More from that silly clumsy piece on Artifacts Gallery:

[Rylee] Lee said the shop is also in violation of Athens City Municipal Code section 3.07.62 (b), which states “It shall be unlawful for any proprietor or his/her employer, keeper or manager in a place of public accommodation to deny any person, except for reasons applicable alike to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.” 

But who says the shop has “denied” anyone? I assume “deny” there means refuse service, kick out, tell to go away. There’s nothing in the article to indicate that the shop has done any such thing.

Lee hopes the protest will help draw attention to Mangano’s opinion and to the boycott.

Yes how dare Mangano have an opinion?

“To the people who still shop at Artifacts, we see that you’re still giving business to this place that people have specifically expressed discomfort towards,” Lee said. “You’re giving your business to a place who does not believe feminism is for all women. And to Amy I would like to say feminism is for all women. Feminism does not give you the right to pick and choose what women you support.”

Errrr yes it does. Feminism isn’t alone in doing that, but the right to choose what people you support is certainly among the equal rights entailed by feminism. Plus of course feminism is for all women but not for men who shove women aside while shouting that they are women and furthermore they’re the most oppressed women. Part One: feminism is for all women. Part Two: men are not women.

News from Athens, Ohio:

At 2 W. State St. there lies a familiar Athens business that is the subject of current controversy: Artifacts Gallery. Some social media posts encourage a boycott of Artifacts Gallery and its owner, Amy Mangano, for accusations of transphobia. A protest against Mangano and the shop is scheduled for Saturday at 10:30 a.m.

Rylee Lee, a junior studying music education, helped organize the protest, and said it was sparked by social media posts about new signage on the door of Artifacts Gallery. From there, Lee joined forces with Kaycie Tillis, a sophomore studying psychology, to begin organizing a protest against the shop. The new signs and banners on the front door include messages like “humans can’t change sex” and “say no to men in women’s sports.” 

So humans can change sex? Men should be in women’s sports? Kids today; I tell you what.

Lee said the protest is important to support transgender individuals in Athens and to demonstrate Mangano’s verbiage is not something Lee and other protesters agree with. 

“T is for trans,” Lee said. “You can’t have LGBT without the T. It’s quite literally in there.”

Bahahahahahahaha well spotted. You also can’t have ZQr9& without the &. It’s quite literally in there.

Here’s a helpful tip though: you can have LGB without the T, because it’s quite literally not in there.

H/t Sackbut

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Teach that everything was always fine.

The issue isn’t that people are born racist, the issue is that we absorb racism from the world we live in, because we can’t help it.

Ditto with sexism. Racism and sexism; we’re soaking in it. Simply pointing this out can bring accusations of guilt induction, particularly among those who want to pass off the status quo as a pure meritocracy that justly rewards the “industrious.” Those who lag behind or can’t hack it just have to try harder to get that job or make it to the podium. (Does this sound familiar?) We’re not supposed to look too closely at the ways in which the dice are loaded and the game is fixed. And the cheating isn’t necessarily codified in law; it can be ingrained in the beliefs, values and attitudes of any number of gatekeepers who control entrance into whatever system you happen to look at. It doesn’t take laws to keep an “Old Boys Club” going, but it might take laws to dismantle one: the Old Boys aren’t going to go down without a fight.

The point of that clause is to make teachers afraid to talk about how it plays out.

Which makes it hard to discuss white privilege and male privilege. This isn’t dredging things up from the past, a settling of scores from the Bad Old Days, it’s current reality. You can’t let bygones be bygones if they’re still ongoing and not “gone.” If your first response is anger, guilt, or resentment towards those pointing out structural inequities, then maybe you’ve got something to feel guilty about. But the point isn’t to instill guilt, but to fix (or rather unfix) the system. Removing unfair advantages, dismantling unearned privilege, and tearing down obstacles to full participation in society, and its rewards and benefits, benefits everyone. We’re at a point in history where we can’t afford to waste human potential. We need all hands on deck, and useful ideas about how to get through the multiple crises we are facing could come from anyone or anywhere.

Repair or healing cannot take place without determining what’s wrong in the first place. Pretending things are perfectly fine, and that your position at the top of the heap is quite natural and justified might not be the position of neutrality you’ve been led to believe it is. It looks like you’ve got something to hide when you try to convince the people at the bottom of a hill that a ski slope is a level playing field.

But trans people are the most marginalized.

