This is an odd question.

Meaning, do I want a world without people who are so unhappy in their own bodies that they wreck them in an attempt to be the other kind of body? Of course.

On the other hand if he means do I want a world where everyone conforms to gender rules, of course not. He’s apparently not bright enough to frame the question carefully.

And then he goes on to pretend he asked something different altogether.

Ah ah ah no you don’t, that’s not what you asked. You didn’t include the bit about being forced back into the closet.

He’s such a sleaze.

Here’s another question: do I want a word without gender ideology in it? Again: of course.

The Times reports on the NHS’s shift on gender magic:

Most children identifying as transgender are simply going through a “transient phase”, new NHS guidance states. Doctors caring for youngsters distressed about their gender have been told that it is not a “neutral act” to help them transition socially by using their preferred new names or pronouns.

The draft guidelines say doctors should “carefully explore” all underlying health problems, including mental ill health, amid concerns that the NHS is rushing children on to irreversible puberty-blocker medication. The new “watchful approach” adopted by the NHS is a significant change of course from the “affirmative” approach advocated by campaign groups, including Mermaids.

This is in the wake of the damning Cass report.

NHS England’s draft guidance states that there is “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision-making” for children with gender dysphoria. It stresses that “in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence” among younger children. “The clinical approach has to be mindful of the risks of an inappropriate gender transition and the difficulties that the child may experience in returning to the original gender role upon entering puberty if the gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence,” it reads.

If the child has “transitioned” and the gender incongruence does not persist, that child is pretty much guaranteed to experience “difficulties.”

There are situations in which you can’t claim to be “bullied” even though the other party has more power or social clout than you do. Like, for instance, when you’re the bully. A spindly kid can’t hit a bigger kid with a rock and then scream “bully” when the bigger kid demands an apology.

A Twitter warrior can’t tell a venomous lie about JK Rowling and then scream “bully” when Rowling says it’s a lie.

TinyWriter doesn’t get to complain about the number of Rowling’s followers when TinyWriter is the aggressor. It’s a very special kind of bullying to think you can bully someone famous because the fame makes it morally suspect to fight back.

Well done Ralph Fiennes.

Ralph Fiennes has mounted a vocal defence of Harry Potter author JK Rowling, saying that the “abuse directed at her is disgusting”.

In an interview with the New York Times, Fiennes discussed his role as Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter films and reportedly “bristled” at the controversy surrounding the writer. Fiennes said: “JK Rowling has written these great books about empowerment, about young children finding themselves as human beings. It’s about how you become a better, stronger, more morally centred human being. The verbal abuse directed at her is disgusting, it’s appalling.”

He added: “I mean, I can understand a viewpoint that might be angry at what she says about women. But it’s not some obscene, uber-right-wing fascist. It’s just a woman saying, ‘I’m a woman and I feel I’m a woman and I want to be able to say that I’m a woman.’ And I understand where she’s coming from. Even though I’m not a woman.”

I have to say, I can’t. I can’t understand a viewpoint that might be angry at what she says about women. I know what it is, but I can’t understand it. That’s the whole problem in a nutshell. No, I don’t understand how men can think it’s ok to pretend to be women and then try to bully all women into agreeing that the men are indeed women. I don’t understand how they can expect us to comply without a murmur, let alone agree that yes indeed they are women.

That’s not the point though, the point is hooray for Ralph Fiennes.

Originally a comment by Mike Haubrich on Feminism requires saying “This is not for you.”

I think the problem there, Bjarte, is that Capitalism and Socialism are both “dominator” structures. According to Riane Eisler, the ideal to strive for is the “partnership” model. So the struggle is framed as Left v Right, when it really should be framed as trust v demand, or order v mutual respect. I realize that what Eisler is referring to is an ideal form of society, and I’m not sure that we are capable of reaching for it as we are presently driven towards power.

When we talk about politics, we tend to fight each other based on the notion that either “right” is good and virtuous, or “Left” is the virtuous side, when neither is good nor virtuous. So, until we can rid ourselves of the dominator hunger for power, we will continue to struggle to find any sort of achieving equality for the minorities whehter they are sex, race or cultural. Authoritarians need to have someone to blame for their struggles in order to get more authority, and authoritarians populate nearly all of the ideologies on the left-right continuum.

