Intolerance blah blah hate posters blah blah hate literature blah blah.

An Aberdeen council candidate has branded two ‘anti-trans hate posters’ found in toilets at Duthie Park a ‘worrying example of intolerance’.

Martin Greig, who is bidding to represent Hazlehead, Queen’s Cross and Countesswells for a fourth consecutive term, asked city council officials to remove the posters after he was contacted by a constituent.

Intolerant how though?

The posters are critical of the Scottish Government’s proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act, which would make it easier for people to legally change their gender.

The plans have been fiercely opposed by campaigners who claim the move would put women’s sex-based rights at risk.

Oh that kind of “intolerance” – the kind that’s not intolerance at all. Funny thing: it’s Greig’s dishonest screechy over-reaction that’s actually intolerant. Women really do get to talk about our rights and what will put them at risk.

Liberal Democrat Mr Greig told Aberdeen Live: “It’s another worrying example of intolerance and closed minds and we don’t want to see that kind of thing.”

Admirably not-closed mind there!

The Irish Examiner publishes grotesque lies:

A woman who was being detained in one of the country’s most secure units for severely troubled youths has gone on trial accused of threatening to kill or cause serious harm to her mother, and to a man who had been involved in her care.

Just one small thing: not a woman. The very first two words of the piece are an insulting lie. This is “Barbie Kardashian,” a violent dangerous man.

Barbie Kardashian, 20, of no fixed abode, who has legally changed her gender and name, told staff at Coovagh House, Limerick, where she had been a resident at various points from 2018 to 2020, that she wanted to “rape” and “murder” her mother, members of her care team told Limerick Circuit Court.

His, he, he, his, his.

Biden says the Supreme Court move to ruin the lives of millions of women might actually matter because hey it might be trans kids next.

Joe Biden has warned of new attacks on civil rights as the supreme court prepares to strike down the right to abortion, telling reporters at the White House that LGBTQ+ children could be the next targets of a Trump-dominated Republican party he called “this Maga crowd” and “the most extreme political organisation … in recent American history”.

Focus, Joe. Never mind the purported next targets, focus on the current targets, the people formerly known as women. Ever heard of them?

“What happens,” the president asked, if “a state changes the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can’t be in classrooms with other children? Is that legit under the way the decision is written?”

Why do you ask, Joe? Why isn’t the decision’s effect on women enough to object to?

The ACLU too is throwing a heavy black wool veil over the word “women” in connection with the abortion issue. Yes, really, what business is it of women’s whether women can have abortions or not?

Here for instance:

On Monday night, Politico published a leaked draft of the highly anticipated Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The draft majority opinion, penned by Justice Samuel Alito, overturns the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which has been on the books for nearly 50 years and has ensured abortion is a protected federal constitutional right. If this draft decision is issued as the official decision, it would be unprecedented and would take away a fundamental right for millions of people…

No, for millions of women. I bet the ACLU doesn’t play the “people” trick when it’s an issue that affects LGB people or African-Americans. I bet the ACLU isn’t squeamish about spelling out whose rights are being taken away when it’s anyone except women. It’s sheer All Lives Matterism, but they keep doing it anyway.

ACLU: Before we get into the details about the opinion, let’s reiterate that this is just a draft. How can people support folks who need access to abortion care now?

Brigitte Amiri: Yes, it’s just a draft; this isn’t an opinion. People who have abortion appointments scheduled today should go to their appointments and call your local clinic if you have questions.

Folks. People.

I did a count, as usual: 18 for people, 4 for women.

Meanwhile Chase Strangio’s attempt to incite hatred against feminists angry about the war on abortion rights appears to have attracted almost universal contempt. I say “appears to” in case Twitter is weirdly hiding pro-Chase responses from me.

And lots more like that. Yet the Washington Post erases the word “women” from its commentary on the Supreme Court draft. Bad moon rising.

They’re all doing it.

It’s a human right, our right, the hard won right, but never ever ever a women’s right.

Same again – the creepy evasive People replacing women in every sentence.

Meet the Reddit ‘Aunties’ covertly helping people get abortions

But it’s not “people” who need abortions, it’s women.

The Reddit group offers a glimpse into a post-Roe era where people resort to informal networks to assist those locked out of an abortion

Women. If it were “people” there would be no ban.

