem with going to Europe, but I prefer the United States, and I prefer seeing the regular parts of the United States,” Thomas said in a recent interview for a documentary about his life, which Crow helped finance.

“I prefer the RV parks. I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches and things like that. There’s something normal to me about it,” Thomas said. “I come from regular stock, and I prefer that — I prefer being around that.”

Who doesn’t prefer spending vacations in a Walmart parking lot instead of the beach?

Crow’s access to the justice extends to anyone the businessman chooses to invite along. Thomas’ frequent vacations at Topridge have brought him into contact with corporate executives and political activists.

During just one trip in July 2017, Thomas’ fellow guests included executives at Verizon and PricewaterhouseCoopers, major Republican donors and one of the leaders of the American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business conservative think tank, according to records reviewed by ProPublica. The painting of Thomas at Topridge shows him in conversation with Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society leader regarded as an architect of the Supreme Court’s recent turn to the right.

…

Thomas didn’t report any of the trips ProPublica identified on his annual financial disclosures. Ethics experts said the law clearly requires disclosure for private jet flights and Thomas appears to have violated it.

So not just strikingly unethical but actually illegal.

Justices are generally required to publicly report all gifts worth more than $415, defined as “anything of value” that isn’t fully reimbursed. There are exceptions: If someone hosts a justice at their own property, free food and lodging don’t have to be disclosed. That would exempt dinner at a friend’s house. The exemption never applied to transportation, such as private jet flights, experts said, a fact that was made explicit in recently updated filing instructions for the judiciary.

Two ethics law experts told ProPublica that Thomas’ yacht cruises, a form of transportation, also required disclosure.

“If Justice Thomas received free travel on private planes and yachts, failure to report the gifts is a violation of the disclosure law,” said Kedric Payne, senior director for ethics at the nonprofit government watchdog Campaign Legal Center. (Thomas himself once reported receiving a private jet trip from Crow, on his disclosure for 1997.)

The experts said Thomas’ stays at Topridge may have required disclosure too, in part because Crow owns it not personally but through a company. Until recently, the judiciary’s ethics guidance didn’t explicitly address the ownership issue. The recent update to the filing instructions clarifies that disclosure is required for such stays.

How many times Thomas failed to disclose trips remains unclear. Flight records from the Federal Aviation Administration and FlightAware suggest he makes regular use of Crow’s plane. The jet often follows a pattern: from its home base in Dallas to Washington Dulles airport for a brief stop, then on to a destination Thomas is visiting and back again.

So it’s his personal free air taxi.

Thomas has even used the plane for a three-hour trip. On Feb. 11, 2016, the plane flew from Dallas to Dulles to New Haven, Connecticut, before flying back later that afternoon. ProPublica confirmed that Thomas was on the jet through Supreme Court security records obtained by the nonprofit Fix the Court, private jet data, a New Haven plane spotter and another person at the airport. There are no reports of Thomas making a public appearance that day, and the purpose of the trip remains unclear.

Jet charter companies told ProPublica that renting an equivalent plane for the New Haven trip could cost around $70,000.

Tell us again about the joys of camping in Walmart parking lots.

Gang boss and his gang respond as gang bosses and their gangs do.

In the 24 hours since former President Donald Trump’s arraignment, the presiding judge and his family have received multiple threats, two sources familiar with the matter said.

Law and order!

Unless it’s our crook.

The New York police detail assigned to the DA’s office is providing extra security to all affected staff members. Court officers, meanwhile, are boosting security for the judge and the court as a whole as a precaution.

Other steps have been taken, as well. Online bios of employees at the Manhattan district attorney’s office were recently removed from the DA’s website, according to a source familiar with the matter, because of troubling posts on social media, including Trump’s Truth Social platform.

…

Trump and his allies have publicly criticized Merchan and his family, including his adult daughter.

Ahead of his court appearance Tuesday, Trump blasted Merchan on his Truth Social account as a “highly partisan judge” and said the judge and his family are “Trump haters.” In the post, Trump said, “HIS DAUGHTER WORKED FOR ‘KAMALA’ & NOW THE BIDEN-HARRIS CAMPAIGN.”

The former president’s adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, also posted links to stories from conservative outlets focusing on Merchan’s daughter’s employment.

Crime family spews threats in all directions.

This vile disgusting man. (Sorry, drecky Musk and disgusting Don one right after the other but here we are.)

In the courtroom he had to sit still and shut up (with that incredibly childish scowl on his face) but when he got back to his palace of vulgarity he was Florida Mussolini again.

But as soon as the former president returned home, to his namesake ballroom filled with his adoring fans, he was a rock star again, and he snapped back to his usual combative posture, lashing out at the prosecutor and judge in personal terms, despite the latter’s admonition Tuesday to watch his words.

…

He did not bring reporters on the plane, as he has to recent campaign stops, and he did not approach the cameras to make a statement while heading in or out of court. One of his lawyers, Todd Blanche, characterized him as “absolutely frustrated and upset and believes there is a grave injustice happening with him being in this courtroom today.”

Blanche gave the description by way of explanation for Trump’s recent inflammatory statements about Bragg and the judge, Juan M. Merchan. During the arraignment, Merchan said he appreciated the importance of Trump’s freedom of speech, especially while running for president, but disagreed that his language was merely expressing frustration. The prosecution referenced a social media post by Trump that showed a photo of him holding a baseball bat next to an image of Bragg. Merchan asked Trump to “please refrain from making statements that are likely to incite violence or civil unrest” or engaging in rhetoric that will “jeopardize the rule of law.”