Why is the rhetoric of the trans movement so violent? I’ve never understood that. Is it just because the trans movement is mostly about trans women aka men, and the opposition to trans women taking what belongs to women is mostly from women? In other words just men being misogynist?

I don’t know. See, I would think a movement that purports to be lefty and progressive would not want that kind of threatening violent imagery and talk, if only because it doesn’t look progressive…but it seems they do want it, the more the better. Decapitate feminist women, rah rah, solidarity forever.

The Telegraph:

Transgender women could continue to be allowed to compete in the female category in international track and field under controversial plans drawn up by World Athletics.

No. Just say no. No men in women’s sports. No.

In a move that risks reigniting sport’s toxic trans row, Telegraph Sport can reveal the governing body has begun a consultation with its member federations over a proposed rule change that would stop short of an outright ban.

There’s your problem right there. An “outright ban” should be all there is to it: men should be banned from women’s sport because women’s sport is women’s sport. That’s not something you compromise or bargain or negotiate over, it’s just definitional. Women should be allowed to have things for women without men shoving in and breaking them. Men need to stay in their own damn lane no matter what stupid fantasies they have about their tiresome identities.

Documents seen by the Telegraph show World Athletics’ “preferred option” would instead see a halving of the maximum permitted plasma testosterone for trans women from 5 nanomoles per litre to 2.5 nmol/L and a doubling the period they must remain below that threshold before being allowed to compete from one to two years.

No. Just no. No men. Get out.

Sporting bodies will be encouraged to reach a compassionate position, but one where “fairness and safety” take precedence at elite and competitive level. This could include the creation of new “open” categories for transgender athletes to compete in.

Note the framing. Why is it “compassionate” to trash women’s sports?

Hahahahaha oh lord now they’re lecturing us on the glories of nicotine.

Rosie Duffield on the bullying:

I have lived through an abusive relationship and have spoken about it in Parliament. I was reminded of making that speech earlier this week — the daily trauma that inspired it, how hard it was to make and, afterwards, the overwhelming support of my colleagues. That was the Labour Party I joined.

On Tuesday, when two of those colleagues traded that sympathy for aggression, shouting down women in the Chamber, it felt like a very different Labour Party. I was defending the need to protect vulnerable women in single-sex spaces, and had just criticised Scotland’s Gender Reform Bill, when Ben Bradshaw yelled his disapproval at me. Sitting nearby, Lloyd Russell-Moyle went puce — perhaps less surprising — and started to heckle every woman who spoke of their similar concerns. Later, when Miriam Cates, a Conservative MP and friend, spoke of her concerns around safeguarding, he accused her of being a bigot before crossing over to the Tory side of the Chamber to sit on the side benches, very close to her, staring as if to intimidate her.

But it’s ok, because these men are just doing it to women. If it were racist bullying that would be a whole different story, but just intimidating women is no big deal.

“I recognise that I failed to control [my] passion”, was how he later “apologised”. In other words, he had done nothing wrong. It wasn’t his fault; it was ours for daring to disagree with him.

Ironically, or inevitably, what we disagree about is agreeing that men are women if they say they are, and part of why we disagree is exactly because of the whole bullying-intimidation-violence issue. Men are a potential threat to women, and the threat becomes the reality all too often; that’s one major reason we don’t and won’t and can’t agree that men can be women. Lloyd Russell-Moyle kind of makes our point for us by carrying on the way he does.

The Lloyd Russell-Moyle ragefest was even worse than I knew. He wasn’t satisfied with just shouting at Miriam Cates and stabbing his finger at her and making rage-face at her; he got up and went to sit close to her and stare at her. Sicko.

There are so many gaps in information to this story that it’s hard to form an opinion on it.

Florida Rejects A.P. African American Studies Class

Florida will not allow a new Advanced Placement course on African American studies to be offered in its high schools, stating that the course is not “historically accurate” and violates state law.

In a letter last week, the Florida Department of Education informed the College Board, which administers A.P. exams, that it would not include the class in the state’s course directory. Rigorous A.P. courses allow high school students to obtain credit and advanced placement in college.

“As presented, the content of this course is inexplicably contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value,” the department’s office of articulation, which oversees accelerated programs for high school students, wrote on Jan. 12.

Inexplicably? My guess is that it’s altogether explicable: the AP people designed the course without checking “Florida law” because it’s not all that normal for states to have laws governing AP courses. By “not all that normal” I mean “deeply weird.”