On the page, volunteers sign up to lodge, transport, assist and care for people needing abortions who are alone or in states where it’s difficult to get one.

Women.

A modern day adaptation of underground abortion networks that helped people access care when the procedure was illegal…

Women.

The Reddit community, r/auntienetwork, started in May of 2019, according to the group’s page. It was meant to be an organic space for people who needed help getting abortions to post andfind assistance from others.

Women.

In the thread, users from all across America offer various services to people seeking abortion.

Women.

There’s the rural Colorado auntie who lives with their father near a Planned Parenthood and offered people seeking abortion a “comfy twin bed and a supportive place to crash” among the mountains.

Women.

It’s mildly interesting that “auntie” is allowed, but I guess because it’s in scare quotes it’s ok.

Andrea Miller, the president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, said mutual aid organizations like Reddit’s Auntie Network show how “ready and eager” people are to help those needing abortion care “especially in the face of this hostile Supreme Court.”

Women. Not “those needing abortion care” but women needing it.

She added, however, that Reddit members signing up to volunteer should consider offering help to formal groups that have been around for years, such as the Brigid Alliance which arranges and funds travel for those seeking abortions, or the National Network of Abortion Funds, which helps remove logistical and financial barriers for people seeking abortions.

So careful to make sure NEVER to say “women.”

“We have far too many examples … of ways in which those who are absolutely determined to prevent people from being able to make decisions about the reproductive lives and have abortions literally will stop at nothing,” she said.

Women. To prevent women from being able to make decisions.

“It’s heartbreaking to me,” she said. “People are already in a desperate, terrifying situation and now they’re having to rely on the goodwill of strangers to get access to necessary health care.”

And the Washington Post refuses to call them women.

The word “people” appears 19 times in the article. The word women 0 times.

Even the editorial board of the Washington Post does it.

On Monday, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling declaring that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to end their pregnancies.

That jolts like a badly-constructed bus hitting a pothole. It’s not “Americans” who had the right to end their pregnancies, it’s American women who did. The Washington Post is not a teenager with tattoos; it should talk like an adult.

What brought the court to its current precipice was not a fundamental shift in American values regarding abortion. It was the shameless legislative maneuvering of Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who jammed three Trump-nominated justices onto the court.

In his draft, Justice Alito points out that the court has overturned many cases in the past, including the atrocious Plessy v. Ferguson, which permitted racial segregation. But the court has never revoked a fundamental constitutional right. Overturning Plessy expanded liberty. Overturning Roe would constrict liberty — and be a repugnant repudiation of the American tradition in which freedom extends to an ever-wider circle of people.

Or, to put it another way, in which people who aren’t property-owning white men gain some of the rights those men allotted to themselves only.

For most people, Roe is a workable standard on a fraught issue; absent a clear understanding about when life begins, and with the moral implications surrounding that question far from settled, the Constitution’s guarantees of personal autonomy demand that pregnant people be able to make the difficult decision about whether to end their pregnancy according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Sigh. That “guarantees Americans” wasn’t an oversight; they’re doing it on purpose. They’re adding their bit to the fiction that this is an attack on the rights of everyone when it is in fact a massive attack on the rights of women. Women only. This isn’t done to men. However sympathetic men may be, however inconvenienced they may be, the attack is on the rights of women.

The Post has the bit in its teeth now, and goes all in.

It is Justice Alito’s proposed decision that would further divide the country, starting in nearly every statehouse. Yet the greatest casualties would not be the court as an institution or the nation’s already toxic politics. It would be pregnant individuals suddenly stripped of a right they had been guaranteed for almost half a century. Wealthy people would be able to cross state lines to end their pregnancies. (Although some states are already trying to outlaw that practice, as well.) Poor people would be forced either to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, with all the health consequences and risks that entails, or to seek illegal abortions that could endanger their lives.

Emphasis mine. Perverse choice of wording theirs.

The piece doesn’t mention women at all. Not once.

Matt Gaetz thinks women should not be educated.

There is nothing worse than an over-educated woman.

Chase takes a moment to shit on feminist women again.

Somebody has to.

Even now the ACLU won’t say the word.

