The Guardian reports on the LGB Alliance hearing:

The creation of LGB Alliance has promoted constructive debate on “difficult and problematic issues” of sex and gender, the Charity Commission told a court on Monday, during final arguments over whether the gay rights group should have been given charitable status.

…

Mermaids, which supports transgender, non-binary and gender diverse children and their families, launched an appeal last year against the Charity Commission’s grant of charitable status to LGB Alliance. Mermaids has argued that the group was set up to lobby the government to restrict legal rights afforded to transgender people.

And to non-binary people and gender diverse children. Let’s make sure to get all the adjectives in every time, even if they do all mean pretty much the same thing.

Summing up, Michael Gibbon KC, counsel for Mermaids, said LGB Alliance’s “worldview and objectives are based on conflict and confrontation. This makes its approach fundamentally unpleasant, aggressive and corrosive of public discourse.”

What an absolutely idiotic thing to say. You could say that about Doctors Without Borders or anti-war groups or let’s not destroy the climate groups or any groups with a purpose. You could say it about anti-racism movements and feminist movements – you could say it about anything other than sitting still and saying nothing.

He said LGB Alliance had repeatedly described Mermaids in derogatory terms, accusing the charity of promoting a “gender identity ideology”, of inappropriately medicalising children, “of child abuse, basically”, and of having homophobic views.

Yes, and? Are they supposed to lie?

Steele set out the law on the granting of charitable status, assessing whether or not the purposes of LGB Alliance were “exclusively charitable” and “for the public benefit”.

“An institution whose purpose is to promote the rights and fair treatment of lesbian, gay and bisexual people will be acting for charitable purposes,” he said. “The issue is whether LGB Alliance was actually established to pursue the pro LGB purposes it set out or whether it really has anti trans purposes.”

“Anti trans” is ambiguous. There are trans people (people who call themselves trans), and then there is trans ideology. One can dispute the ideology without being “anti” trans people.

Originally a comment by Lady Mondegreen on Donors are disgusted.

Because fragile is the last thing we want to be or appear to be or claim to be. It’s degrading. It pulls against equality and ordinary inclusion in public life. So…why is it so appealing to “the trans community”? Why do we hear so very very much about it?

They need the argumentum ad misericordiam. Their movement relies on it to garner support. Why are we subjected to a “Trans Day of Remembrance,” when it’s easy to demonstrate that trans people aren’t any more likely to be murdered than anybody else? Why are gender critics constantly told we’re responsible for trans suicide and violence against “the trans community”?

It’s a rhetorical trick that’s very useful when your argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Appeal to pity. OK, so, maybe, no matter how hard you try, you can’t make yourself really really believe that Rachel Levine is a woman. It doesn’t matter, don’t you see? It’s so hard, being trans, so dangerous, a lot of Bad People are hurting them–but you’re not a Bad Person, right? You’re a compassionate person who doesn’t want people to suffer. So, use the pronouns. (They’re just words, and it means so much.) Be inclusive. (There aren’t really that many trans people anyway, what difference does it make in the scheme of things?) Just BE KIND. (It’s easy!)

But remember, being trans has nothing to do with mental illness. “The trans community” wouldn’t be so fragile if the Bad People would just stop hurting them. It’s called minority stress. (I keep meaning to look up minority stress; I don’t recall any other liberation movement appealing to it. But there I go, thinking with my head instead of my heart, like a Bad Person.)

Pippa Rogerson still dealing with blowback from her venomous attack on Helen Joyce:

Prof Rogerson joined Dr Andrew Spencer, the college’s senior tutor, in vowing to boycott the talk. They emailed all of the students  stating Ms Joyce’s views were “offensive, insulting and hateful to members of our community who live and work here”.

…

The intervention by the college chiefs – before Ms Joyce spoke – led to donors telling The Telegraph they were “embarrassed, appalled and absolutely disgusted” and would not give any more without a retraction and apology.

