So Trump casually said his daughter committed perjury when she testified the other day. Dear ol’ dad.

During an appearance on MSNBC on Sunday afternoon, Mary Trump claimed that her uncle Donald’s dismissive comment that daughter Ivanka had “checked out” when he tried to undermine her taped testimony before the House select committee investigating the Jan 6th insurrection could be taken as an accusation she perjured herself.

…

Trump lashed out on TruthSocial at the hearing and included his daughter in his criticism claiming, “Ivanka Trump was not involved in looking at, or studying, Election results,” adding she, “had long since checked out, and was, in my opinion, only trying to be respectful to Bill Barr and his position as Attorney General (he sucked!).”

[Trump chose Barr. If he sucks, why did Trump choose him? Does he think Barr was someone else’s choice?]

According to Mary Trump, while the former president didn’t entirely didn’t “throw Ivanka under the bus,” he did accuse her of a federal crime.

Asked by host Witt, “Is this what you expected from your uncle?” Mary Trump replied, “It’s exactly what I expected from both of them.”

“I think Ivanka walked a very fine line,” she elaborated. “She did not say anything necessarily incendiary but, as we thought would happen, she decided she needed to come down on the side of what the facts support.”

“Of course, the election was not stolen,” she added. “Also, as we knew would happen, Donald didn’t entirely throw her under the bus. But I think it’s really important to point out the fact he said that she checked out, although that is kind of rude, isn’t really the issue. He is accusing her of perjury, really.”

I suppose there’s an argument that he didn’t: that because he chose the escape-wording “checked out” he said she wasn’t really firing on all cylinders, as opposed to consciously lying.

Originally a comment by Colin Daniels on Many other women and girls.

Obviously this has been going for a very long time but here in the UK the situation was exacerbated a decade or two ago when the government introduced “league tables”, ostensibly to give the public a measure of how well various institutions were performing. They did it for things like education, health and policing.

What happened, in fact, was that institutions began to focus their efforts in areas that pushed them up the table, in order to increase the funding that they received. “Problem” children, that are difficult to teach; patients, that are difficult to treat; and cases, that are difficult to prosecute, are ignored in favour of easy wins.

And thus the police/CPS are extremely reluctant to spend time and effort on cases that they know will have a hard time getting through court proceedings.

And because these cases are hardly ever seen the impression is given that the problem is not large enough to warrant extra funding. And so the cycle continues.

Matt Taibbi talks to Kara Dansky:

Kara Dansky, a former WoLF board member and the author of The Abolition of Sex, may be the most outspoken feminist in America when it comes to criticizing popular current beliefs about gender identity. A former ACLU public defender, she’s focused heavily on the presence of biological men in women’s jails, and for her troubles has been essentially booted out of mainstream progressive politics.

Taibbi admits having sat on an interview with Dansky for months because of fear of we know very well what. He apologizes for doing that.

Matt Taibbi: I’ve known some people who identified as trans or as women in my life, who wanted to be called she. As somebody who’s grown up with a liberal sensibility, my first thought is, “Well, if that’s the way they feel, I respect that,” and so I go along with it. I always felt like that was the right moral thing to do. Is it not?

I grew up with a liberal sensibility too but that’s not my first thought, and never has been. My first thought, if it’s a man who wants to be called she, is the same as all the subsequent thoughts. It’s just no. Men are by definition adults; adults don’t get to tell or ask other adults to call them something they manifestly are not. Specifying the non-pejorative way to mention women, Black people, lesbians, gay men, and so on, is one thing, and asking to be called Your Majesty or Doctor or Admiral or Marilyn Monroe when you’re not any of those things is another. That’s first. Second is what Kara says: doing so conditions us to believe the lie.

