How about no?

Just no. Not “oh dear what shall we do,” not “maybe we need to tweak this a little,” not “we’re in the middle,” just no. No. You can’t. Of course not. Go away.

Not “tougher new rules,” either. Just no.

The president of cycling’s governing body has held emergency talks with other international sports federations about creating tougher new rules for the participation of trans women in elite women’s sport “within months”.

“Rules” for letting men participate in elite women’s sport, thus ruining it. Forget rules; just No.

In a notable intervention, the UCI president, David Lappartient, said cycling’s current rules, which allow trans women to compete against cis women if they reduce their testosterone to below 5 nmol/L for a period of 12 months, were “probably not enough” to ensure fair competition.

Of course they’re not, plus it’s women’s sport, so it’s not for men.

“When you ask this question, it is not to challenge the fact that people want to transition. We fully respect that.”

Why? Why fully respect it? It’s not as if it’s an accomplishment.

“But I can also really understand from ladies [who] say: ‘OK, we don’t accept this.’ At the moment, the union of women’s riders are completely against this and challenging the UCI. So we are in between.”

I see. All the women are completely against it, therefore you’re in between. Who cares about women eh?

Lappartient said: “I had some discussions this week with the Olympians associations, with some international federations. In cycling, in swimming, in athletics, the question of fair competition is really a question we must put on the table. Is it a right to take part when you do the transition at the highest level or do we have to see if this will affect the fairness of competition?”

It’s not a right for men to force themselves into women’s sport at all, no matter what the level.

He’s a guy.

A small but repulsive item on the list:

As President Donald J. Trump’s tenure came to an end, the chief White House photographer, who had traveled the world with him and spent countless hours inside the White House snapping pictures, notified Mr. Trump’s aides that she intended to publish a book collecting some of her most memorable images.

As all White House photographers since Reagan have done. I actually looked at Pete Souza’s Obama book.

Trump, however, had other ideas, because of course he did.

First, aides to Mr. Trump asked her for a cut of her book advance payment, in exchange for his writing a foreword and helping promote the book, according to former associates of Mr. Trump.

Which is not normal. The other presidents did not do that. Trump seems to demand a cut of everything. It’s rather Mafia-like, as well as greedy and extremely unattractive.

Then Mr. Trump’s team asked Ms. Craighead to hold off on her book project to allow the former president to take Ms. Craighead’s photos and those of other White House staff photographers and publish his own book, which is now selling for as much as $230 a copy.

“No, wait, I want to milk it first, then you can have whatever’s left, which obviously won’t be much.”

That the profits from Ms. Craighead’s labor are now going into Mr. Trump’s pocket has left several of Mr. Trump’s former aides upset — but not exactly surprised.

“Shea’s a very talented photographer and this was really all of her hard work,” said Stephanie Grisham, who served as the White House press secretary for Mr. Trump and wrote her own book, referring to Ms. Craighead by her nickname. “I just keep thinking: What a shame that he is actually now profiting off of it. But then again, this is the guy who is hawking caps and all kinds of stuff right now to raise money for himself.”

It’s as if someone painted a portrait of Trump, and Trump expected to be paid for it rather than the artist.

Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not dispute that an aide had discussed the possibility of Mr. Trump writing a foreword for Ms. Craighead’s book and perhaps taking a cut of her advance.

I like that “and perhaps taking a cut of her advance.” And perhaps breaking into her house and taking all her stuff. What right does he have to “take” part of her advance? It’s her advance.

The 317-page book Mr. Trump published in December, titled “Our Journey Together,” includes no photo credits. It does not mention any of the photographers who took the images until the last page, where he briefly offered a “grateful acknowledgment” to “all the phenomenal White House photographers,” listing them by name, including Ms. Craighead, whose pictures make up much of the book.

In other words the book is mostly her work, and she gets a perfunctory mention on the last page along with a bunch of other photographers.

…in dealing with Ms. Craighead, Mr. Trump appears to have become the first former president to try to make money from a book planned by a former White House photographer, said John Bredar, a documentary filmmaker and author who has studied the history of the White House photographers.

So typical. So piggy.

Mr. Trump at times would say insulting things about Ms. Craighead, telling other White House guests that he questioned her skills as a photographer, surprising other White House officials and photographers present.