When left-wingers talk about how evil capitalism and colonialism are, they conveniently ignore the coercion that it takes to convert a society from monarchy to a socialist society, as in China and Russia. And with XI’s moves to retain power over the weekend by purging those who were not his allies, we can see that even a capitalist-communist hybrid is not immune from being a dominator society. The Soviets made this clear when they told people that their usage of force was necessary in order to evolve into the New Soviet Man.

Pressing for diversity makes people feel good, but in the end, there is an aspect of coercion that is required. Whether it’s justified, as in bringing racial and sexual minorities into the power structure, or not justified in the examples of pressing for fake pronoun usage and male access to women’s private spaces, there is still a power exchange.

Eisler, being a futurist, is certainly aware that we can’t force a partnership culture (that would certainly be antithetical, that we perhaps have to evolve into it. I think that once we stop thinking of our possibilies as being limited to a left-right scalar, we will nudge towards that, but it’s so hard to talk about politics as they are without devolving into it. The reason that I remain a Democrat despite their capture by the TA’s, is that most of their social programs align with my perceptions of my needs and the needs of people I know about. But I recognize their limitations and am active so that I can try to influence them from a local standpoint.

Transactivism is a function of male domination, which is why it’s accepted and pushed by left-leaning men. It’s a socially acceptable aspect of male domination, and if conservative men figure that out, they’ll support it, too. We know that if affirms the gender structure, they haven’t figured it out yet.

Feminism at its ideal is in tune with the partnership model, which is why it struggles so hard to gain traction even among women. I see so many women who are mistaken in thinking the purpose of feminism is in using oppression to seek special favors in society, It’s hard to get through, because the dominator model is the medium we swim in and depend on, much as fish depend on water.

We can’t fix all this in ours or the next or the next generation, since we currently see through the lens of a balance of power. Once we get past that, in however many centuries from now, then we can advance as a society. In High School, the Catholics taught us that we need a “second Copernican revolution,” but instead of in technology, we need it in terms of a societal change in how we see each other. I had hope for the Church as a Catholic teen, but then realized in a confession one day, just how authoritarian it will always be and must be, because they are nothing without power and will never give it up willingly.

I don’t think a revolution could move our world into a partnership model, I think only evolution could do that. Revolutions are coercive, and you end up being in a battle against counterrevolutionaries to maintain what you achieved. But partnership is an ideal we can strive for now, if people can discard their reliance on a left-right model where all your political opponents are “extremists” on one end or the other. It’s still a hunger for power either way.

Speaking of Dylan Mulvaney…a woman takes exception to his insulting parody of women:

Despite not actually being a woman and even only “identifying” as such for less than a year, Mulvaney has somehow become the woman du jour.

Mulvaney is a TikTok influencer with over 8 million followers and a viral series he calls, “Days of Girlhood”. His portrayal of his “transition” in the series is littered with cartoonish portrayals of womanhood — take Day One, where Mulvaney insists he cried several times for no apparent reason because, obviously, women are constantly PMSing and thus incapable of controlling their emotions. Later in his journey, Mulvaney describes planning the perfect slumber party, despite most women I know leaving group sleepovers behind in middle school. He also has a shopping addiction and cries when he sees bugs. Cute.

I suppose that’s why he’s viral and an “influencer” and chatting with Biden and all the rest of it – because he’s such an extreme and insulting parody of women.

On Day Eighty-Nine, Mulvaney posted a tutorial for followers looking to “tuck” their girl penises. Seventy-eight days later, Mulvaney sat down for an Ulta Beauty podcast titled “The Beauty Of… Girlhood.”

Ulta Beauty, one of the largest makeup retailers in the country, is welcome to market its makeup to men if they think it will make them money. Inviting two men onto a podcast to discuss women’s issues? Absolutely not. Mulvaney does not have a uterus and will never menstruate (among other female-exclusive biological realities) but proudly insists on the podcast that he can’t wait to be a mom someday. The entire exercise was absurd and insulting. As many women pointed out as they announced their intention to boycott the beauty brand, it was like the modern day equivalent of blackface.