Kara Dansky: Yeah, a couple things. I really think the use of so-called preferred pronouns, I think it messes with our head. Just as you were saying that, I noticed you kind of struggling with it, because I know that you want to use she to describe your male friends who identify as women to be kind, but it’s not easy. There’s a conflict in your own mind about that. I think that’s very deliberate, not by your friend. I think it’s a deliberate move by this whole gender identity movement to get us to be confused and to question our own understanding of the truth.

Such a simple little thing, but so powerful.

Matt Taibbi: Here’s the disconnect for me. There’s so much attention and sensitivity to the issue of violence against women in all other arenas — except this one. Do you have an explanation for that?

Kara Dansky: It is astonishing. Well, I don’t really get to ask that question to people on the left or media. When I ask that question to conservatives, they’re blown away. They agree with the question, and they don’t understand it either. But you’re right. If a man exposes himself on a bus, he will be charged with a crime, rightfully so. The victim of that crime is going to say, “This is an example of Me Too.” But if a man exposes himself in the naked section of a women’s spa, under California law, he gets to be validated as stunning and brave.

So all the guys on the bus will just say they’re trans laydeez.

There’s much more: read the whole thing.

Hadley Freeman writes:

Young people have always believed that they know better than the older generation, and now the older generation agrees with them. Middle-aged and experienced editors working in journalism and publishing live in fear of printing something that might displease the twenty-somethings who work in their company’s digital and publicity departments. Parents defer to their teenaged children about the correct languages to use and opinions to hold.

There was that chunk of time when, broadly speaking, the younger generation did know better about some things. The Civil Rights movement, opposition the the war on Vietnam, the return of feminism, the LGB rights movement were all partly generational conflicts. That background left practically everyone with an impression that Progress Is In The Kids. There are other impressions that pull the other way, like the impression that Kids Don’t Know Everything, but still – I think that core idea lurks in most people who Identify As progressive or social justicey. It’s taking forever for people to grasp that it slammed into the barrier at 80 miles an hour with the trans thing.

Younger generations have always looked for ways to differentiate themselves from the stuffy old farts who came before – their parents, in other words – while also seeking an identity that confers upon them a set of ready-made beliefs and a supportive social group.

With Civil Rights and feminism and LGB rights that worked out well, even for the stuffy old farts. With trans ideology it’s a flaming smoking melting disaster.

In the appallingly sexist but undeniably revealing documentary, What is a Woman?, provocateur Matt Walsh interviews American paediatric professor Dr Michelle Forcier, who is dressed in a toga and talks in the soothing, beatific voice of a cult leader. She says that children are ready to be put on medical treatment to change gender “when they ask for it”. By “medical treatment”, she means Lupron, which is now used as a puberty blocker on gender non-conforming children, but has been used in the past, Walsh rightly says, to chemically castrate sex offenders. Forcier wrongly insists that puberty blockers “don’t have permanent effects”, and ends the interview.

Forcier is not a teenager, but she’s caught fast in the current teenager Glorious Revolution. It’s a pathetic spectacle.

Forcier is not an outlier. Trans activists now argue that confused four-year-olds should be seen as analogous to trans adults. Not very long ago, I received an email from my children’s nursery to say that a three-year-old who I’ll call Daisy was now a boy and should be called Robert. As it happened, my three-year-old had, that same morning, informed me he was an astronaut, but it hadn’t occurred to me to tell anyone (or NASA), and that’s because children’s identities are mutable. They are still discovering who they are, and that’s as true for three-year-olds as it is for 13-year-olds.

Discovering and playing with and being creative with. Here’s the deal: pretending is fun, and good for children, but adults absolutely need to know the difference between fantasy and reality. They can go on fantasizing, but they have to know that’s what they’re doing, and that they can’t force their fantasies on anyone else. It is not in any way progressive or life-enhancing to build a politics on the claim that whatever people say about themselves [unless they’re feminist women] is true.