The letter, with no name attached to it, did not cite which law the course violated or what in the curriculum was objectionable. The department did not respond to questions asking for more details. But last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed legislation that restricted how racism and other aspects of history can be taught in schools and workplaces. The law’s sponsors called it the Stop WOKE Act. Among other things, it prohibits instruction that could make students feel responsibility for or guilt about the past actions of other members of their race.

So that will be “teach nothing” then. Anything could make students feel responsibility for or guilt about the past actions of other members of their race. That can’t be helped, because we live in a country that was founded on and grew with and prospered from a system of chattel slavery. There’s always the potential for contemporary people to feel some guilt or responsibility for that fact.

The Baroness raises some interesting questions.

Why drag queens? Is there any equivalent butch woman story hour? Prostitute story hour? Stripper story hour? Kink story hour?

We don’t view minstrel shows as entertainment any more, let alone as entertainment for children.

How is it that we can see at a glance how insulting and destructive that is, but are fine with men mocking women?

Hmmmm.

An elderly man spotted wearing a girl’s school uniform near a Leigh secondary school and on a bus “does not pose a risk”, according to police who have urged the public to stop sharing photos of him.

Social media has been flooded with reports of the man wearing Belfairs Academy uniform in the vicinity of the Highlands Boulevard school this week, as well as on a bus in the area while children travelled home. 

Photos have also been posted online of the man wearing a Milton Hall Primary School uniform.

Photos not of this man wearing girls’ school uniforms at home, mind you, but wearing them in public while loitering near the schools and riding the bus the girls take.

How can the police know the man poses no risk?

Essex Police has identified the individual and officers from its community policing team have discussed the incident with the man in question. The force says it understands the community’s concerns, but the man is not a risk to the public.

But the force can’t know that. It can think it has good reasons to think he is not a risk, but it can’t just know he isn’t full stop. It can’t know that, and the behavior in question sounds quite strikingly diagnostic of “this man is a risk to these girls.” Why is he not dressing up in boys’ school uniforms, just for a start?

Police have also urged residents to stop sharing photographs of the individual on social media. Posts shared on Facebook identifying the man have attracted hundreds of comments and shares.

The police not only think and say they know what they can’t know, they’re also ordering people to stop taking precautions against this man loitering around schoolgirls in schoolgirls’ uniforms.

Bosses at Essex Police have reiterated that no crimes had been committed and that the force has the situation under control.

School uniform supplier Paul’s School and Workwear in Southchurch Road says it has received multiple emails and calls regarding the individual. In a post on Facebook, a spokesman for the business said it had not sold him the Belfairs uniform but added: “He was in store this week purchasing a grey box pleat skirt that he said was for his granddaughter, he is now banned from the shop.”

Oh but why is he banned from the shop? The police assure us he poses no threat. Perhaps his granddaughter would like more box pleat skirts.

A bit of good news at last:

Former president Donald Trump and his lawyer, Alina Habba, have been fined almost $1 million by a federal judge in Florida for what was ruled a frivolous lawsuit brought against his 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton and others.

Trump is a “prolific and sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries,” wrote U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks in his searing 46-page judgment published late Thursday.

“He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer. He knew full well the impact of his actions,” said Middlebrooks. “As such, I find that sanctions should be imposed upon Mr. Trump and his lead counsel, Ms. Habba.”

…

“Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally, and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose,” Middlebrooks wrote, decrying what he called “abusive litigation tactics.”

In a blistering judgment he said the case was “intended for a political purpose” and showed a “continuing pattern of misuse of the courts by Mr. Trump and his lawyers,” undermining the rule of law and diverting resources. “No reasonable lawyer would have filed it,” he added.

…

Along with former secretary of state Clinton, Judge Middlebrooks said 30 individuals and entities were “needlessly harmed” by the case in a bid to “advance a political narrative.” Among them were former FBI director James B. Comey, the Democratic National Committee and Christopher Steele, a former British spy hired by an opposition research firm working for the Clinton campaign who compiled a now-infamous dossier alleging ties between Trump and Russia.

Middlebrooks described the legal complaint as “a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion.” One example he cited was thealleged collusion between Comey and Clinton, a claim he said not only lacked substance, but was“categorically absurd” given the impact Comey’s announcements about the investigation into Clinton’s emails had on her 2016 campaign.

The final paragraph is the cherry on the sundae.

