Another ACLU ad on Facebook.

An anonymous donor has pledged to match all donations up to $200,000. Every dollar you donate right now will be doubled and immediately put towards our legal, advocacy, and organizing work that supports trans kids and their families.

“Supports” how though? What do they mean by support?

They’re “supporting” what they call “trans kids” by working to make sure they can get drastic, irreversible surgery or drugs or both. It’s not as clear-cut as they think that that equals “support.” It could be that the reality is that some or all such “kids” are caught up in a trend, and will regret this medical tampering with their path to physical adulthood. In addition to everything else wrong with this campaign, the ACLU is being shockingly reckless with the futures of a whole lot of teenagers.

Culture war:

Culture has long been a proxy in the assertion of power by one people over another. Recent egregious examples include the Chinese government’s attempt to suppress Uyghur religion, literature, music, even food, and Islamic State’s destruction of ancient monuments. In war, culture is a second front. At their most extreme, wars are about eradicating a people’s cultural memory altogether, wiping them from the slate as if they had never been.

…

In some ways, intentions are less important than effects, amid war’s messy reality. A missile strike in Kyiv that reportedly killed five people was seemingly directed at the television tower, but it lies close to Babyn Yar, the site of the massacre of 150,000 people during the second world war, including 30,000 Jews – a great irony given Mr Putin’s stated ambition to “denazify” Ukraine. An attack on the town of Ivankiv, 50 miles north-west of Kyiv, set afire the town’s Historical and Local History Museum, destroying precious works by the 20th-century folk artist Maria Prymachenko. The artist is an important symbol of Ukrainian art – and Ukrainian hope.

Three decades ago, war in the former Yugoslavia saw sacred and beautiful places such as Dubrovnik or the Mostar bridge and old town targeted, sometimes with the intention of erasing the evidence that people of another religion or ethnicity had once lived there. Whether or not sites like Babyn Yar and Ivankiv’s museum have been collateral damage rather than actual targets, the cultural front in war is never trivial. This is a conflict, like so many others, that’s not just about controlling territory – but owning narrative.

And trying to smash all evidence of a culture often backfires, as with the manuscripts from Mali. I’m betting Maria Prymachenko is now known to a lot more people outside Ukraine than she was before. The Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed but their fame was amplified in the process. Trying to dominate a narrative is hampered by the fact that narratives can’t be bombed or torched out of existence.

One good thing:

A virtual gallery to showcase Mali’s cultural history has been launched, featuring tens of thousands of Timbuktu’s ancient manuscripts.

The manuscripts were smuggled to safety from Timbuktu after Islamist militant groups took control of the city in northern Mali in 2012.

They contain centuries of African knowledge and scholarship on topics ranging from maths to astrological charts.

“Central to the heritage of Mali, they represent the long legacy of written knowledge and academic excellence in Africa,” said Dr Abdel Kader Haidara, a librarian known for smuggling the manuscripts out of Timbuktu, who was also involved in the project.

The site is called Mali Magic and from a quick look it is pretty damn magic. It’s music and art and dance as well as manuscripts.

Joke on the Islamist groups: they succeeded in spreading the culture of Mali more widely instead of shutting it down. Oopsie.

Chip chip chip chip away.

It’s not young people. Boys don’t miss school because of period poverty.

Say the word. The word is “girls.” It’s not blasphemy or porn; we can say it. Girls.

To be fair, they do know how to say it.

But they should say it every time they talk about girls – they should never veil the word “girls” behind “young people.”

Suzanne Moore on the strange mystery of what the word “woman” means:

I guess it would be funny if the consequences of this evasion were not so deadly serious. On Woman’s Hour – on International Women’s Day – the redoubtable Emma Barnett asked Anneliese Dodds a simple question.

You know the one – “wossa woman?”

Dodds prevaricated for what seemed like hours. Stuff like: “Well, I have to say that there are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is. I mean, you look at the definition within the Equality Act, and I think it just says someone who is adult and female, I think, but then doesn’t see how you define either of those things.”

How about defining them the usual way, and defining women that way too? Wouldn’t that solve the problem in a stroke? Granted, “adult” really is more social than physical, and varies according to purpose and circumstances, but “female” is just as precise as “male,” and you don’t see people drawing back in horror and confusion when asked what a man is.

Barnett tried again. “What’s the Labour definition?” Dodds answered “Oh, I think, with respect, Emma, I think it does depend what the context is, surely. I mean, surely that is important here?” 

And yet, does the definition of “man” depend on what the context is? If “man” doesn’t then why does “woman”? Maybe the definition of woman is “blob that doesn’t even have a word to describe itself.”