I was a very unhappy adolescent girl who was treated for anorexia. So I know a little about unhappy and confused adolescent girls, and how much we attack our own bodies to express that unhappiness. I also know what it’s like to be a desperate parent who just wants their kid to stop crying, to be happy and healthy and safe, and to feel like I’m a good parent who listens. The baby-led approach is an expression of that because sometimes (often) we don’t know what’s best for our kids, especially when it comes to a new issue like gender. But guess what? Your kid doesn’t know either, and nor, it seems, does anyone else who is supposed to safeguard them. Our kids aren’t breaking down barriers, they’re rock climbing without any safety ropes, and we’re encouraging it. It’s time for my generation to grow up, and be the adults.

Way past time in fact.

Raskin says he knew.

I don’t disagree with any of that, it’s just that I think Trump is peculiarly skilled at going on believing what he already believes no matter what other people are telling him – skilled at not listening, in short. He simply pays no attention to things people say that are inconvenient to him, apart from blasting them with dragon breath. He ignores them, in short. That is not a legal defense, I’m pretty sure.

“Barr told you it was bullshit.”

“Barr was full of shit, he was disloyal, he was wrong.”

“Nobody cares. You committed crimes. Put your hands against the wall.”

The Times has noticed the ACLU’s determination to erase women from abortion rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union, whose advocacy on reproductive rights is of more than a half-century vintage, recently tweeted its alarm about the precarious state of legal abortion:

“Abortion bans disproportionately harm: Black Indigenous and other people of color. The L.G.B.T.Q. community. Immigrants. Young people. Those working to make ends meet. People with disabilities. Protecting abortion access is an urgent matter of racial and economic justice.”

But nothing to do with women. It’s not just the ACLU, the Times correctly points out.

From Planned Parenthood to NARAL Pro-Choice America to the American Medical Association to city and state health departments and younger activists, the word “women” has in a matter of a few years appeared far less in talk of abortion and pregnancy.

That’s a clumsy sentence. Over the past few years the word has been disappearing.

This speed of change is evident: In 2020, NARAL issued a guide to activists on abortion that stressed they should talk about a “woman’s choice.” Two years later, the same guide emphasized the need for “gender-neutral language.”

And many women objected and continue to object, and they all ignore us.

This reflects a desire by medical professionals to find a language that does not exclude and gives comfort to those who give birth and identify as nonbinary or transgender. No agency appears to collect data on transgender and nonbinary pregnancies, but Australia has reported that about 0.1 percent of all births involve transgender men.

And for that tiny number we have to erase women and women’s rights from the fight for abortion, which is kind of like taking on the Nazis with a few slingshots.

For those who fight in the trenches of reproductive politics, the surprise is that a turn to gender-neutral language surprises. Louise Melling, a deputy legal director for the A.C.L.U., noted that not long ago male pronouns and terms such as “mankind” were considered sufficient to cover all women. Language is a powerful instrument, she said, and helps to determine political consciousness.

Oh jesus fucking christ. Yes, exactly, not long ago male everything was used for everything, and we’ve only had about five minutes of people trying to remember to include women now and then and suddenly NO, STOP, we have to stop mentioning women ever.

“Language evolves and it can exclude or it can include,” Ms. Melling noted in an interview. “It’s really important to me that we think about pregnant people. It’s the truth: Not only women give birth, not only women seek abortion.”

On the contrary, that is not the truth, it is the opposite of the truth.

NARAL punctuated this point in a tweet last year defending its use of “birthing people”: “We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth.”

Yes it is. That’s exactly who it is. It is only women who can get pregnant and give birth. That includes butch women. It doesn’t matter how high on the butchOmeter they register, they are still women. Men cannot get pregnant or give birth.

Seeking pre-emptive pardons may turn out to be a mistake.

The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack revealed at its inaugural hearing that Donald Trump’s top Republican allies in Congress sought pardons after the January 6 insurrection, a major disclosure that bolstered the claim that the event amounted to a coup and is likely to cause serious scrutiny for those implicated.

Why? Because “Pardons for what, Senator?”