Pardon me while I interrupt myself for a moment, because an idea about this has occurred to me. It’s about fragility, in particular fragility used as a cudgel. As I read what Spencer and Rogerson said, again, I wondered for the millionth time why there’s so much heavy breathing about offensive insulting n hateful in connection with this one set of people (aka “community”) when there never has been for other oppressed sets of people. Why are trans people talked about as if they were made of crystal or bone china? Why is it all so maudlin, why does it all depend so heavily on fragility? Millionth time, as I said, but the new bit is thinking feminism and anti-racism didn’t work that way, why is that? Well why is that? Because fragile is the last thing we want to be or appear to be or claim to be. It’s degrading. It pulls against equality and ordinary inclusion in public life. So…why is it so appealing to “the trans community”? Why do we hear so very very much about it?

I don’t know. I’d love to know. Is it for a kind of gotcha? Men are stronger than women therefore haha we’ll punish those pesky feminists by pretending men are more fragile?

End of interruption.

But in her letter, Prof Rogerson refused to apologise, instead telling alumni “we expressed our personal opinions – as is our right”.

Nonsense. They weren’t purely personal opinions, they were opinions in their roles at Cambridge University. They used their roles at Cambridge to get their opinions heard. They used their roles at Cambridge to bully and demonize Helen Joyce.

She said a cancellation of the event was not considered and “free speech is fundamental”, but added pointedly: “I hope it is possible for reasonable people to disagree and that freedom of expression is available to everyone, including me.”

Including freedom to use her Cambridge position to cast aspersions on a guest speaker? That’s not so much freedom as it is an abuse of power.

Dear Billy Bragg, still telling women what to do.

Blimey.

Academics have demanded an apology from the London School of Economics (LSE) over what it claims is a “hostile environment” for students and staff with gender-critical views.

A group of leading scholars have written an open letter condemning an “ideological cabal” at the Russell Group university’s gender studies department – the largest in the UK.

The letter was sent from academics from the Open University Gender Critical Research Network (OUGCRN). The group brings together a range of academics and scholars who share a common interest “in exploring how sexed bodies come to matter in their respective research fields”.  The network also shares a “commitment to ensuring that a space within academia is kept open for rigorous exploration of issues of sex and gender”.

Come with me back back back in time, to when a preceding open letter was sent around, calling the OUGCRN all kinds of names:

An open letter with over 350 signatures from staff and postgraduate research students at the Open University (OU) has been circulated in protest at the formation of a new Gender Critical Research Network. Tens of thousands more from across the UK academy have added their support online.

The gender critical research network, officially listed under the OU’s special interest research groups, claims to be bringing together a range of scholars to ‘critique the constraining influences of gender’ and ‘foster evidence-based and rigorous research’. This should mean scholarship that explores gender-variance and looks to recent research and developments, but instead the Network’s interpretation favours narrow interpretations of gender and disregards the medical evidence for gender-affirming care.

However, those condemning the group have highlighted that its gender critical founding members are all well-known for sharing views that negatively impact rights for trans and non-binary people.

Well, no. Its founding members are all well known for being bullied and lied about and libeled by people like the ones who wrote that bilge.

Back to the Telegraph:

Shortly after [the launch of OUGCRN], a row flared when an excoriating “statement of solidarity with Open University staff” appeared on LSE’s website, signed as the entire gender studies department, claiming the network caused an “antagonistic environment”.

There was a backlash, the statement was removed, LSE bosses investigated.

The public “denunciation” claimed the network was “an explicitly anti-intellectual attack on Gender Studies, trans, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people, and inclusive, intersectional feminist politics”.

The good kind of feminist politics, the kind that puts men first.

The letter purportedly on behalf of the LSE department said that gender-critical views – that biological sex cannot be changed – “undermine trans rights” and “relies on and invests in racist, colonial understandings of sex/gender”.

Quick, somebody call the math department to get help with the decolonization.

But guess what. The fella who coordinated that letter is none other than Jacob Breslow.

Jacob Breslow – who, emails show, coordinated the statement as a senior leader in the department – is now under investigation by LSE after he allegedly gave a presentation in 2011 to the US-based B4U-ACT group when he was a graduate student at LSE.

It’s almost as if the gender revolutionaries hate women because women get in the way of their…hobbies.

The group calls for paedophiles to have the right to live “in truth and dignity”. Mr Breslow, an associate professor of gender and sexuality, quit as a trustee of the children’s trans charity Mermaids after the claims last month.