Trans activism and lobby groups like Stonewall and Mermaids have been phenomenally successful in persuading corporations, institutions and political parties to adopt a language in which the word “woman” is verboten as it may “trigger” someone who feels themself to be a woman, even though they have male anatomy.

But not the word “man.” There is nothing like the same level of taboo and coercion around the word “man” as there is around “woman.” It’s almost as if the whole thing is just another way to keep women down.

Susan Smith of For Women Scotland testifying on the proposed Hate Crime and Public Order Bill:

I echo what Lucy Hunter Blackburn said powerfully and from the heart. The heart of the issue is that women in Scotland are furious and frightened by some of the implications of the bill not least because, the other week, a series of amendments were proposed, none of which seems to cross a line to being hateful, yet parliamentarians stood up and denounced them as shocking and “transphobic” for including phrases such as

“there are only two sexes”.

We have a real issue that, although there are reasonable person tests in the bill, there are also people who are determined to use the bill to enforce compelled speech. There are also people, some of whom are office bearers in political parties in Scotland, who have stated clearly online that they will use the bill to criminalise and attack women. They are openly discussing that and we know that they are doing so.

The Scottish Government has said that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women needs to be at the heart of everything that it does, but I am not sure that we will be able even to talk about CEDAW if some of those people report women for having discussions about sex-based rights. Certainly, political parties in Scotland have managed to draw up definitions of bigotry that claim that it is bigotry to talk about people’s biology or use the wrong pronouns. Where does that leave a woman who is facing a rapist on the stand and the rapist has decided to identify as a woman that week? People are saying that that will have no effect. They are talking about putting misgendering into the bill; there are also all the definitions that political parties are accepting. That goes hand in hand with those issues.

As Lucy Hunter Blackburn said, we have a situation in Spain in which it is not a hate crime to hang an effigy of a real woman in the town square, but it is a hate crime for a woman, who was tortured under Franco, to say that women should have sex-based rights. That is happening under similar laws. There is no provision in the bill for sex; we now learn that there was never going to be and that the working group will not even consider it.

We have very little trust in this Government and very little trust that the bill will not be used to target, harass and attack women. We need stronger provisions and for women to be protected. As we go into an election and the Government is still determined to push through the GRA, we are very concerned that women who argue against it—and argue for the law as it stands—will be criminalised. We need up-front reassurances now. We need to know that we can talk about women, adult human females and two sexes, and about sex being immutable, because we are not getting any reassurance.

Women are angry. There are thousands and thousands of very, very frightened women. The convener said that he was frightened by the implications of some of the objections to the amendments; consider how frightened women are. I am sorry to be so emotional about it, but it is difficult and traumatic, and it has been a horrific experience for a lot of vulnerable women. Thank you for inviting us back and hearing us. Please remember to listen to women.

Please do.

H/t Night Crow

Trump’s plane had an engine failure last weekend and had to make an emergency landing. Therefore, naturally, he is begging people to give him money to make a new one, which he absurdly calls “Trump Force One.” I can think of better words than “force” in that name.

“I have a very important update on my plane, but I need to trust that you won’t share it with anyone,” wrote Trump in the newly released email. “My team is building a BRAND NEW Trump Force One.”

He needs to trust that the people on his mailing list won’t share it with anyone, so that’s why he sends it out to his mailing list. Does he think they’re that stupid?

Updating to add the prompt for this post:

The National (Scotland) reports:

A RADICAL new report has recommended world-leading misogyny laws should be introduced in Scotland to protect women and girls from male violence.

Baroness Helena Kennedy was tasked with investigating how the Scottish justice system deals with misogyny in January 2021, with the results revealed in the report Misogyny – A Human Rights Issue. 

But what are women? What are girls? What is misogyny? How can they introduce any laws to protect women and girls when they don’t know what women and girls are?

The group defined misogyny as a “way of thinking that upholds the primary status of men and a sense of male entitlement, while subordinating women and limiting their power and freedom.”

But what are women? What are men? How can men subordinate women when women can become men? Surely the women just say “You can’t do that to me, I’m a man.” It would be transphobia to say no you’re not.

The report added that conduct based on misogynistic thinking can include, “a range of abusive and controlling behaviours including rape, sexual offences, harassment and bullying, and domestic abuse.”

You’d think, but that’s true only if people are stuck being women or men, as opposed to being able to identify out by saying some words. If the borders are porous, then all this rape and bullying and domestic abuse happens to both sexes (and genders). Human sex is soup, and nobody can tell who is what is which.