The judgment also referenced Trump’s other lawsuits, saying they demonstrated “a pattern of abuse of the courts.” Among them were legal complaints against Twitter, CNN, New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Pulitzer Prize board for a 2018 award given jointly to The Post and the New York Times for coverage of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Hahaha he tried to sue the Pulitzer Prize.

Priyamvada Gopal outdoes herself again.

Caste?????

Wait there’s more –

“Islamophobia” in this context means skeptical or critical of theocratic Islam.

And “dominant caste Hindu background” is a snide (worse than snide) hint that Sonia Sodha is an ally of Modi and his Hindutva goals. It’s outrageous.

Dr Em at Wings Over Scotland last year on Why woke blokes abuse women:

The woke bloke contempt for women is clear, and abusive behaviours are on full display. Reading through Lundy Bancroft’s pivotal work “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”, the full cast of characters is present on Twitter, in the news and in our political parties and institutions.

…

Bancroft’s work, sometimes criticised for being too inclusive and easily applied to any man, is corroborated by what women know personally from relationships with abusive men, the patterns we recognise and which are analysed by domestic violence charities such as Refuge and charities attempting to end violence against women such as Nia. We are currently watching the microcosm of male abuse go macro.

Bancroft convincingly argues that it is values which cause abuse not personality, or mental disorders, or a childhood history of abuse, or alcohol or drugs. Those factors only exacerbate an existing problem – the value system of the man – and can make him more dangerous. [2]

We’re trained early to think that values don’t make anything happen – that it’s all class or libido or The Unconscious. It’s widely considered naive to think superstructure-type items like beliefs and ideas and values can drive behavior. It’s encouraging to see a professional in the field saying yes they can.

He also noted that ‘Their value system is unhealthy, not their psychology. Abuse tactics work well for the abuser, they get what they want most of the time’. [3]

Dr Em makes the connection:

The crossover between ‘trans rights activists’, incels and men’s rights activists has been frequently pointed out by feminists, but it is time to take a look at the supporting troupe. The bullying blue ticks, the fresh-faced student misogynists, the older self-serving politicians. Two things unite them all, and it is not a desire for social justice or a committed belief that clothes are magical and change one’s sex.

Forced teaming can only explain so much in the face of evidence, women’s concerns and the behaviour they exhibit. [4] It is in fact misogynistic values and pornography use which drive the phenomenon.

Men who bully and abuse women have dehumanised them and cannot see them as equals. Bancroft details how ‘most abusers verbally attack their partners in degrading, revolting ways. They reach for the words that they know are most disturbing to women, such as bitch, whore, and cunt, often preceded by the word fat. These words assault her humanity, reducing her to… a non-living object, or a degraded sexual body part’.

“Terf” is the new “cunt.”

At long last, Willoughby, have you no shame?

The “trans community” is not, repeat not, being subject to anything resembling what Jewish people were, and Willoughby of course knows that perfectly well. He didn’t say “Holocaust” or “genocide” or “8 million” but he invoked it with “state demonisation and stripping of rights.” Sleazy dirty creepy deniability.

Why isn’t it more obvious to more people that this kind of ludicrous and wildly offensive appropriation of actual genocide is a massive red flag? Why is the deranged hyperbole of trans activism embraced with such enthusiasm by people who only a few short years ago appeared to be adults?

He doesn’t want to use the both sexes gym, he wants to use the women’s gym. There’s no thrill in using the both sexes one, it’s only the women’s that provides the creepy invasive threatening you don’t get to say no to me vibe.

A transgender woman in Parksville is speaking out after she was allowed to sign up for a women-only gym, then later told she would only be allowed to access the co-ed gym due to the fact that she is trans.

No, due to the fact that he is male.

Brigid Klyne-Simpson says she previously had a rocky relationship with exercise because she didn’t feel comfortable going to gyms and working out with mostly men.

So the solution is for him to make women feel not comfortable.

She says she has previously worked out at co-ed gyms and never felt comfortable because it was mostly men in the facilities.

And his comfort is the only comfort that matters. One man’s comfort matters more than the comfort of a gym full of women. It could be all the women in Parksville and their comfort wouldn’t matter as much as his.

“It was important to me to be in a place that would be like explicitly accepting, like, ‘you are a woman, you’re allowed to be here,’” she said.

But he’s not a woman.

The owner of the gyms has the guts to say the same thing.

Dale Nagra, owner of Bodyworks Fitness, says Klyne-Simpson is welcome to work out at the co-ed gym but says other gym-goers at the ladieswomen-only gym may not be comfortable.