Mr. Trump, former White House aides said, was intensely involved in selecting photos of himself that would be released to the public, with Ms. Grisham recalling how during long flights on Air Force One, he often set aside time to review folders of photographs, after demanding that they be first printed so he could hold them, and pick winners one at a time.

Since leaving office, Mr. Trump has sought multiple ways to monetize his presidency, from charging supporters to attend an event and take photos with him to selling MAGA merchandise. He also has a long history of disputes from before his political career with business partners and over the years faced regular accusations that he did not properly compensate contractors.

Mean, vain, greedy…it’s bizarre how thorough he is. There’s a vast menu of his faults and nothing on the other side of the ledger. He’s all the bad qualities and not a single one of the good ones.

Maybe, ever so slowly, they are starting to catch on, just a little.

The president of cycling’s governing body has held emergency talks with other international sports federations about creating tougher new rules for the participation of trans women in elite women’s sport “within months”.

In a notable intervention, the UCI president, David Lappartient, said cycling’s current rules, which allow trans women to compete against cis women if they reduce their testosterone to below 5 nmol/L for a period of 12 months, were “probably not enough” to ensure fair competition.

“Probably” as in “ya think”?

He also suggested that other sports including athletics and swimming were in a similar boat and that coordinated action might be needed.

“It is a very sensitive topic at the moment,” he said. “The question is, is there a memory from your body from what you were before? Do you have an advantage for this? Do we have a breach of fair competition?”

A memory? No. The same body, with some light modifications or no modifications at all. See: Lia Thomas, passim.

The participation of trans women in elite sport has become a topical issue with the US swimmer Lia Thomas becoming the first trans athlete to win a national college title a fortnight ago.

And why did Lia Thomas make the issue topical? Because it’s so grotesquely obvious how unfair his presence in the women’s competition is.

Earlier this week swimming’s governing body, Fina, proposed a new rule that will require trans women to reduce their testosterone for at least 36 months before competing in the women’s category – and put the burden of proof on the athlete to demonstrate they have no retained advantage.

That’s not good enough. Look at Lia Thomas.

Hurry up.

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Ask the Expert.

Isn’t it funny how some media outlets, for some stories, are quick to get spokespeople from “both sides” of an issue, but not this particular issue? Having both sides generates buzz, debate and controversy. Doesn’t that help generate viewers, listeners and clicks? I remember when feathered dinosaurs became a thing. Long after the time when the vast majority of paleontologists had come to understand that yes, birds are dinosaurs, many stories about new fossil finds would include a quote or two from one of the few holdouts who did not agree. His papers continuing to argue the point did not cite more recent research or literature, which answered many of his objections. Still, in articles and stories wanting to generate a bit of intellectual sparring, he’d be wheeled out in the interests of balance. In politics too, you can see a relatively wide polling of opinion, the shape and colour of which can depend on where today’s position of the Overton Window happens to be. There’s at least a bit of lip service in the name of “balance”, however perfunctory.

One wonders why this does not happen in connection to women’s sports, women’s prisons, women’s hospital wards, and women’s rights to single sex spaces? How is it that media outlets which would otherwise normally LOVE to present both sides, have decided, quite unfairly, prematurely and ill-advisedly, that this issue has but one side? And that that side consists of a very small percentage of the population, in opposition to more than half the humans on the planet? The fact that the rights, needs and safety of women and girls can be so casually tossed aside, is a clear indication that feminism was nowhere near completing its original mission. If women had reached the level of power and influence that trans identified males pretend to, we would not be having these discussions over and over again. Women would not be walked on or have to put up with this bullshit, because there would be a price to pay for disregarding the rights and needs (let alone the desires) of a large, powerful group of people with the ability to hold those who ill-treated them to account. Nobody would DARE to piss women off (in exactly the way they are being pissed off right now) if they were held in any regard at all. Instead, they’re derided as “Karens”. If “cis” women were as all-powerful and oppressive as trans activists assert, these activists would not be in the position they’re currently enjoying, guiding and distorting policy of countless authorities and institutions, attempting, and all too often succeeding in their demands to remold the very words we use to describe reality itself. You’d think a story like that, of a small group of people obtaining unwarranted power and influence, with no accountability or oversight and without debate or discussion, would be worth reporting? If it were in a novel, you wouldn’t believe it; but we’re living it right now. We’re supposed to believe that this isn’t being covered because “kindness?” Please.