Kennedy explained that one of the main issues in Scots law is getting convictions for crimes such as rape and domestic abuse, and that one of the main reasons women don’t feel comfortable reporting violence committed against them is because the justice system is “imbued with misogyny” and a change of perspective is needed across all levels – police, judiciary and government.

You know, from that, you’d think she really does know what a woman is. But that can’t be right can it? They’re not allowed to know in Scotland.

However, the findings ruled out the addition of “sex” as a characteristic to existing hate crime legislation as misogyny is so deeply rooted in society that a more fundamental set of responses is required.

Oh, I see, that makes sense. The problem is so deeply rooted that they mustn’t add it to the long list of protected characteristics, instead they must gaze longingy into the middle distance hoping for a solution.

War crime.

A maternity hospital in the southern port city of Mariupol has been hit by a Russian air strike, Ukraine says.

It doesn’t get much more blatant than that. Bonus: they did it during an agreed ceasefire.

Mariupol has been surrounded by Russian forces for several days, and repeated attempts at a ceasefire to allow civilians to leave have broken down.

“The whole city remains without electricity, water, food, whatever and people are dying because of dehydration,” Olena Stokoz of Ukraine’s Red Cross told the BBC, adding that her organisation would continue trying to organise an evacuation corridor.

I would like to see Putin in the Hague.

Updating to add: Other heads of state have done bad things, so disregard the above.

An endorsement.

Scottish Government to women (on International Women’s Day): sucks to be you.

You can see how important this is. It’s about how easy it will be for the cops in Scotland to haul women off to the police station because they defend their rights. It’s about whether women in Scotland will have any freedom at all to talk about their rights when purported “trans rights” are in competition.

In other words they’re politely asking for the promised Notes, and getting no response.

Finalised? The notes are finalised? So what happened to that promised that MBM and others would be included?

So there you go. “Yes yes yes bitches we’ll keep you posted on what we work out. Kidding, no we won’t.”

It’s just breathtaking.

Apparently “queer” people have been denied access to the outdoors?

I’ll be darned. I could have sworn it was just for cis, straight, middle class “folk.” (What are “middle class folk” anyway? Is that similar to middle class peasants and middle class working stiffs?)

PN explains:

Ailish had personal reasons for setting up Queer Out Here. They grew up in the Yorkshire countryside where a love for the outdoors was practically mandatory. After university, and a period in which they stopped exploring the outdoors, Ailish “rediscovered it and found how beneficial it was for my mental health and wellbeing”.

…

But they were also keen to challenge what they see as a lack of equality around access to the outdoors.

A lack of equality around access to the outdoors…like, the doors are all locked from the outside? That can’t be right, we would have heard. Are there checkpoints between us and the outdoors at which “queer” people are told to turn around and go back? If there are why have I never seen them, let alone been asked to show my papers?

“I think a lot of people do feel that the outdoors is only for certain types of people,” Ailish says. “People think it’s for middle class, white, heteronormative families, or there’s there’s the really outdoorsy people who’ve got all of the gear, which can be really expensive.”

Nope, sorry, I don’t believe a word of that. Nobody thinks the outdoors is reserved for “heteronormative” families. Some people probably think it is reserved for people who like to go outside and get moving, but the word for that is “laziness,” not a lack of equality around access to the outdoors.

There’s also a “macho” side to the outdoors – plenty of people take on extreme challenges. The idea alone can be alienating for queer people.

Nope, I don’t believe that either. Yes, some people climb mountains, but what does that have to do with other people going for walks? Nothing. Not one thing. The fact that some people like to climb mountains can’t possibly be “alienating for queer people.” That’s a stupid, whiny, self-indulgent claim. It’s a dire symptom of Pink News’s need to fill its pages.

Among those who might not find that atmosphere particularly welcoming are trans and non-binary people. Ailish was thinking specifically about the trans and non-binary community when they set up Queer Out Here.

Why? Why would trans and non-binary people not find that “atmosphere” welcoming? What “atmosphere”? There is no “atmosphere,” there’s only a claim that the idea that some people take on challenges is “alienating.” Well it’s not. That’s a bogus claim.

This is how it all works, isn’t it – start with a childishly absurd unsupported claim and then weave a giant superstructure on top of it, and a wall of abuse and bullying all around it. Progress!

“We do have loads of trans and non-binary people that come on our walks, and that feels so powerful and empowering when we’re all walking together in a big group in the Peak District and in these rural areas where we don’t see groups of people that look like us all the time. There’s something that feels quite political and powerful about that.”