“We want them to be comfortable, but we also have to worry about the young girls that this gym is set up for and the women, and how are their parents gonna feel that they’re in there, then this person walks in with a male voice and big person,” Nagra said.

“So now you pick the comfort of the male who identifies as a woman…and then anybody can go in there saying, ‘OK, I identify as a woman, and I want to be able to go in there.’ And so, do we pick the comfort of the transgender person, and they may not be as comfortable with the co-ed gym but at least that’s an alternative, or do we pick the comfort of the young girls that are working out there that might not feel comfortable?”

Exactly. Door number two, thank you.

Klyne-Simpson says she understands some people can feel uncomfortable at first if they have never met a transgender person before.

“But all it takes is education. Once you understand trans women are women, trans men are men, non-binary people are who they say they are, it’s as simple as that,” she said. “If you still feel uncomfortable after that, that’s on you, it’s not on me. I am who I am, it’s as simple as that. I just look different. That’s all.”

All you have to do is recite the stupid mantra! Recite it, and men become women! It’s magic!

Kelli Paddon, B.C.’s parliamentary secretary for gender equity says situations like this highlight that it is important to continue working to advance transgender people’s rights.

“Trans people deserve to feel safe, welcome and affirmed for who they are. Trans women are women – period,” Paddon said in a statement to CHEK News. “At a time when trans people are under increased attack around the world, it’s up to all of us to speak out and to help break down barriers that transgender people face.”

Not the ones that protect women. Leave those barriers alone. Women are under attack around the world too, and there are vastly more of us. Trans women are a niche “demographic” and they demand “rights” that aren’t rights.

The Chronicle of Higher Education discussed the Hamline issue last week.

Hamline administrators, who have previously shared information mostly through written statements, granted an interview to The Chronicle. In it they defended their handling of the controversy, in which Erika López Prater, the lecturer, saw her contract go unrenewed after the course ended.

The CHE is reminding us that non-renewal of an adjunct’s contract is different from firing, because adjuncts are always subject to non-renewal of contract – they don’t have tenure. It’s a well known academic scandal that colleges and universities take advantage of that difference more and more, because it’s so much cheaper and more convenient for them.

Hamline administrators told The Chronicle on Friday that what happened in the art-history class, and their view of teaching depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, had been inaccurately reported.

But their comments raised more questions about the series of events that continues to roil the small campus.

In early October, López Prater showed two artistic depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, dating to the 14th and 16th centuries, in an online session of a class on global art history. Knowing that many Muslim people object to any visual representation of the Prophet, López Prater has said she included a warning about the images both on the course syllabus and orally in the class itself before showing the pictures.

…

But Marcela Kostihova, dean of Hamline’s College of Liberal Arts, said on Friday that was not true. “The images were already on screen from the moment that the lecture began,” she said in a video call with The Chronicle.

Sigh. You’d think they were plutonium, or a dish of Corona virus. Anyway the CHE couldn’t verify the claim.

The Chronicle provided this version of events to David Redden, a lawyer for López Prater, but neither responded in time for publication. Hamline administrators have a student’s recording of the class and cited it to support their claims about López Prater, but declined to provide a copy of it to The Chronicle.

Why?

The Oracle, Hamline’s student newspaper, obtained a video of the same class last year, but appeared to differ in reporting what it showed: “The professor gives a content warning and describes the nature of the depictions to be shown and reflects on their controversial nature for more than two minutes before advancing to the slides in question.”

So is Hamline just lying to the CHE? I don’t know.

Miller and other administrators have said plainly that they disagree with how López Prater handled the class. Miller was one signer on an email that said “respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom.”

Where does that end? Should respect for religious students supersede the teaching of biology, astronomy, physics? Most learning and scholarship is a rival to the core teachings of religions, so where do universities draw the line? These are two warring epistemologies, and the differences are too basic to be resolved. Religions are free to just make shit up, and then declare it to the followers without any form of evidence or argument or other reason to believe it. Secular knowledge, not so much. If secular universities decide that religion gets to silence all claims it doesn’t like, secular universities might as well pack up and go home.

The Washington Post tells us Erika López Prater is suing Hamline.

On Tuesday, attorneys for the professor, Erika López Prater, served Hamline with a lawsuit that, among other claims, alleges religious discrimination and defamation by the school. López Prater, through her lawyer, and Hamline University declined to comment on the lawsuit Wednesday.