It prompted the OUGCRN to write last week to Baroness Minouche Shafik, director of LSE, claiming the department “appears not to uphold the values of science, debate, academic freedom and scholarship which most LSE academics hold dear”.

The OUGCRN includes Prof Kathleen Stock, the [philosopher] who quit Sussex University in a trans row, Prof Alice Sullivan, a sociology lecturer at UCL, as well as Prof Jo Phoenix and Prof Rosa Freedman, both criminologists at the University of Reading.

Scary feminist women who aren’t in solidarity with men who want to rape children.

Biologist Luana Maroja on An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science:

The restriction of academic freedom comes in two forms: what we teach and what we research.

Let’s start with teaching. I need to emphasize that this is not hypothetical. The censorious, fearful climate is already affecting the content of what we teach.

One of the most fundamental rules of biology from plants to humans is that the sexes are defined by the size of their gametes—that is, their reproductive cells. Large gametes occur in females; small gametes in males. In humans, an egg is 10 million times bigger than a sperm. There is zero overlap. It is a full binary. 

But in some biology 101 classes, teachers are telling students that sexes—not gender, sex—are on a continuum. At least one college I know teaches with the “gender unicorn” and informs students that it is bigoted to think that humans come in two distinct and discrete sexes. 

In biology 101???

That’s insane.

Even medical schools and the Society for the Study of Evolution have issued statements suggesting that sexes are on a “continuum.” If this were true, the entire field of sexual selection would be baseless, as its bedrock insight lies in the much larger female investment in reproduction, explaining the demonstrated choosiness in females (who have more to lose) and competitiveness in males (the “abundant” sex in most species, one male can fertilize multiple females). Published papers (see here, for example) ask us to be “inclusive” by limiting the sex discussion to the few species of algae and protists (such as amoebas) that have equal size gametes—even when that has no relevance to any animal or vascular plant. 

Hmm. Maybe if we campaigned hard enough we could change the rules – make it so that the sexes really are on a continuum. Worth a try, don’t you think? And screwing up biology teaching forever?

Society of Authors boffin continuing to win friends and admiration.

Times Higher Ed reports:

Mathematics degrees in the UK are being “unnecessarily politicised” because of expectations that lecturers decolonise the curriculum, leading academics claim.

Decolonize math? I can see decolonizing a lot of things, but math?

A letter shared with Times Higher Education accuses the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of trying to mandate a “narrowly skewed perspective on the history of mathematics” via its new subject benchmark instead of giving academics the freedom to design courses as they see fit.

Are we talking the history of math, or math itself? I can see decolonizing the first, but not the second.

The benchmark statement for mathematics, statistics and operational research (MSOR) – a document intended to establish a common understanding of what students can expect from a UK degree in this area – has grown by 50 per cent since 2019 to include sections on equality, diversity, accessibility and inclusion as well as sustainability and employment.

Equality AND diversity AND inclusion. Couldn’t they bundle all three and save some space?

The proposed guidance – which has been put out for consultation – states that “the curriculum should present a multicultural and decolonised view of MSOR, informed by the student voice”.

It adds that students “should be made aware of problematic issues in the development of the MSOR content they are being taught”, listing examples such as how some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, and mathematicians’ connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism.

Oh ffs. That’s just stupid. It’s crude, it’s childish, it’s a category mistake.

And while decolonisation might have some relevance when teaching the history of mathematics, it has little bearing on other areas of the curriculum, the letter argues.

What I’m saying. It’s meta. You can do a course on meta-math, an intellectual history type of class, and then who was or wasn’t racist could be of interest, but other than that – don’t be silly.

It’s like taking on a house maintenance project and before getting to that leak around the window taking a few years to investigate the views of glassmakers.

“We struggle to imagine what it would mean to decolonise, for example, a course on the geometry of surfaces. For the most part, the concept of decolonisation is irrelevant to university mathematics, and our students know this. If we engage in obviously tokenistic anti-racism efforts we will simply be sending a signal that we do not take racism seriously,” they write.

And/or that they think their students are all lunatics.

“These things may be very virtuous and interesting, but they are not mathematics, they are not our expertise; and mathematicians really want to talk to our students about the mathematics that fascinates them,” [Dr Armstrong] added.

A QAA spokeswoman said the benchmark statement was created by an expert advisory group “to ensure the resulting documents will be of current value to the discipline communities”.