Except that’s not true, is it. The groups of people do look like all these loads of trans and non-binary people. The photos with the story make that very obvious – they all look like people out for a walk on a chilly day. They don’t have a special glow, or extra limbs, or rainbow bubble-wrap over their heads.

It gives too much away, this story. It reveals the pathetic truth that much of this nonsense is about young people who want to be Special, and are too dim or feeble to become Special by actually doing something. “Look at me, I went for a walk while Queer!!”

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on The problem was dogma.

The problem with this whole discussion as I see it is that beliefs are just taken as a given rather than the outcome of some cognitive process in their own right, even if it’s just accepting what you’ve always been told. My main problem with faith-based religion (and its secular equivalents) was always the part about leaving the most important questions in life – questions with real-world consequences and implications for the way we treat others – up to blind faith in the first place. I don’t think it’s any kind of excuse or mitigating circumstance to be doing the right thing as we see it if the way we see it is based on unjustified beliefs, we never made any honest effort to find out what’s objectively true (rationalizing a fixed, pre-determined conclusion doesn’t count as an “honest effort”), and were unwilling to even consider the possibility that our beliefs were wrong. “I am going to think and act as if this were true no matter what and let others pay the price for my unjustified beliefs. And if that means hating others, treating them as lesser beings, even subjecting them to violence, then so be it. That’s their problem! Not only am I willing to bet their rights, their dignity, even their lives on the correctness of propositions I have no real reason to believe, but I’m unwilling to refrain from doing so, and no amount of logic or evidence is ever going to prevent me!”

William K. Clifford’s classic article on “The Ethics of Belief” is, of course, essential reading in this regard.

In my militant atheist days I often made myself unpopular (among accomodationist types) for a somewhat different reason than Sastra. I was repeatedly told that the specific contents of specific beliefs don’t matter, because (A or B):

A. Nobody actually believes any of that stuff anyway (“That’s just an excuse for what people would be doing anyway. Without the religion they would invent some other excuse” etc.).

B. People aren’t motivated by what they sincerely belive to be true about God or the afterlife. (“Nobody actually cares if they face an eternity of bliss or an eternity of torture after death, because all that matters to people is getting the best deal out of secular society during the few decades they spend on earth”)

I strongly suspect A is wrong, but in the absence of telepathic powers, it’s hard to say for sure. I’m confident that B is bullshit though. And this is where I wholeheartedly agree with Sastra. While I too have issues with Sam Harris I think he hits the nail on the head on this point. The specific contents of specific beliefs do indeed matter. As Voltaire famously put it “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”, because then they can also make you believe the kind of absurdities that would make the atrocities seem perfectly justified, even the only morally defensible thing to do. The problem with faith-based religion (or dogmatic belief systems in general) as I see it is that it allows people by the millions to think and act as if such absurdities were true whether they are in fact true or not. The fact that not all religious beliefs are equally harmful in practice is irrelevant with respect to the deeper problem, i.e. the part about leaving the most important questions in life up to blind faith in the first place. Almost every problem I have with religion-like movements ultimately comes back to the part about believing things for the wrong reasons* (as you pretty much have to do to believe in God, since no other reasons are available). The same kind of wrong reasons that gave us Jainism (a religion of total pacifism, or at least so we’re told) also gave us Jihadism.

*This is were I disagree with those atheists who say things like “I have nothing against faith, I’m only against organized religion”. If I could chose between a world without unjustified beliefs and a world without churches, I would chose the former any time. If we could get people to stop believing things for bad reasons the harmful ideas of religion would die a natural death, and whatever good ideas are in the mix don’t need the bad reasons to stay alive. If people still wanted to go to church for community and support, I wouldn’t really mind. If we could have a “religion” without unjustified beliefs, it would probably rank very low on my list of concerns. And with unjustified beliefs even secular ideologies have the potential to become the stuff of nightmares.

JKR is clearly all in, and for the long haul.

HAhahahahahahaha that’s a good one.

Yep, all in.

Originally a comment by Sastra on A kind of Turing test.

In atheist forums I often promoted an unpopular opinion: the religious were no less ethical than we were. On the whole, they share the same values and moral goals. Even the Nazis didn’t really differ in their sense of right & wrong, or commitment to fairness, from the people they persecuted.

Because change what you thought were the facts, and you change what’s right and wrong. If God was a God of Love and homosexuals subvert the Loving Natural Order, thus harming not only themselves but leading whole nations into damnation, then gay marriage is wrong. And fighting against it is right. It does no good to see my opponents as wicked, immoral, demonic, or cruel if I would do the same thing if I believed what they believe. The problem was dogma, ideology. The problem with the religious was religion.