That TiMs have convinced people and institutions that should know better that this is “just” or “right” or “progressive” continues to astound me. How is it that they can believe this crap, yet still know enough to tie their shoelaces, or even breathe? The widespread brain-death makes me wonder if we are indeed in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, but one in which all the festering rot is on the inside. The zombies we’re fighting are not mindless, stumbling, shuffling horrors of cadaverous putrescence, but smiling, purposeful, dedicated functionaries, with heads full self-righteous zeal, and pronouns in their bios. Unfortunately, the latter type of zombies are harder to spot, and are thus, much more dangerous.

Evan Davis on the Radio 4 program PM had a 5 minute discussion of “trans participation” (always the generic “trans” instead of “trans women” of course – must obscure the issue whenever possible) just now. He talked to one person. A woman who is good at a sport? Nah, don’t be silly. He talked to Joanna Harper, a runner who transitioned at age 47.

In case you want to listen it starts at 48:40.

The Supreme Court v voting rights:

This time around, the state’s Republican legislature was challenging the state legislative districts that the Wisconsin supreme court picked for the state. Even though Republicans would still hold their majority under the new map, lawmakers took issue with the creation of an additional Black-majority district near Milwaukee. They said there wasn’t adequate justification for creating it, and made an emergency request to the supreme court to block the maps.

In a seven-page unsigned opinion, the supreme court accepted that request last week. But it went further, using the case as an opportunity to interpret the Voting Rights Act in a narrow way without full briefing or oral argument in the case. Even longtime court observers were baffled.

Be not baffled. They’re doing what they set out to do.

It’s no secret that the supreme court has been extremely hostile to voting rights recently. But what has changed is the “velocity” that the court is acting with, Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, told me.

“The supermajority of the conservative justices on the supreme court has become pretty emboldened. They’ve got a narrow vision of the scope of the Voting Rights Act. And they are not being shy about enforcing that as quickly as they can,” he told me. “What’s changed is how much more aggressive they’re willing to be.”

Because there are so many of them.

But we’re told trans people are so very marginalized.

Fox News hires ‘trailblazer’ Caitlyn Jenner as contributor

How many other Olympians have commentator gigs at Fox News?

Fox News says it has hired Caitlyn Jenner as a contributor, with her first appearance set for Thursday on Sean Hannity’s program.

Jenner, the former Olympic decathlete, ran an unsuccessful campaign for California governor last year. The network said she will offer commentary and analysis across various Fox News platforms.

“Caitlyn’s story is an inspiration to us all,” said Suzanne Scott, Fox News Media chief executive. “She is a trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community and her illustrious career spans a variety of fields that will be a tremendous asset for our audience.”

Does that variety of fields include killing a woman when he rear-ended her car on the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu?

Hilarity ensued.

Bravo! No wait, not bravo, that other thing.

Unbravo? Negbravo? Debravo? Transbravo?

H/t

Hmm. Define “friendly.”

Russia has told “unfriendly” foreign countries they must start paying for gas in roubles or it will cut supplies.

See this is odd because I would say Russia is pretty much out in front on the “unfriendly” scoreboard. Bombing the bejeezus out of the country next door (the one where millions of people were deliberately starved to death by Russia in the 1930s) is on the face of it not very friendly at all.

It’s a funny thing how bullies manage to frame themselves as the bullied. We see it in disputes over gender and we see it in disputes over entire huge countries with 44 million people.

Life is so unfair. Sometimes, when you bully someone, onlookers call you a bully! Can you believe that?

It’s hilarious that he includes his own bullying in his screenshot. “Look, I tried to get Kathleen Stock dogpiled and people responded by dogpiling me!!! Did you ever?!?!”

We applaud.

Fairness to women is not less important than “inclusion” of men who identify as women. It’s a great deal more important.

Maybe now that the dam has broken women won’t be afraid to speak out any more, and the whole stupid brutal mess will stop.

I was out doing things for a few hours and this happened –

Be inclusive, let them find a home, yadda yadda, but not at the expense of women.

Now they don’t have to boycott the race.

Another crack in the edifice.

I happen to have seen the origin of the punchline before seeing the above.

The Times also appears to take the Tory MP’s claim at face value.

A Conservative MP has announced that he is transgender and has been the victim of rape and blackmail.