I’ve pointed that out several million times over the last seven years or so.

This is not the first time Mulvaney has been treated as a defining voice for females. In September, Mulvaney spoke on a panel at the Forbes Power Women’s Summit.

We remember.

On his 222nd Day of “being a girl,” the walking minstrel show was invited to the White House. Mulvaney revealed on his TikTok that he interviewed President Joe Biden for Now This News.

Biden talked to him why? Because he’s a man pretending to be a woman. Why is that a reason to talk to him? Why is it considered anything but insulting to women? Would Biden talk to a white woman who pretended to be black? Complete with offensively stereotyped costume, mannerisms, speech?

We know damn well he wouldn’t.

Now this crap:

A number of anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced and enacted on the state level in recent months, with many aimed at attacking transgender rights by outlawing gender affirming health care and prohibiting trans kids from playing in youth sports that align with their identity.

One: the bills are not in any way anti-LGB.

Two: they’re also not anti-TQ except in the sense that they don’t promote the novel, dangerous, stupid doctrine that people can be literally trapped in “the wrong body.” Bills that outlaw surgery and/or drugs that alter children’s bodies for the sake of a delusion are not anti the children being protected. Bills that forbid males to compete in female sport are not anti-T, they’re pro-female.

Since taking office, President Joe Biden has signed several executive orders to protect trans rights. 

Define “trans rights.” They don’t, of course.

Dylan Mulvaney has publicly been sharing her transition on TikTok with her viral “Days of Girlhood” series. She spoke with Biden at Now This’ Presidential Forum about the right-wing attacks on trans lives and how the administration can better advocate for the trans community.

…

Mulvaney: Thank you. I am extremely privileged to live in a state that allows me access to the resources I need, and that decision is just between me and my doctors. But many states have lawmakers that feel like they can involve themselves in this very personal process. Do you think states should have a right to ban gender-affirming healthcare?

What if we call it sex-denying health malpractice? What do you think then?

But of course that’s not what Biden replied to.

Biden: I don’t think any state or anybody should have the right to do that. As a moral question and as a legal question, I just think it’s wrong. You know, I think I was saying before we started that my son, my deceased son, used to be the attorney general of the state of Delaware. He passed the broadest piece of legislation he, as attorney general, was able to convince the legislature and the governor to sign that dealt with all gender-affirming capabilities. I mean, there’s a lot of, you know, you sometimes—they try to block you from being able to access certain medicines, being able to access certain procedures, and so on. None of that should be available. I mean, no state should be able to do that, in my view. So I feel very, very strongly that you should have every single solitary right including use of your gender-identity bathrooms in public.

And women can just go jump off a roof. Thanks Joe.

Originally a comment by Sastra on Wielding their imagined marginalization as a weapon.

Those who have been marginalized want to leave their enforced marginalization behind; those who marginalize themselves (or who falsely claim to have been marginalized, like white males, claiming the plight of Black trans prostitutes in Brazil as their own), wield their imagined marginalization as a weapon, using it as leverage to gain special status and privilege on a permanent, continuing basis.

Yet those who falsely claim to have been marginalized may not be aware that their claim is false. I suspect the group of trans-identified males is a philosophically mixed lot, divided between those who come at their transness from the postmodernist Queer Theory break-the-boundaries perspective and those who have fallen for the idea that they themselves are a woman trapped in a man’s body and it’s just pure torture.

Both enjoy using their marginalization as a weapon, but the target may be slightly different. The Queers want to run over those they perceive to be “normal” for the wider social purpose of eliminating the boundaries between male and female, gay and straight, normal and abnormal. The Sincere want to run over those who won’t let them be and do what they want for the wider social purpose of allowing people to be and do what they want.

Ironically, the means (I’m oppressed, obey me) may have become the ends, given that power corrupts. Gay rights didn’t involve making such drastic demands, so the effort involved in getting people on board trans rights has taken on a life of its own. I think you’re right and that many, drunk on power, will take their marginalization and move on to the next target. But I suspect that’s not the feature, but a taking-control bug taking control of the entire project.