Sure, there’s a disturbing portion of psychopaths and people who really are cruel. But if there’s a position that’s popularly held it’s very unlikely indeed that it’s believed only by the sort of people who enjoy torturing others. Look at the facts they’re working from: what looks like a moral problem may be a problem in reasoning.

When I made this case I noticed that, over time, fewer and fewer people agreed with me. It used to be a standard position in skepticism and a respectable position in atheism. But the more emphasis placed on social justice, the more the religious were seen as reveling in hatred. Till it became… like it is now. Dark vs Light, Good vs Evil, the Saved vs the Damned. It’s come full circle. We’re not just like the religious — we’re like religion.

Suzanne Moore on International Women’s Day:

As a feminist, though, I would indeed like the world to be a better place for women – and by the world, I don’t mean north London or a campus in California; I mean Herat, Tigray, Guatemala. For all the arguments about equality for women amount to nothing if we lose an international perspective. Feminism is global, or it is simply an exercise in consumer power dressed up as politics. That is exactly what happened to Western feminism in the 1990s, when everything from brunching to boob jobs was “empowering”.

Seriously. You don’t see women in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Nigeria running around exclaiming about their trans sisters – they have other stuff to worry about. One (but only one) of the enraging things about the trans ideology is the luxury of it, the optionality, the choosy-choiceness, the expensive plush shiny consumerism of it.

The pandemic worsened every existing inequality, but before Covid women’s rights were already in reverse. Women are in lower paid jobs often because of trying to juggle kids and work. Childcare costs are prohibitive. Women were more likely to be furloughed and took on the lion’s share of home-schooling. The gender pay gap has increased, from 14.9 per cent in 2020 to 15.4 per cent.

In short, without a continual fight, no headway is made. The biggest surprise to me, though, has been  that the backlash against feminism has come not from the Right, but from the Left. The whole inflated debate around trans issues is so often not about the small number of people who are gender dysphoric, and need care and dignity; it is about the rights of women to keep what we already have. It has produced an avalanche of repulsive misogyny.

Much of which issues from women, like Laurie Penny for instance.

Forgive me, then, if I do not celebrate International Women’s Day when so many political parties are kowtowing to this woman-hating religion. Forgive me if I think “non-binary” is just another way of creating a new binary, and saying “I am special” and you are not in my tribe. Forgive me if I think that, in so much of the virtue-signalling we will witness today, it will likely be that there is little “international” about any of this.

Yes, it’s trans international.

Meanwhile, we just can’t figure out what a woman is.

Woman’s Hour starting at 21:15:

Emma Barnett: And Labour’s definition of a woman?

Labour Equalities Shadow Minster Annalise Dodds: Well, I have to say that there are different definitions legally around what a woman actually is, I mean you look at the definition within the Equality Act and I think it just says someone who is adult and female I think but that doesn’t say how you define either of those things – I mean that said obviously you’ve got the biological definition, the legal definition –

In short we just don’t quite know. There are different definitions, it all depends, you have to ask around, there’s the legal definition and the magic pony playtime definition.

Ok then what’s a man?

Oh don’t be silly, that’s easy, nobody’s asking that.

In London you can be fined for it.

Just one in every 1,000 drivers reported for unnecessary idling of their engines were fined in central London, data has revealed.

Toxic air pollution kills about 4,000 people every year in the capital and councils have targeted parked drivers who do not turn off their vehicles.

In Westminster, more than 70,000 idling drivers have been reported since 2017 via the council’s “report it” website. But only 63 fines of £80 were issued and just half of these were paid.

Damn I wish we could report it here. People do it more than they used to rather than less.

Air pollution may be damaging every organ in the human body, according to a comprehensive 2019 review, and is particularly damaging to children. A recent study found that switching off an engine for even 30 seconds cuts pollution by half compared with idling.

But it’s so much more fun to leave the engine running for no reason.

The Vagina Museum kept its word, with 22 tweets celebrating men pretending to be women. Like…

That one in particular interests me because the man looks frankly scary. You wouldn’t want to be trapped anywhere alone with him – he has that “I’m just barely keeping my temper” look. I think the Vagina Museum chose that photo for that reason. I don’t understand why they did that, but I think it’s clear they did – they could have found a less ragey photo.

And after all that they taunt us further with

What are men?

One day. We can’t even have one day.

They’ve turned replies off because they know this is a calculated, intentional, with malice aforethought insult to women. “This International Women’s Day we’re going to talk about men, so fuck you, Karen.”