The Guardian talks to some actual women about the abortion ruling:

Bonnie Greer:

As someone who had an illegal abortion – in my home town of Chicago in 1969, four years before Roe v Wade – I was very angry when I heard the news. I am very angry. For women, our destiny has always been our biology, and we’ve fought for ever to change that, to ensure that we’re respected and protected as whole human beings, equal to men under the law.

Now we’re fighting just to be mentioned in news stories about the loss of our rights.

Know this: women will always get abortions, and the overturning of Roe v Wade would mean we will once again be at risk.

It means that men and women are not equal under the law, based on our biology. It’s the same thing as saying that a human being is not equal under the law based on the colour of their skin. Both are things that cannot be altered. I hope that the US people will vote out of office the Republicans who have pushed for this to happen.

Greer doesn’t change the subject to trans women. The next interviewee, Judy Chicago, does.

The fight for women’s rights is a long historic struggle against a set of values that restricts the rights of, not only women, but LGBTQ people, trans people and people of colour.

Must change the subject. Women are the deferential sex, so we’re not allowed to focus on our own rights. It’s shocking that the Guardian allowed Bonnie Greer to get away with it.

Mona Eltahawy defers:

I had an illegal abortion in 1996 in Egypt and a legal abortion in the US in 2000. I can’t believe that my past is becoming the present in the United States. This is the most powerful country in the world, and this fundamental right for pregnant people is being stripped away.

Those who can afford to get a safe abortion will continue to do so, and mostly Black, Indigenous and Brown people, and working-class people, will not. But that’s been the reality for many years now. Texas had already shrivelled the number of abortion clinics it had.

People people people. But she does use the word “women” in the end – just long enough to blame them.

As an Egyptian feminist, I have to call out the role of women in creating this theocracy. Look at supreme court associate justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is not just men taking away our abortion rights.

Robin Morgan is with Bonnie Greer: not ashamed to use the word.

There will be marching, demonstrations, sit-ins, petitions. Women will go ahead and disobey the law. What are they going to do when half the population is in revolt? Not 20%, not the ultra right wing, not the evangelicals. Women are going to control what happens to our own bodies. No matter how many thousands of us have to go to jail. We are not turning back the clock. No way.

Katha Pollitt, of course, doesn’t mess around.

Roe v Wade was a life-changing ruling, probably one of the most important – from the ground level – supreme court rulings there has ever been. It meant that women could stay in school. It meant women could work in a consistent way. It meant women could leave abusive partners. It meant that women didn’t have to marry the man who got them pregnant.

I felt horrified when I found out it could be overturned. This really allows states to do whatever they want with abortion, and 26 states is a lot of people. This is going to affect women whether or not they have an abortion, because it says, basically, you’re here to procreate, and we don’t care if there are health concerns, or rape or incest.

If a man can get you pregnant, you have to have that child. I think that’s a tremendous statement that women do not have that human right any more.

Katha literally wrote the book.

Signal that virtue, you woman-hating toads.

Yes this is the way to defend abortion rights, pretend you don’t know who does the baby-having.

“Birthing bodies.” How fucking insulting.

The ignorance is staggering.

Not anti-women, just anti-women. Women aren’t allowed to get together to talk about women’s rights, that’s blatant hypocrisy and transphobia, and it’s not at all anti-women to say so.

Ahhhhh but what if we don’t call it “the LGBT community”? What then? What if we call it the LGB community? Changes everything, doesn’t it.

News flash: there is no law that we have to include the T. The reality is the T doesn’t have much in common with the L and the G, and it tends to do all the talking and certainly all the shouting, so a lot of people are fed up with the forced teaming.

But it gets even better.

For sure. I just can’t imagine why women would be talking about women’s rights at a moment when the Supreme Court is about to enshrine forced pregnancy in federal law. How selfish and narcissistic women are making it all about them. Let’s talk about how forced pregnancy affects men.

Do better! Stop making abortion rights all about women! Be inclusive of men when you talk about abortion rights!

Investigate! Investigate now!

Investigate what?

The leak! The leak the leak the leak!

Not the corruption?

What corruption?

Chief Justice Roberts said that there would be an investigation of the SCOTUS leaker, but he has done nothing about Clarence and Ginni Thomas.