It seems the NHS really has made a serious shift:

Most children who believe that they are transgender are just going through a “phase”, the NHS has said, as it warns that doctors should not encourage them to change their names and pronouns.

NHS England has announced plans for tightening controls on the treatment of under 18s questioning their gender, including a ban on prescribing puberty blockers outside of strict clinical trials.

The services, which will replace the controversial Tavistock clinic, will be led by medical doctors rather than therapists and will consider the impact of other conditions such as autism and mental health issues.

Hoo-boy – what an improvement.

NHS England says that the interim Cass Report has advised that even social transition, such as changing a young person’s name and pronouns or the way that they dress, is not a “neutral act” that could have “significant effects” in terms of “psychological functioning”.

Naturally; that’s the whole point of it. Mind you, I think there should be plenty of middle ground on clothing so that what people wear can be a neutral act. Can we get more men to wear kilts?

The proposals say that the new clinical approach will for younger children “reflect evidence that in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence” and doctors should be mindful this might be a “transient phase”.

Instead of encouraging transition, medics should take “a watchful approach” to see how a young person’s conditions develop, the plans state.

How very sane and reasonable.

Owen Jones has another correction for us.

Unrepresentative how? Well for one thing where are the yoof???! But he’s not ageist.

So anyway. For one thing most of the people in the photo are in shadow, so he can’t actually tell what they look like, so he can’t even judge how “representative” they are because he can’t see them. For a second thing why does he think he can tell how “representative” they are just by looking at a photo? For a third thing, of course they’re not “representative” of QT: they’re not trying to be. They don’t consider the Q and the T to be inextricably related to the LGB, in fact they consider it to be quite different.

I think all OJ really means is that what he can see of the people in that photo tells him they’re not as trendy and exciting and fun as he and his friends are.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Queering queer.

Queerness, he argues, is a fashion and a political statement that not all gay people subscribe to. “Queerness is also self-consciously and purposefully marginal,” he told me. “Whereas the arc of the gay rights movement, and the individual lives of most gay people, has been a struggle against marginality. We want to be welcomed. We want to have equal rights. We want a place in our institutions.”

So he’s saying that there’s a difference between being marginalized (by others) and pursuing marginalization (yourself). That makes sense. The former group would want access to the legal rights they are being denied (housing, voting, health, etc.; what we think of as “human rights.”) They want to be let in to the legal and social arrangements everyone else has. They’re not looking for special treatment, but equal treatment. The latter are seemingly heading out to the frontiers of “rights” and expecting society to surrender and acquiesce to their extraordinary demands (affirmation and validation of who they are not; erasure of sex in language and law; access to spaces reserved for the opposite sex: what we would call trans “rights.”) Those who have been marginalized want to leave their enforced marginalization behind; those who marginalize themselves (or who falsely claim to have been marginalized, like white males, claiming the plight of Black trans prostitutes in Brazil as their own), wield their imagined marginalization as a weapon, using it as leverage to gain special status and privilege on a permanent, continuing basis. It is used to reject reasonable accommodation in third spaces, and coerce admittance into spaces reserved for women. This is not a demand for equal treatment, but a rejection of it. It is a demand for colonization and usurpation, a demand that has succeeded in overturning previous standards based on sex in favour of new ones based on “gender.” These new standards, enacted and enforced by governments and corporations, put the lie to the claim that trans identified males are “marginalized.” They have been listened to preferentially, they have benefited, and they have marginalized women in the process. This is a feature, not a bug.

Which truly marginalized group could demand “NO DEBATE” and claim “NO CONFLICT?” And because debate is preemptively taken off the table, the very real and injurious conflicts with women’s sex-based rights are swept away as purely conjectural, hysterical scaremongering. With media collusion, too. Yes, oh so marginalized.

And once they’ve achieved their immediate goals, how likely would it be that TiMs would abandon their claim to “marginalization?” Not very. They would simply move on to the next target, bringing their “vulnerability” and “marginalization” (as well as the power and influence of captured institutions) along for the ride, always at the ready for brandishing.