The news that multiple House Republicans asked the Trump White House for pardons – an apparent consciousness of guilt – was one of three revelations portending potentially perilous legal and political moments to come for Trump and his allies.

Note to journalists: don’t ever write a sentence with “portending potentially perilous” in it. Come on now.

“It’s hard to find a more explicit statement of consciousness of guilt than looking for a pardon for actions you’ve just taken, assisting in a plan to overthrow the results of a presidential election,” Jamie Raskin, a member of the select committee, told reporters.

Also, Trump can’t claim not to have known.

The disclosure about the pardons came during the opening hour of the hearing where the panel made the case that Trump could not credibly believe he had won the 2020 election after some of his most senior advisors told him repeatedly that he had lost to Joe Biden.

As a matter of law he can’t. As a matter of personal psychology, I don’t know – he’s so stupid and so self-focused and so hardened that maybe there is a sense in which he didn’t “know” it. He could know he’d been told that but also be very sure in his own calcified brain that everyone who isn’t Donald Trump is wrong about everything until proven otherwise (by him). But legally speaking that shouldn’t count.

At the heart of the case the panel appears to be trying to make is the legal doctrine of “willful blindness”, as former US attorney Joyce Vance wrote for MSNBC, which says a defendant cannot say they weren’t aware of something if they were credibly notified of the truth.

Even if they’re Trump. Even if they’re the most narcissistic human being ever to stomp on the earth.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Too easy. The story is about a heatwave. What do you do in a heatwave? Try to stay as cool as possible. What do you not do? Lie in the sun in a bathing suit.

Well of course he does. He always did. He didn’t want to be bounced out in the first place. We all want nice things, but that doesn’t mean we always get to have them.

The Duke of York has asked the Queen to be reinstated as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, The Telegraph understands, as he pushes for a return to royal duties.

But he was uninstated for a reason, so it seems pretty toddleresque to whine at Paddington Bear’s friend to let him come back. Has he taken to lying on the floor drumming his heels and screaming?

A source said: “The colonelcy of the Grenadier Guards was his most coveted title and he wants it back. Having remained a Counsellor of State, he also believes he should be included at royal and state events.”

Of course he wants it back. That goes without saying. It was taken away for a reason.

“Most importantly for him is his status as an HRH and ‘Prince of the Blood’ and he feels that should be reinstated and his position recognised and respected.”

Despite that whole underage sex thing. Ain’t nobody gonna respect him now.

He’s in a hurry to get it done because it’s only Brenda who might say yes. Choss has said a firm no.

Originally a comment by Papito on What kind of “experts”?

Experts said that in today’s world, children must fight against the devil for their souls even while they’re asleep.

Really, what’s the difference?

The difference is that the believers in gender ideology have so completely captured the media elite that, though a reporter may question whether children have “souls,” none may question whether children have “gender identity.”

A reporter who went on NPR or wrote in the Times about how today’s children had to guard their souls against the devil would be seen as religious, and the media organization would fence them in with a counterpoint. No counterpoint is allowed for the hundreds of times a week they assert that all children have a “gender identity.” Nobody comes on after to say “not everybody believes that people have gender identities.” It’s presented as revealed truth.

If a kid came home from a public school saying that their health teacher was telling them about their souls, few angry parents would hesitate to call the school. When kids come home from public school saying their health teachers are telling them about their gender identities, parents have to weigh whether they will be labeled a bigot for protesting.

What do young people really have, that’s different from yesteryear? Proselytized from every newspaper, radio, and school, they have the reified “gender identity.” At the top of the cultural menu of explanations for psychological distress, they have “gender dysphoria.” In previous generations, a different thing would have been at the top of that menu: the work of the Devil, multiple personalities, possession, repressed trauma. In this sense, “I’m really a boy” is the new “I saw Goody Osburn cavorting with the Devil.”