Jamie Wallis, the MP for Bridgend, said he was transgender, “or to be more accurate, I want to be”, and had been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Maybe he just has shlub dysphoria. Has anyone looked into that? He appears to be a shlub, and dysphoria seems likely in such cases, so maybe it’s nothing to do with gender at all.

Wallis rapidly received public support from fellow MPs. Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, said: “This is a very brave statement.” Andrew Bowie, a Conservative MP, said: “Incredibly brave of you to post this mate. Proud of you. All power to you”.

What’s brave about it? When Conservative MPs flock to praise you, what’s brave about it?

Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, said: “Sending you love and solidarity from the other side of the Commons. This is hugely courageous of you to share.”

How? How is it courageous? How is it hugely courageous? When colleagues are all but licking his ear, how is it courageous?

After Wallis’s announcement [Boris] Johnson said: “Sharing this very intimate story would have taken an immense amount of courage. Thank you for your bravery, which will undoubtedly support others. The Conservative Party I lead will always give you, and everyone else, the love and support you need to be yourself.”

What bravery? What immense amount of courage?

Oliver Dowden, the Conservative Party chairman, said: “Proud of my colleague Jamie Wallis. As a Conservative family we stand together, and we will support you. I hope that your brave statement will help others.”

Godalmighty anyone would think he’s on the front lines at Mariupol.

Ah good it’s helpful to have this cleared up by an expert.

So he gets to use all the toilets, right?

More from the expert:

Men who claim to be women must be allowed into all spaces set aside for women on pain of being called unambiguously transphobic by this Montgomerie dude.

Behold EQ7-9:

EQ7  Defend trans and non-binary people’s rights   North West regional committee

Congress notes:

1.  Government hostility towards Stonewall for its support for trans rights, including disaffiliations by the BBC and government bodies;

2.  Government’s refusal to implement Self-ID in the Gender Recognition Act;

3.  Government’s failure to recognise non-binary as a legitimate identity;

4.  The EHRC’s attempts to delay anti-conversion therapy legislation for trans people and undermine the Scottish government introducing Self-ID;

5.  The Tories’ anti-conversion therapy Bill that dangerously presents equivalence between oppressive anti-trans conversion therapy and pro-trans affirmative intervention.

Congress:

a.  Congratulates Sussex University UCU for their solidarity with student protests against ‘gender critical’ views;

b.  Welcomes the founding of the Feminist Gender Equality Network, committed to opposing transphobia on campuses and more broadly;

c.  Resolves to oppose ‘gender critics’ and transphobes promoting ‘gender ideology’ and trying to undermine trans and non-binary people’s rights and promote divisions between women’s and trans people’s rights.

Solidarity forever! Except with you, of course.

And wait, there’s even more.

Julie Bindel on male violence dressed up as “protection” of women:

Sexism is a funny thing, because it presents as its own opposite. Describing women as vulnerable and in need of male protection is actually about male dominance and attempts at ownership.

…

Has [Will] Smith ever spoken out publicly and passionately against sexism? Would he have kicked off if [Chris] Rock had made similar remarks about another woman? Of course not: only his property gets protected. I make no distinction here between Smith and any other posturing, macho male.

Unlike, she adds, commentators who call that racist.

TeenVogue magazine, for example, continued its valiant tradition of promoting anything harmful to young women by publishing a piece that describes criticism of Smith as “weaponized white womanhood”.

Oh lord. Now I’ll have to read that one too.

“Teen Vogue” ffs. What could be more capitalist and status quo-embracing than a fashion magazine for laydeez? Yet they keep putting on this pseudo-radical disguise to tell us girls have to enjoy anal and must embrace their trans sisters and are racist if they criticize male violence.

A Guardian op-ed on the incident actually included the term “performative pearl clutching” to describe white women objecting to violence when perpetrated by a black man. I can only assume that in the imagination of the writer, black women don’t mind violence being perpetrated on black men, so long as black men are the ones doing it, and also that white women should only comment on the behaviour of white men.

Correct, because Karens.

I have heard excuses for both Rock and Smith about how both men come from communities where when words are ineffective in solving a problem, fists can be. I also come from a community where this was the case, but there lies the problem. To varying degrees, so do all women. That community is patriarchy, and how it works is that when women can’t be manipulated into compliance, violence is always an option.

Nailed it. As usual.