Originally a comment by Nullius in Verba on Because Feminism is Hated.

The philosophy professor said that she will now speak from outside the academy so [that] she is not being constantly watched for a mistake.

It might be more accurately called a misstep than a mistake. The latter implies, as in logically implies, fault. The former allows for mere transgression.

Feminism is so disliked that apparently a large percentage of girls and young women refuse to wear the label. I suspect this’s primarily because they want to be cool, not the uptight fun police. Feminists are harpies, witches, bitches. They want to say yes, to be inclusive, to be liked. They don’t want to be “boomers”. Unfortunately, the very essence of feminism is incompatible with this impulse toward social approval.

Feminism is (duh) supposed to be about the flourishing of female people, requiring at minimum being able to distinguish between the sexes. Otherwise, it’s impossible to focus attention on females or to recognize sexism when we can’t tell who’s male and who’s female. You can only say that people are affected by some phenomenon. (Some might argue that such language would be intrinsically good due to its inclusivity.) The same problem arises from completely ignoring race: it’s impossible to recognize racism when we can’t tell who’s one race and who’s another. Feminism requires not being inclusive of males. It requires telling someone, “This is not for you.”

Being a vocal feminist means pointing out when something constrains female flourishing, but the “cool girl” who fits in with the guys would never do that. It sometimes means standing in opposition to what others in your peer group deem acceptable. It means telling people from whom you probably want approval that their actions or beliefs are wrong, even harmful. Few things are more likely to shrink popularity than that. Marking exclusion immoral assuages the cognitive dissonance that this all generates.

Thus we see the metamorphosis of feminism into its modern form, that ridiculous movement for all oppressed groups, because for females to have their own movement wouldn’t be sufficiently “inclusive”. “No, guys,” it says, “we’re not like those ugly, old, boomer bitches. We’re young and cool and always DTF.”

Chase Strangio is mad at the Times.

Oh no, how will they go on?

Who tf is PP? Besides Posie Parker, who isn’t a Times columnist. So I had to go to all the trouble of Googling. It’s a column by Pamela Paul on Queering the LanGuage. Is Pamela Paul generally known as PP? Is she a household name? Not that I know of.

So anyway.

Last month, the new president of the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, Kelley Robinson, posted a six-and-a-half-minute video to introduce herself and frame the mission of her organization, which was founded 40 years ago by the gay activist Steve Endean to help fund political campaigns for pro-gay-rights candidates. In the video, Robinson talked about voting rights. She talked about transgender kids in school. She talked about abortion access and workers’ rights. She said a lot of things, including getting “to a world where we are free and liberated without exception — without exception — without anyone left behind.”

Not once, however, did she say the word “gay” or “lesbian” or “bisexual.”

Aha, another one of those disappearing words situations. Planned Parenthood and NOW avoid ever saying the word “women,” even when talking about abortion rights, and now we’re told the Human Rights Campaign avoids “gay” and “lesbian.”

The word “gay” is increasingly being substituted [displaced] by “queer” or, more broadly, “L.G.B.T.Q.,” which are about gender as much as — and perhaps more so than — sexual orientation.

Which means among other things that precision is being lost. The umbrella initials are an umbrella, and sometimes one is talking specifically about lesbians or gay men, in which case an umbrella gets in the way of precision and clarity.

“It is quite often a generational issue, where younger people — millennials — are more fine with it. Gen Xers like myself are somewhat OK with it. Some you might find in each category,” Jason DeRose, who oversees L.G.B.T.Q. reporting at NPR, said of the news organization’s move toward queer. “And then older people or boomers, maybe, who find it problematic.”

Blah blah blah – but it’s not just a matter of “being ok with it” or not. It’s a matter of being able to say what you mean as opposed to having to veil your meaning behind a lengthening string of initials. NPR in its usual mush-brained way confuses verbal precision with feefees. Chase is embarrassed by the Times and I’m embarrassed by NPR.

Let’s be clear: Many lesbians and gay people are fine with this shift. They may even prefer umbrella terms like “L.G.B.T.Q.” and “queer” because they include people who identify according to gender expression or identity as well as sexual orientation.