Roberts said in a statement:

We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here. I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.

Conflicts of interest, however, we don’t give a rat’s ass about – unless it’s some pesky liberal justice doing it.

We are still waiting for Chief Justice Roberts to announce the investigation into Justice Thomas and his wife for their conflicts of interest, corruption, and activities surrounding the 1/6 attack.

We might as well wait for Donald Trump to say something intelligent. Ain’t gonna happen.

There’s a Woman’s Place UK event in Bristol this evening; it just got started a few minutes ago.

Some people want to keep women out of Bristol.

Do gender critical women ever say things like “trans people are not welcome in our city”? I don’t think so. It sounds threatening as well as hostile and rude and unjust. We don’t think we own particular cities and get to keep other people out of them. We generally recognize “X people are not welcome in our city” as way too similar to slogans and placards from, say, protests against the integration of Little Rock Central High School.

But apparently it’s fine to say it about women meeting up with other women. “Women are not welcome in our city.” Okaaaaaaay…

From The Atlantic in 2011:

In an interview with California Lawyer magazine, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to suggest that the Constitution does not protect women from gender-based discrimination. “Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that,” said the famously conservative justice, adding, “If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.”

What does the 14th Amendment say?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It’s a Reconstruction amendment, which made enslavement a violation of the Constitution.

The Atlantic quoted some reactions:

“The central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to guarantee equal citizenship and equality before the law for all citizens and for all persons,” Legal blogger Jack Balkin argues. “It does not simply ban discrimination based on race. The fact that the word race is not mentioned in the text (as it is in the fifteenth amendment) was quite deliberate. Scalia argues that the fourteenth amendment was not intended to prevent sex discrimination. That’s not entirely true.”

The two forms of discrimination were often linked at the time. Frederick Douglass was a feminist; the Grimké sisters were abolitionists.

Moira Donegan doesn’t mince words.

The draft opinion, authored by Samuel Alito, the most rabidly hateful member of the court’s arch-conservative wing, will upend 50 years of precedent and undo a landmark ruling that has profoundly shaped legal doctrine, popular conceptions of the law, and millions of American lives. It will make women prisoners to their own bodies, and to men’s ideas of what those bodies must mean. It will make our country weaker, crueler, stupider and less vibrant.

We’re all prisoners to of in our own bodies, of course, but unwanted pregnancy is a particularly intrusive and disruptive demonstration of that imprisonment.

In a way, the leaked opinion didn’t tell us anything we did not already know: these are the last days of reproductive freedom in America, and most states will soon ban abortion outright, or restrict it so onerously that it is inaccessible within their borders. But Alito’s draft opinion nevertheless represents about as odiously maximalist an approach as the court could have taken.

The opinion does not just overturn Roe and Casey; it expresses outright contempt for the notion that the constitution protects bodily autonomy for women.

Because after all what are women for if they’re not baby factories? What is even the point of them?

The end of legal abortion will not be where the court’s reactionaries stop. They aim to hurt, punish and narrow the lives of Americans in many more cruel and inventive ways.

…

The state compelling a person to be pregnant is not like compelling her to pay taxes. The event doesn’t occur in a courtroom or on a balance sheet; it occurs inside her body.

It is, perhaps, somewhat like the draft. Draft laws are also controversial, for obvious reasons.

In making abortion illegal, the court is imposing a legal status that is so cruel, so personal and so life-altering on half its population, that those subject to this imposition cannot be called free. Is there any condition more essential to democratic citizenship than a person’s control over her own body? Can we call ourselves a free country without it?

Could 1950s Ireland call itself a free country? (Spoiler: no.)

What next? The Post says likely a push for a nationwide ban on abortion.

Leading antiabortion groups and their allies in Congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a national strategy that would kick in if the Supreme Court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington.

…

A group of Republican senators has discussed at multiple meetings the possibility of banning abortion at around six weeks, said Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who was in attendance and said he would support the legislation.

…

One top advocate, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List, has spoken privately with 10 possible Republican presidential contenders, including former president Donald Trump, to talk through national antiabortion strategy. Most of them, she said in an interview, assured her they would be supportive of a national ban and would be eager to make that policy a centerpiece of a presidential campaign.

Falling all over themselves to enchain women.