The religious discrimination issue is interesting. It is religious discrimination to punish people for not obeying the orders or rules of a religion. It’s religious discrimination to act as if one’s own religion is binding on everyone else.

At a news conference on Jan. 11, CAIR’s local Minnesota chapter described the incident at Hamline as Islamophobic.

The chapter’s executive director, Jaylani Hussein, said that showing images of the prophet Muhammad is offensive and that most Muslims around the world oppose public display of the prophet’s images.

That right there – that way of thinking. That’s all wrong. People can oppose public display of whatever they like, but that doesn’t mean we all have to pay attention to their opposition. I’m betting Jaylani Hussein thinks it does mean that.

Religions shouldn’t have a Right to Censor that applies “around the world” and without question. Religions are not the boss of us.

Minnesota law appears to take the same view.

López Prater names the trustees of Hamline University in her lawsuit and alleges, among other claims, religious discrimination under Minnesota’s Human Rights Law as well as defamation.

Redden said state law protects employees whose employment suffers from not conforming to the employer’s religious preferences, or if the employee “doesn’t comply with the religious-based discriminatory preferences of their customers.” In Hamlin’s case, the customers are the students.

And the students don’t have a right to veto classroom content on religious grounds.

A senior and the president of Hamline University’s Muslim Student Association (MSA), Aram Wedatalla, was in the online class when the photos were shared, according to the Hamline Oracle.

“I’m like, ‘this can’t be real,’” Wedatalla told the Oracle. “As a Muslim, and a Black person, I don’t feel like I belong, and I don’t think I’ll ever belong in a community where they don’t value me as a member, and they don’t show the same respect that I show them.”

Bollocks. What respect does she show them that corresponds to her censorship of an art history class? How is it respect to force her religious taboo on all the students in that class? Especially when López Prater warned the class in advance and said students who didn’t want to see the images of Mo could step outside? Wedatalla could have stepped out but didn’t, so clearly she wanted to force the taboo on the entire class. I don’t call that “respect.”

H/t Sackbut

Facebook showed me a sponsored promotion of a conference at Radcliffe (I bet even Facebook doesn’t know my sister was a Cliffy) titled The Age of Roe: The Past, Present, and Future of Abortion in America. Hm, thought I, I wonder if they managed to tell us about the conference without ever saying “women” so I took a look.

Finding:

Of course they did. How? Like so:

Harvard Radcliffe Institute will hold a major public conference January 26–27, 2023, to probe the complex and unpredictable ways that Roe v. Wade and its aftermath shaped the United States and the world beyond it for nearly half a century. The existential issue of abortion—and the galvanizing impact of Roe in particular—transformed the nation’s politics and public policy and its social movement energies, as well as the operations of the courtroom and the clinic. 

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, eminent thinkers will gather as a diverse group, along many axes of difference, neither to praise Roe nor to bury it. Focusing on five major themes—voices from the front lines, international contexts, race and class, American public life, and visions of the future—a broad array of scholars, clinicians, and activists will engage in searching, interdisciplinary discussions to anatomize Roe’s impacts, including in the post-Dobbs landscape.

That’s how. Just ignore women entirely, as if abortion had nothing to do with them. Mention race and class but ignore sex altogether. Mention Roe’s impacts, but not its impacts on women. Be very very very careful never to mention the word “women” at all. [It does appear in the title of the ruling, but that they have no control over.]

Unbelievable.

The BBC on Lloyd Russell-Moyle’s bullying:

In the Commons on Tuesday, Lloyd Russell-Moyle accused Tory Miriam Cates of making “transphobic” comments.

Shouting, with features contorted by rage.

[Cates] said the proposed changes would make it “vastly easier for a predator to get access to children, to change their sex, to change their gender, with an eye to exploiting loopholes of accessing children and women in particular”.

In response, Mr Russell-Moyle, who was the next speaker, told the Commons: “Goodness me, that speech was probably one of the worst transphobic, dog-whistle speeches that I have heard in an awful long time. The idea of linking trans people with predators, frankly, is disgusting and you should be ashamed.”

He said the first sentence angrily. He shouted the second sentence with face-contorting rage. When men do this to women it’s intimidation, even if it’s in a situation where they’re very unlikely to start throwing punches. The shouts and the contorted face are signals, and they operate below the level of the literal verbal content. They’re signals of imminent violence, and they are frightening to women on a very basic level. Many many men act as if they have no idea this is true. They should figure it out.