But those are not the same things, and it’s not always useful or even “kind” to include more and more items in a definition. Language can’t be infinitely “inclusive” that way or it ceases to function as language.

 “Queer” can mean almost anything, and that’s the point. Queer theory is about deliberately breaking down normative categories around gender and sex, particularly binary ones like men and women, straight and gay. Saying you’re queer could mean you’re gay; it could mean you’re straight; it could mean you’re undecided about your gender or that you prefer not to say.

So everyone can join the club, all shall have prizes. But if you want to talk about lesbians? Well, sorry, that makes you suspect, so you’ll have to go back 500 turns.

“Queer” carries other connotations, not all of them welcome — or welcoming. Whereas homosexuality is a sexual orientation one cannot choose, queerness is something one can, according to James Kirchick, the author of “Secret City: The Hidden History of Gay Washington.” Queerness, he argues, is a fashion and a political statement that not all gay people subscribe to. “Queerness is also self-consciously and purposefully marginal,” he told me. “Whereas the arc of the gay rights movement, and the individual lives of most gay people, has been a struggle against marginality. We want to be welcomed. We want to have equal rights. We want a place in our institutions.”

Also, there are far more interesting and useful ways to be marginal. Be more thoughtful or useful or generous or altruistic than most people. Surprise us!

Speaking of hating feminism…

“We do not permit events etc that promote hate” and we’ve decided you promote hate.

But Standing for Women doesn’t “promote hate” of trans people, it promotes clarity on who is a woman and who is not. That’s not hate and it’s not promotion of hate…but It Has Been Decided that yes it is. How are these decisions made, exactly?

Consider the endless ongoing struggle against racism. Does opposing racism equal hatred of white people? Does opposing homophobia equal hatred of straight people? Does union organizing equal hatred of owners and bosses? Does pacifism equal hatred of the military and/or political leaders who trigger wars?

You could say yes to all those, I guess. There’s always an element of opposition, necessarily – if there were nothing to oppose there would be no struggle, no movement, no campaign. They’re all about something, they all contest a status quo, so they’re all oppositional, so there is potentially hatred for at least situations and arrangements and institutions, and thus potentially for the people in charge.

So how do you choose? If you’re Eventbrite do you reject pacifists and anti-racism activists? Or is it only feminists who say men are not women who are seen as too oppositional to promote?

The Telegraph reports on a conversation at the LGB Alliance conference yesterday:

Kathleen Stock said that academic institutions treat students like customers and the “grown-ups” no longer tell anxious young people that someone saying something that they disagree with is not actually harming them.  

The philosophy professor said that she will now speak from outside the academy so [that] she is not being constantly watched for a mistake. 

Or rather a “mistake,” i.e. a reasoned claim that some bile-infused teenager takes a dislike to.

She was joined by campaigner Julie Bindel who warned that the bitter debate is “about misogyny” which allows men to try [to] silence feminists.

“The reason why so many people have latched on to this, why it’s captured the liberal masses, why it’s captured our institutions is primarily because feminism is hated,” she told the audience to applause.

“This is the old intolerance by the way, not the new. Feminists like me that speak about male violence, and point the finger at male perpetrators, are hated, including by men on the left.” She said that the trans debate had “given them an opportunity” to criticise feminists in a way “they never could before” and still be seen as “being on the right side of history”.

It’s the truth. Just before reading this story I made the same point in a quote tweet.

Feminists are hated, and feminists are hated because women are hated.

The Guardian talks to Maggie Haberman:

The 45th president lived down to her expectations. She was on the receiving end of both his insatiable desire for attention and his poison-pen responses to critical coverage. A month after taking office, Trump, while developing a symbiotic relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News channel, branded the New York Times and other outlets “the enemy of the American people”.

Haberman comments: “He has endangered journalists with that language and that language has been used by authoritarians in other countries to legitimise anti-press crackdowns. I don’t think Donald Trump has any sense of what the role of the free press is in a democracy. None.”

Naturally not. It’s not the kind of thing that interests or concerns him. He’s very flat in that way – very thin, diminished, airless. His interests are few and trivial and shallow.