There’s your problem right there. Stop thinking of everything in terms of “communities” and you’ll avoid a lot of this bedwetting nonsense.

This is revolting.

I can find only three women, stuck way off in a back corner. One is the Italian PM according to a reply.

The net tightens.

Writers in Scotland have warned that a code of conduct imposed by a national book charity threatens to infringe on the free speech of authors and poets who disagree with “gender identity theory”.

The Scottish Book Trust sent the code to 600 writers on its Live Literature register, advising that they must sign up in order to keep their listing. Inclusion on the register is essential for writers, poets and spoken-word artists who want to earn a living from public events in schools and libraries.

It’s a new version of the code, and it includes the threat that the trust “will not tolerate bigotry and transphobia.” Since the censorious word “transphobia” can mean simply saying men are not women, the Scottish Book Trust is basically excluding women for the sake of men who call themselves women.

The trust is a national charity whose mission is to promote literature, reading and writing. Its income for 2020-21 was £4.8 million, 86 per cent of which came from the Scottish government. Critics of the trust fear it is toeing the government line.

…

The row comes as the SNP-Green reform of the Gender Recognition Act makes its way through parliament. Supporters say it will simplify the process of gender recognition but opponents say it “rides roughshod over the rights of women and girls”.

It has become all too clear that you can’t “simplify the process of gender recognition” without destroying the rights of women and girls.

Another entry for the Encyclopedia of Pointless Groveling: The Jam Jar Bristol posts an apology to The Trans Communinny on Facebook and then issues a second apology a week later saying the first one wasn’t groveling enough.

The Jam Jar is “an independent arts venue.” What they’re apologizing for is that time a bunch of trans activists bullied and threatened a group of non-submissive feminist women, blocking them on a staircase and screaming in their faces.

The first apology starts with this:

We apologise for how long it has taken us to publicly address the concerns of the Trans community regarding an event in April 2018 organised by a group with controversial views. The panel discussed issues affecting trans people, some of these views were hurtful for the trans community. This occurred due to a poor understanding of the issues faced by these communities and bad management structures at the time. Whilst much has changed at The Jam Jar in recent years, we acknowledge the harm caused by this event. We have since done our best to identify how we might heal this relationship and recognize a written statement is necessary.

It goes on with Core Values, all are welcome, communities, diverse audiences, Safer Space Policy. Nothing about women or feminists of course, no reaching out or apologizing to them, only “the trans community.”

But that wasn’t good enough. They felt they had to crawl even lower so they apologized for the apology.

We would like to follow up from our post last week. Thanks to everyone who provided feedback. We appreciate that the post was not framed correctly and did not go far enough to address people’s concerns. Nor did it properly demonstrate what actions we have taken to rectify the damage done by the occurrence of an Event in April 2018 organized by ‘We Need to Talk’. The Jam Jar’s involvement in this event and how it was dealt with was incredibly distressing for the Trans Community & their allies, causing a huge degree of harm to an already marginalised group. Understandably some have since felt unsafe or chosen not to attend the venue.

Still not a word about any distress for the Women Community and their allies, of course.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on “Updating”.

…but the general public are not at all informed about the issues.

And if they rely on mainstream media to inform them, good luck with that. Their style guides and codes of conduct are preventing them from reporting honestly.

Asked “do you support giving trans people rights?” they say yes, of course. Asked “should biological men who claim to be women compete in female sports, use female changing rooms, have open access to women’s refuges?” they say no, don’t be daft.

Showing the importance of framing what little debate there is, and clarity of language. If the media manage to wake up and smell the lipstick, and start doing their job properly, we might get an informed discussion that doesn’t result in women getting robbed.

How a group like midwives get captured like this bewilders me.

Maybe it’s a generational thing? Can anyone be that scared of the whole “wrong side of history” bullshit? They can’t see that expunging “mother” from midwifery guarantees that that’s the side of history they’ll be on? Women have had to fight for their health care since forever; for an organization supposedly dedicated to the most woman-centered form of health care it’s possible to have to succumb to this is mindboggling.