Most of the kids who identify that they are suffering from “gender dysphoria” have an interpersonal conflict with their same-sex parent. As did innumerable adolescents of generations past, they don’t want to grow up to be their dad, or to be their mom. The difference is that today, instead of being told they can grow up to be a different sort of man, or a different sort of woman, they are told right away that they can grow up not to be a man at all, or not to be a woman at all. That’s what a firmly implanted belief in gender identity promises them. That’s what teaching kids from Kindergarten that all people choose their genders and their pronouns teaches them.

Do we forget that second word exists? Gender… identity. There it is. A fundamental goal of the psyche during adolescence is defining the individual’s identity. That’s what an adolescent brain is meant to do, and it does it, first and foremost, by reaction to and against his or her parents. What am I? Not like my dad… and that is when gender ideology hijacks individuation. Did anybody in the Sixties imagine that someday “tuning in, turning on, and dropping out” would seem like a more mainstream choice? Did anybody imagine that someone could convince adolescent boys to sign up to become eunuchs? And convince their parents to go along with it?

I saved my son from the gender ghouls, and these days he thanks me for it. Now I have to lay the groundwork to save my daughter. I have nerdy, non-conforming, empathetic, quirky kids, and such kids are the prime targets of the gender cult. Kids aren’t ever going to believe everything their parents tell them, and nor should they. But whenever the topic of “gender identity” comes up, I remind my daughter that not everybody believes in “gender identity,” just like not everybody believes in “souls.” I don’t have a “gender identity,” I tell her. Her mother doesn’t have one, her brother doesn’t have one. We’re just who we are, and we live the way we want to. If the way we want to express ourself comports with what someone expects of a person of our sex, then cool. If it doesn’t, then, well, that’s also cool. It’s just not terribly important. What we have are identities. “Gender” is just one tiny little blind alley in the vast cities of our identities.

The gender cult wants to make that tiny little alley the main thoroughfare of kids’ identities. That is, ultimately, spiritually impoverishing. Not only do the sacrifices of body parts and functions the cult requests of children in service to subordinating identity to gender weaken and harm them, but so does the sacrifice of their own psychological wholeness. In my state it’s illegal to provide psychological therapy to children who suffer from gender dysphoria. There is only one legal remedy: affirmation. A therapist who doesn’t do that could lose his license, and so he will commonly refuse to see such patients, thus turning away a significant proportion of the adolescents needing therapy today.

Asking what’s really causing them trauma, what’s really behind their suffering, is impermissible. The answer is gender, and you will provide that answer. Send them down the path to mutilation. Only someday later, perhaps in another state, can they start to explore the reality of their suffering. Now, with more suffering. Perhaps infertile, perhaps sick, perhaps unable ever to experience a sexual relationship. But they’ve got “gender identity,” right?

Does the belief in “gender identity” harm all children? I can’t say whether it does, no more than I can say that the belief in “souls” does. I’m content to let people believe what they want in their churches. If we’re not taking kids away from Christian Scientists, who won’t give them aspirin, then we can’t take kids away from gender ideologues. What I can say with all certainty is that the mandated belief in “gender identity” harms more children than it helps. We must do our best to push back against the reification of this belief.

I guess “white supremacist” is a kind of all-purpose political orientation that starts with hating everyone? A group of them were interrupted at a Pride parade in Idaho.

Police in the US state of Idaho have arrested 31 members of a white supremacist group and charged them with plotting to riot at a gay pride event.

Someone saw them piling into a truck with shields and masks, and called the cops.

The vehicle was soon stopped, and the men – members of the Patriot Front group – were arrested.

“They came to riot downtown,” Coeur d’Alene Police Chief Lee White said.

He added that riot gear and a smoke grenade were found in the vehicle.

The lorry was stopped near where the North Idaho Pride Alliance was holding the Coeur d’Alene Pride in the Park event.

In case you’re wondering how Coeur d’Alene is pronounced, it’s disappointing. Coredalayn.

The arrested members of Patriot Front are from 11 different US states – and only one of them from Idaho, police said.