Was there anything, amid the four-year madness of all caps tweets, hirings and firings, insults and lies that shocked even her? Haberman picks the day that Trump stood on the White House podium floating the idea that coronavirus patients might inject themselves with bleach. “He was feeling competitive with the doctors because he gets competitive with everybody. That was a pretty striking moment.”

In a way that’s part of his flatness. If he had any mind, if he knew how to think, he wouldn’t be competitive with everybody, because he would understand the value of knowledge and expertise. Having an empty brain, he can’t understand how medical experts could know more than he does about medical issues.

Some White House alumni have been condemned for cashing in by writing memoirs. Haberman herself has been accused of holding back pearls of news for her book rather than publishing them in the Times immediately. Critics seized on its revelation that, following his defeat by Joe Biden in the 2020 election, Trump told an aide: “I’m just not going to leave.” His state of denial culminated in a deadly insurrection by a mob of his supporters at the US Capitol on January 6.

Political consultant Steve Schmidt tweeted: “Was it important information for the public to know Trump said he wasn’t leaving after losing an election? Yes. Was this information deliberately concealed for an economic reason that took higher precedence than the truth and the public right to know? YES.”

Haberman flatly denies the charge, saying that she would have published the story if she could have confirmed it at the time but she only nailed it down long after Trump left office. When, during research for the book, she did land a scoop about Trump apparently trying to flush documents down a White House toilet, she alerted the Times and printed it right away.

“Books take time. They’re a process of going back and interviewing people again and revisiting scenes that have happened. I turned to this project in earnest after February 2021 and the second impeachment trial. My goal was to get confirmed, reportable information in print as quick as possible and, if I had known these things in real time, and had them confirmed, I would have published them.”

For Confidence Man she spoke to 250 people, some of whom were more willing to speak for a book than a here-today-gone-tomorrow news story.

I saw a lot of those “Haberman saved the biggest stories for her book” rants, and wondered if they were fair or not. (The same criticism is made of Bob Woodward.) It’s good to see some arguments from the other direction.

There’s finally news on the damage to Salman Rushdie and it’s bad. He’s lost the use of one eye and one hand.

[I]n an interview with Spain’s El País, Andrew Wylie explained how serious and life-changing the attack had been.

“[His wounds] were profound, but he’s [also] lost the sight of one eye,” said Wylie. “He had three serious wounds in his neck. One hand is incapacitated because the nerves in his arm were cut. And he has about 15 more wounds in his chest and torso. So, it was a brutal attack.”

Allah is wise, merciful.

Maya Forstater tells us:

Last night, after the LGB Alliance Conference, Helen Joyce and I went to the Westminster Arms pub around the corner from the conference centre for a quiet drink. Helen had a glass of wine and I had a gin and tonic.

Before long around 20 protesters turned up, having broken away from the main protest outside of the QEII Conference Centre. We were told they were there because Helen was inside.

Ah well yes of course, two women in a pub talking – we can’t have that. Women must get permission from angry adolescents before they go somewhere, or talk, or think.

They stood facing the entrance to the pub chanting slogans for around 40 minutes. Two policeman provided an escort for us to leave the pub.

Now, we’re not talking corporate predators here, we’re not talking people who market addictive drugs, or tobacco, or oil, or assault rifles. We’re not talking about warmongering politicians, or exploitative bosses, or torturers, or environmental vandals. We’re talking about two feminist women who publicly defend the rights of women. Squawk squawk.

Owen Jones, hinting that people who attend LGB Alliance conferences are…what, not sexually attractive enough for his taste? Too ugly, too old, too informally dressed, too female? It’s hard to be sure, but “without comment” is definitely a juvenile sneer of some kind. Maybe we’re meant to take it as a juvenile sneer of every kind, for our own convenience.

Also, “without comment” makes it not without comment, so there’s that.

People need to stop dumping fishing gear in the ocean.

These guys get most of the lines off but the last bit is the riskiest, because they’re that much closer to the whale. In this instance the whale throws his head back (at 40 seconds) and sinks, thus escaping the snare.