It’s long since past the point where I see this sort of thing as benign or well-meaning, for the sake of being “inclusive.” It’s possible to be inclusive without obliterating the word “woman.” Add a clause or two onto what you’ve already got written down. Erasing “woman” or “mother” is not being “inclusive” it is supplanting. Replacing. It excludes and disappears most of their clientelle. The move to erase rather than add to shows me that the erasure itself is the point of the excersize.

To be that concerned about triggering the tiny number of trans identified females WHO ARE PREGNANT with the word “woman” is too much of a stretch. You’d think the PREGNANCY itself would be a hell of a lot more triggering than a word or two. If it is that disturbing, then maybe they’re really not cut out to be a parent at all.

How ugly.

Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley thinks that America should deport Senator Raphael Warnock. It’s not clear where exactly she wants to deport him to, given that he was born in Savannah, Georgia.

Haley called for the deportation of Georgia’s first Black senator at a rally in Hiram, Georgia on Sunday, as she stumped for Warnock’s Republican challenger, Herschel Walker.

“Legal immigrants are more patriotic than the leftists these days,” she said. “They worked to come into America and they love America. They want the laws followed in America. So the only person we need to make sure we deport is Warnock.”

Hur hur. A “joke,” no doubt, in the style of the former guy, who lashes out at people in that random meaningless way whenever the mood strikes him. Not a funny joke though, given the citizenship issue and its relationship to slavery. (See the Dred Scott case.)

I think I see a bit of tension looming. The Guardian tells us:

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has invested £1m in a new education toolkit, which is to be made available to all secondary schools in the capital to help pupils recognise and call out sexist and misogynistic behaviour.

Really!? That’s a thing? Those are things? Sexism and misogyny exist?

“We must put the onus of responsibility on men and boys to change the way they perceive, treat and talk about women if we are going to truly fix the problem of violence against women and girls and build a safer, fairer London for everyone,” said Khan.

I’ll be darned.

But…what if the boys all decide to be girls? Where will the onus of responsibility go then?

The mayor’s initiative will help pupils understand the impact of sexist and misogynistic behaviour on women and girls, as well as support them to identify and call out misogyny and help prevent VAWG.

Unless, of course, the pupils being called out for misogyny identify as girls. In that case the girls will be punished.

“In London and across the country we face an epidemic of violence against women and girls,” the mayor said. “As well as taking action against the perpetrators of violence, I’m determined that we do more to prevent and end the violence and misogyny too many women face on a daily basis.”

Then start with yourself, Mr Khan. Start with the fact that you booted Joan Smith out of her role as Co-Chair of the London Mayor’s Violence against Women and Girls Board after eight years of unpaid service, without a word of explanation, and you ignored her requests for an explanation. Start there. Start explaining to us how that’s not sexist as well as rude and boorish.

Go on then.

Back in the old days, 40 years ago or so, scientists and journalists were cautious in talking about climate change. Didn’t want to be seen as cranks and alarmists doncha know. Those days are over.

More and more scientists are now admitting publicly that they are scared by the recent climate extremes, such as the floods in Pakistan and west Africa, the droughts and heatwaves in Europe and east Africa, and the rampant ice melt at the poles.

That is not because an increase in extremes was not predicted. It was always high on the list of concerns alongside longer-term issues such as sea level rise. It is the suddenness and ferocity of recent events that is alarming researchers, combined with the ill-defined threat of tipping points, by which aspects of heating would become unstoppable.

For real. It’s not that long ago that the orthodox take was don’t expect big dramatic changes right now, then suddenly the big dramatic changes were all up in our faces.

Climate computer models have typically projected a fairly consistent but smooth rise in temperatures. But recently the climate seems to have gone haywire.

That heat wave in the west last summer wasn’t smooth. The floods in Pakistan aren’t smooth. The drought that dried up Europe’s rivers this past summer wasn’t smooth. The wildfires in Australia and California weren’t smooth. The disappearance of the Colorado river isn’t smooth. The melting of the permafrost, the rapidly shrinking glaciers, the disappearance of the North Pole as a solid object…none of that is smooth.

But it is the threat of unstoppable long-term change that most worries Prof Dame Jane Francis, director of the British Antarctic Survey. She has witnessed temperatures in the Antarctic of 40C above the seasonal norm, and 30C above in the Arctic.