Crossing state lines to create a ruction. It’s sort of good in a way though – they could rustle up only one rioter in Idaho and had to go trawling around the rest of the country – and then all they ended up with is 31 wannabe rioters.

Just for fun: Jordan Peterson having a very reasonable calm thoughtful moment.

Originally a comment by Artymorty at Miscellany Room 8.

Per the New York Times:

Experts said that young people increasingly have the language and social acceptance to explore their gender identities

This drives me crazy. What kind of “experts”? The journalistic principle in play should be to weigh the testimony of “experts” against the possibility of influence by a religious belief system that’s applying pressure on the debate.

If you’re talking about any other religious belief — say, Scientology — it becomes very clear that there’s two kinds of “experts” about it: believers themselves, and those who look at the belief system from the outside. Everyone on the inside will of course have nothing but good things to say about it because they have to. It’s people on the outside, who at least ostensibly have more freedom to look at it critically, who journalists should seek out for comment.

Of course with trans ideology you could still be under pressure to keep quiet and/or play along with their beliefs even if you don’t personally identify as one — far more so than with Scientologists. Obviously you won’t get an objective take on Scientology from Tom Cruise or Elisabeth Moss, but nor will you from anyone whose line of work could one day put them on the set of The Handmaid’s Tale or a Mission: Impossible movie. For the rest of us trapped in Gender La La Land, disagreeing with trans ideology is the same, and possibly worse: we could even find ourselves in trouble with the law.

So the press really has to take the social pressure aspect into account any time they cite “experts.”

But journalists don’t see it that way because journalists (a) don’t recognize that trans ideology is a quasi-religious belief system, based on ideas that are not backed by science, rooted in feelings that can’t be quantified scientifically; and (b) journalists don’t recognize the extent of the pressure people are under to affirm these religious beliefs. They conflate nonbelief in gender ideology with fringe characters who lack expertise in gender “science” and are motivated by an ideological hostility to progress.

Of course they got this idea in the first place by treating gender ideology believers as “experts” at the outset, and from the very moment journalists took the gender gurus at their word that they knew what they were talking about and that anyone looking in from the outside who disagreed was not to be trusted, this bias just became self-reinforcing.

So we really need to push hard on the fact that gender ideology is a new religion rather than a new science, and one that’s using manipulative tricks to push its agenda. It should be so obvious that this is true! But —by Xenu — look how well their strategy is working: half the atheist movement has fallen for it.

L. Ron Hubbard, crazy as he was, had shrewd insights into how to spread his cult, one of them being to glom his beliefs onto the glitz and glamour of Hollywood, because that’s what had the most appeal to Americans at the time. It wasn’t just a new science, it was a new science that made you glamourous and successful! In just the same way, the pseudoscience of trans ideology has been yoked to the virtues of progressive politics: gay and lesbian rights; identity politics; the civil rights movement. In a way that’s even more fiendishly clever, because its appeal is deeper than aspirations to fame and fortune: it’s morally righteous. Righteousness is stubborn as an ox, and prone to blindness. Blind righteousness is dangerous.

Another one of those “rights” that isn’t a right.

‘We have a right not to be insulted,’ demonstrator claims as Cineworld fears for workers’ safety

Well, no, you don’t, not exactly, and especially not if you define “insulted” so broadly that it includes living in the same city as a movie house that’s showing a film about Mohammed’s daughter.

A cinema chain has been forced to pull a film about the prophet Muhammad’s daughter over fears for the safety of its staff.

And you don’t have a right to threaten and terrorize people, either.

Demonstrators outside branches in Bolton and elsewhere claimed the work was blasphemous and that freedom of speech should not apply to the subject of Islam. In response, filmmakers decried the suggestion that people offended by a film should be able to dictate what Britons can watch at the cinema.

Britons or anyone.

Check out this jackass:

“You will have repercussions.”

Nous sommes Charlie. Piss off.