So did he? Oh hell no.

But when he spoke Tuesday night, Trump did not back off his attacks, calling Merchan “a Trump-hating judge with a Trump-hating wife and family.” Trump also singled out Merchan’s daughter, about whom Trump’s adult sons shared articles on social media.

His daughter.

Vile disgusting man.

Elon Musk is dreck.

Is NPR “U.S. state-affiliated media”?

Twitter and its new owner, Elon Musk, seem to think so. Over NPR’s protests, Twitter placed that label on its account Tuesday night, implying that the Washington-based nonprofit news organization is somehow connected to, if not controlled by, the federal government.

NPR is frustratingly crappy and dumb, but it’s not an arm of the government.

The designation puts NPR, which has 8.8 million followers on the site, in the same category as propaganda outlets like the Russian-government-owned RT and the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Daily newspaper. Both are also “state-affiliated media,” according to Twitter.

Notably, however, Twitter has not slapped that label on several media organizations that are substantially funded by government. The Voice of America, the BBC and the U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes, among others, continue on Twitter without being designated as “state-affiliated” — a phrase with strong connotations of compromised editorial independence.

Which of course is smirky sneery Musk’s point.

From its founding in 1970, NPR has asserted that it is editorially independent of any government agency or funding source (NPR also receives revenue from advertising and donations).

It asked Twitter to remove the “state” designation late Tuesday when it first appeared. In a statement Wednesday, president and chief executive John Lansing said: “We were disturbed to see last night that Twitter has labeled NPR as ‘state-affiliated media.’ … NPR and our Member stations are supported by millions of listeners who depend on us for the independent, fact-based journalism we provide. NPR stands for freedom of speech and holding the powerful accountable. It is unacceptable for Twitter to label us this way.”

NPR doesn’t stand for holding the powerful accountable when it comes to men who say they are women. Nevertheless, Musk’s jeering is dishonest and an abuse of power.

Twitter hasn’t explained why it placed the label on NPR, but its action appears to be consistent with Musk’s often arbitrary and punitive decisions regarding news-media accounts since buying the company last year for $44 billion.

Arbitrary, punitive, and childish.

Asked for further comment via email on Tuesday, Twitter’s press shop responded with the same automated response to every news-media request: a poop emoji.

They’ll be throwing baby food at us next.

A Washington Post article on Title IX from last June:

Title IX celebrates its 50th birthday on June 23. Signed into law in 1972, the policy requires educational institutions that receive government funding to treat all sexes and gender identities equally.

Does it? Or does it require educational institutions that receive government funding to treat both sexes equally, with no mention of “gender identities”? I think we can assume it’s the latter, since no one was talking about “gender identities” in 1972, let alone a multitude of sexes.

This mandate has at once been phenomenally successful and disturbingly unfulfilled. In banning sex discrimination, Title IX fundamentally changed American education by creating the legal expectation of equality. Millions of people have seized the expansive gender opportunities Title IX has forced open, and now their children and grandchildren expect and even take for granted those options.

Millions of people? Or, specifically, millions of women? It’s women who were disadvantaged by the status quo before Title IX.

Title IX passed in 1972 amid other policies affirming women’s rights. Feminists celebrated the law, although they initially thought it would only affect academics. Controversy exploded when girls and women rushed to claim space in academic programs and on athletic playing fields.

Title IX’s impact on sports drew the most attention because it was the area in which the sex gap was the most egregious. Girls and women in sports also visually challenged long-held sexist tropes about their capabilities and ambitions.

It’s not ladylike to be athletic.

But after less than a decade, the Reagan administration weakened Title IX. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan crippled the National Advisory Council on Women’s Educational Programs, a women’s federal advisory board on sex equality, by replacing its executive director with a state leader of Phyllis Schlafly’s anti-feminist Eagle Forum group.

A year later, he dissolved the board altogether.

…

Most large universities bowed to Title IX’s pressure to create women’s sports programs, though they often segregated these into “women’s centers” rather than integrate the sexes on equal footing. In these expansive new roles — as in other arenas of women’s increased access due to Title IX, including in business, medicine and entertainment — stereotyping and harassment often accompanied women’s efforts on the playing field.

But that was then. We don’t care about stereotyping and harassment of women any more, because trans women are so much more important and vulnerable and preshusss.

But even if a marker of Title IX’s success is the decades-long assumption of sex equality on campus and beyond, the law has not created a cultural shift from a patriarchal to a more feminist, egalitarian society.

Especially now that we’re spending most of our energies on men who claim to be women.

Planning to disrupt.

Silencing women is not “solidarity.”

What Willoughby is so enraged about:

Ministers will consider advice from the human rights watchdog about amending a legal definition of sex – which would make it easier to exclude transgender people from some groups or services.

Changing the Equality Act term to “biological sex” would make single-sex services offers easier, says the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission).

Well yes but it takes all the fun out of it for men like Willoughby. If you can’t ruin everything for women what’s the point?

LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall said it risks adding to a “manufactured culture war”.

Thus demonstrating complete indifference to women’s concerns about safety, privacy, dignity, comfort – about their right and ability to get away from men when circumstances make that desirable or imperative.