Francis was most alarmed by a recent report warning that if the 1.5C threshold were exceeded, seen by most scientists as almost inevitable, it could trigger multiple climate tipping points – abrupt, irreversible and with dangerous impacts.

She said: “It’s really scary. It seems some of [these trends] are already under way.” She said she feared for the permafrost, the Greenland ice sheet, the Arctic sea ice, and Antarctica’s Thwaites glacier and western ice sheet.

The Arctic sea ice used to be a large solid thing that was a kind of continent. Now it isn’t.

Which counts, reality or dogma?

The hearing continues:

MG: In LGBAs own evidence they are forced to push back on othodoxy that they disagree with. We note that CC was satisfied that LGBA was engaged in political purposes but were ancillary. MM do not have to prove that CC was wrong. 

CC view is that more evidence has been made available since decision. It is clear that LGBA has purposes that are political. These are not ancillary. LGBA was established for lobbying and political purposes. They suggested investigation against Stonewall. It is clear beyond doubt that they want to change policies that are relevant to GC beliefs. BJ said in this tribunal that they were building an org that fought against GI beliefs. It was said in the tribunal that self-ID erases same-sex attraction. 

The distinction matters here because whether or not LGBA can be defined as a charity is what the hearing is about, but all the same it never stops being odd that they are having to defend themselves for knowing the difference between women and men. It never stops being odd that all this is about a mass delusion dressed up as a human rights issue. It’s not a view that men are not women, it’s just the reality. Try telling a bull elephant in musth that he’s a cow. (Kidding. Don’t try telling a bull elephant in musth anything. Stay far away.)

LGBA views must be of benefit. We say there is no concensus re this. The law is undergoing an ongoing process and for current purposes the law is not as clear as LGBA says it is. Re EA section 7. Re PC of gender reassignment. Sex isn’t used in exclusively biological sense. 

It’s bizarre to try to alter reality via laws. Theocracies of course do it all the time, but it’s still odd. A gender theocracy is really odd.

In terms of using Equality law, it is not as clear as they say it is. Re education public. LGBA approaches this with one point of view only. KH and BJ said LGBA would educate the public using GC beliefs as facts. BJ said education must be based on facts – shouldn’t say boys can be girls and girls can be boys. We say this is not neutral. On the totality of the evidence LGBA are saying they will be putting forward the GC view as the factual view. The evidence shows they haven’t done much outside the GC side of education.

The GC view is the factual view. People can have fantasies about who and what they are, but the world in general has to keep a grip on what’s fantasy and what’s real. It’s not “factual” that boys can be girls any more than it’s factual that parrots can be mastodons.

Are LGBA views of the consensus? They put forward their GC position and so can’t say that there is a common understanding. This is a paradigm case. We say that the chosen approach of LGBA is fundamentally confrontation[al] and unpleasant. 

The consensus and the common understanding are one kind of thing, and the reality is another. The consensus can be wrong. The common understanding can be wrong. A public opinion poll isn’t a biology textbook.

The Mermaids-LGB Alliance hearing resumed today.

They talk about political versus charitable, and the complexities of distinguishing between them.

MG: LGBA say gender is a construct. One needs to go beyond articles on any footing. What other material is admissable? Who is the audience to whom the article is addressed? [Bev Jackson and Kate Harris] contacted “stroppy” people re formation of LGBA.

GC views – no comprehensive definition but says sex is immutable. So people should be described with ref to their sex so male or male-bodied. Says GI orgs are homophobic. Also a view that LGB rights are not same as GI rights. The effect is to challenge or be against trans rights.

Who is the audience to whom this is addressed? The mission statement was to challenge the notion of gender and unscientific doctrines. [Allison Bailey]’s tweet encapsulates the mission of LGBA “gender extremism is about to meet its match”.

There is no single statement that shows LGBAs views – we can conclude that they go further than sex is immutable. BJ said “The word lesbian is taken”. The phrase TATG is used.

We say the articles should be read against that background. We consider that the articles are incomplete. In light of this, we say you can conclude that GC beliefs (in campaigns etc) want to change the law on policies. This would affect MM and other trans orgs. We don’t want to get into equality legislation. This is a charities case.