Jason Stanley is going all-in on the abuse, not to say libel.

That’s an academic colleague he’s talking to.

Interesting times. Not in a good way.

Updating to add: I see it’s a continuation of his accusations yesterday, which I shared at the time. He’s consistent, at least.

Morality aside, it just doesn’t seem sensible or reasonable or adult to talk this way to a colleague (or anyone else, but administrators could be watching the colleague problem). Bye Felicia at the Washington Post just learned that a couple of days ago.

Women’s cis privilege in China:

CCTV footage of the incident widely circulated online shows a man placing his hand on a woman’s back as she shares a meal with two companions at a barbecue restaurant in the city of Tangshan in Hebei province in the early hours of Friday.

After the woman pushes him away, the man strikes her before others drag her outside and deal a barrage of blows as she lies on the ground. Another woman is also knocked to the floor.

Why are women so cruel and violent to men?

The video quickly went viral on China’s internet and renewed a debate about sexual harassment and gender-based violence in a country where the conversation around women’s rights has grown in recent years despite pressure from a patriarchal society, internet censorship and patchy legal support.

Much like the rest of the world, in fact, except the internet censorship is probably a lot more stringent.

The attack has shocked China and prompted many to ask why this has happened. “The reason that these men felt they could freely assault the woman for rejecting their harassment is because so many men in the past have gone unpunished by the authorities for doing the same,” said Yaqiu Wang, a senior China researcher at Human Rights Watch.

Bullying and dominating women never goes out of style.

Virginia Thomas is even more coup plot-involved than we thought.

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona — 27 more than previously known — to set aside Joe Biden’s popular vote victory and “choose” presidential electors, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post.

Which means she tried to leverage Clarence Thomas’s position to bully state legislators into stealing the election.

The Post reported last month that Thomas sent emails to two Arizona House members, in November and December 2020, urging them to help overturn Biden’s win by selecting presidential electors — a responsibility that belongs to Arizona voters under state law.

She used an online platform that facilitates mass mailings.

New documents show that Thomas indeed used the platform to reach many lawmakers simultaneously. On Nov. 9, she sent identical emails to 20 members of the Arizona House and seven Arizona state senators. That represents more than half of the Republican members of the state legislature at the time.

Telling them to help steal the election.

On Dec. 13, the day before members of the electoral college were slated to cast their votes and seal Biden’s victory, Thomas emailed 22 House members and one senator. “Before you choose your state’s Electors …consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead,” the email said. It linked to a video of a man urging swing-state lawmakers to “put things right” and “not give in to cowardice.”

…[T]he revelation that Ginni Thomas was directly involved in pressing them to override the popular vote — an act that would have been without precedent in the modern era — intensified questions about whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and attempts to subvert it. Ginni Thomas’s status as a leading conservative political activist has set her apart from other spouses of Supreme Court justices.

And then trying to subvert an election sets her apart some more.

Absolutely classic oblivious male lefty sexist pig type guy. Sports editor at The Nation.

Right? Right?? That precious little Susie, who does she think she is? Bitch.

Uh huh. He’s really in a lather about those “young Black women,” and the irrepressible joy of sporting success. Any excuse will do when it comes to dismissing girls and women who want fair competition in their sports.

Dave Zirin and Jason Stanley should be a dual act, like Laurel and Hardy.

The ACLU is promoting this shockingly bad and dishonest article by Chase Strangio and one Gabriel Arkles:

Four Myths About Trans Athletes, Debunked

The dishonesty is apparent already: the issue isn’t “trans athletes,” it’s male trans athletes invading women’s sports. They know that of course, and carefully pretend not to.

Upholding trans athletes’ rights requires rooting out the inaccurate beliefs underlying harmful policies sweeping through state legislatures.

What are “trans athletes’ rights”?

No athletes have a “right” to cheat by playing in categories that are for people smaller or younger or less muscular than they are. That’s it, that’s the issue.

For years state lawmakers have pushed legislation attempting to shut trans people out of public spaces. In 2020, lawmakers zeroed in on sports and introduced 20 bills seeking to ban trans people from participating in athletics.

Seeking to ban male trans people from women’s athletics. Are there any bills that seek to ban all trans people from athletics? I don’t know because I haven’t examined all of them, but the ones that have made it into news stories and think pieces have all been about not letting men – trans or otherwise – invade women’s athletics. Strangio and Arkles are carefully hiding that fact, as the trans dogmatists always do.

Though we are fighting every day in the courts and in legislatures, upholding trans rights will take more than judicial and legislative action. It will require rooting out the inaccurate and harmful beliefs underlying these policies. Below, we debunk four myths about trans athletes using the expertise of doctors, academics, and sports psychologists serving as experts in our litigation in Idaho.

First myth:

MYTH: The participation of trans athletes hurts cis women.

Many who oppose the inclusion of trans athletes erroneously claim that allowing trans athletes to compete will harm cisgender women. This divide and conquer tactic gets it exactly wrong. Excluding women who are trans hurts all women. It invites gender policing that could subject any woman to invasive tests or accusations of being “too masculine” or “too good” at their sport to be a “real” woman. 

So instead women should just put up with men taking all the prizes?

Further, this myth reinforces stereotypes that women are weak and in need of protection.

Oh fuck off. Don’t pretend any of this is feminist reasoning. It’s just a fact that men as a class are bigger and stronger than women. That’s one reason the fight for our rights never ends. It’s not a “stereotype” that Lia Thomas has an obvious advantage over the women he is competing against.

The real motive is never about protection — it’s about excluding trans people from yet another public space. The arena of sports is no different.

Note the complete, callous, brutal indifference to women.

On the other hand, including trans athletes will promote values of non-discrimination and inclusion among all student athletes.

Then why discriminate against athletes on steroids? Why discriminate against tigers or gorillas or elephants? Why discriminate against athletes on motorcycles or in tanks?

It’s all bullshit. There are rules and stipulations and qualifications in athletics; there is no blanket value of total non-discrimination and inclooosion. Competitions “discriminate” against all the athletes who didn’t make it to the competitions. That’s how competitions work. It’s all discrimination and exclusion: the winner excludes everyone else.

Dr. Mary Fry adds that youth derive the most benefits from athletics when they are exposed to caring environments where teammates are supported by each other and by coaches. Banning some girls from athletics because they are transgender undermines this cohesion and compromises the wide-ranging benefits that youth get from sports. 

But those “girls” are not girls; that’s the whole point. These stupid childish language games are just that”: stupid and childish. The ACLU is making a complete fool of itself.

The other “myths” are just as ludicrous.

MYTH: Trans athletes’ physiological characteristics provide an unfair advantage over cis athletes.

No, male athletes’ physiological characteristics provide an unfair advantage over female athletes. Not a myth, a stone-cold fact.

MYTH: Sex is binary, apparent at birth, and identifiable through singular biological characteristics. 

Not a myth, a stone-cold fact.

FACT: Trans girls are girls.

Not a fact; a lie.

You’d think an adult who works in a job where he has to handle philosophy would refrain from publicly saying fatuous nonsense like this.

It depends what the “embattled minority group” is, obviously. I mean OBVIOUSLY, spoken with all the heavy disdain of an enlightened teenager. Duhhhhhhh-uhhhhhhhhhh.

An “embattled minority group” can be anything. It can be rapists. It can be murderers. It can be mass murderers. It can be men who stalk and trap and overpower and rape and murder women. It can be men who stalk and trap and overpower and rape and murder women and are cops. It can be lying cheating thieving heads of state. It can be anything. Just being embattled and a minority does not guarantee you are good or other-regarding or halfway decent people.

Jason Stanley can’t be so dumb that he doesn’t know that, yet he talks the childish slogany jargon anyway.