We should draw a distinction between what a witness says in court and what was said prior to tribunal. We say that these are expressive of LGBA views – KH speech says “[Stonewall] is at the heart of the lie of GI. We are going to campaign that confirms that there are 2 sexes.” She is talking about political lobbying. Also BJ says: “our 1st priority is to press pause on GRR in Scotland” “Our battle against Stonewall law” 

It’s weird to call it “political lobbying” to say “there are two sexes.” I know why they say it, of course, but it’s weird. It’s worth reminding ourselves of how weird it is.

Erase erase erase, don’t stop until every last trace is gone.

The Midwifery Council of NZ is updating its Midwifery Scope of Practice guidance for midwives to entirely remove the words ‘mother’ and ‘woman’.

So then it will have to be the Midpersonry Council of NZ, yes? No point in deleting “mother” and “woman” but leaving “wife.” Husbandry, like “man” and “father,” will continue as before.

With midwifery arguably the most woman-centred and mother-centred of all health professions, [Dr Sarah] Donovan says clarification is needed on what evidence base and advice underpinned the Midwifery Council’s decision to remove these words entirely. The words ‘wahine’ and ‘māmā’, used almost universally in other maternity care material in New Zealand are also not used anywhere in the English language version of the document. The lack of these words seems conspicuous considering the inclusion of te reo [the language, i.e. Maori] in the English version for other terms.

…

The previous version of the NZ Midwives Scope of Practice document referred to women and mothers throughout.

Not surprisingly, because what else would it do?

What are the nations going to be talking about in Sharm El-Sheikh this week? Payments due.

Last year’s UN climate conference in Glasgow delivered a host of pledges on emissions cuts, finance, net zero, forest protection and more.

Yay pledges! Unless…they haven’t been carried out?

Egypt says their conference will be about implementing these pledges.

What that really means is it will be all about cash, and specifically getting wealthy nations to come good on their promises of finance to help the developing world tackle climate change.

So expect the main battle lines to be between the north and south, between rich and poor nations.

And expect the rich nations to do the least they can possibly get away with. Pledging they can do, action not so much.

Top of Egypt’s “to-do” list is the $100bn (£89bn) a year developed countries promised way back in 2009 to help the developing world cut emissions and adapt to our changing climate.

Listen, the developed countries have been having a hard time, the kids are all in expensive schools, we had to buy them all SUVs, holidays in Venice and the Swiss Alps don’t come cheap, we’re taking a cruise next year – we just don’t have the cash right now. Or ever.

Europe and the US have agreed there should be a formal discussion of the issue but are unlikely to make commitments of cash.

They worry the costs will spiral into trillions of dollars as the impacts of climate change get more severe in years to come.

So what they plan to do instead is nothing, which will make the impacts of climate change pack up and go away.

The second contributor to the Guardian’s civil war in the US roundup is Stephen Marche, a Canadian novelist and essayist.

One of the surest markers of incipient civil war in other countries is the legal system devolving from a non-partisan, truly national institution to a spoil of partisan war. That has already happened in the US.

The overturning of Roe v Wade, in June, was both a symptom of the new American divisiveness and a cause of its spread. The Dobbs decision (in which the supreme court held that the US constitution does not confer the right to abortion) took the status of women in the US and dropped it like a plate-glass window from a great height. It will take a generation or more to sweep up the shards. What women are or are not allowed to do with their bodies – abortions, IVF procedures, birth control, maintaining the privacy of their menstrual cycles, crossing state lines – now depends on the state and county lines in which their bodies happen to reside. The legal reality of American women is no longer national in nature. When a woman travels from Illinois to Ohio, she becomes a different entity, with different rights and duties.

Because of the lawless refusal to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

The supreme court feels illegitimate because it is illegitimate. The Dobbs decision does not reflect the will of the American people because the supreme court does not reflect the will of the American people.

I’d add a second illegitimate move to Marche’s: the lies and maneuvers of the Kavanagh hearing, especially the bit where it was paused for a few days so that the FBI could “investigate” further, when it was insultingly obvious that the FBI did no such thing.

Elections have consequences, right up until the point when they don’t. On a superficial level, the 2022 midterms couldn’t matter more; American democracy itself is at stake. On a deeper level, the 2022 midterms don’t matter all that much; they will inform us, if anything, of the schedule and the manner of the fall of the republic.

I wish I could say oh things aren’t that bad.