Dude laboriously does us an explain in Psychology Today that gender norms are cultural. Gosh, who knew?

Never mind that we don’t need some guy telling us that, because it’s there only as a runway for a flight into the usual Women Must Do What They’re Told.

More recently, the advent of so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF) came to be a significant feminist ideology. In recent years, TERF has been “rebranded” as gender critical (GC) feminism, a “linguistic pivot from ‘anti-trans’ to ‘pro-woman’ … an attempted claim to legitimacy with an aim of accruing mainstream support,” according to a peer-reviewed research article by Claire Thurlow.

No, chump, “terf” hasn’t been rebranded. Terf has always been a snide pejorative for women who don’t submit to trans ideology.

Thurlow argues that despite the rebranding, GC feminism continues to deploy anti-trans tropes and alarmist rhetoric aimed at inciting moral panic. According to another commentator, Katelyn Burns (writing in Vox), GC feminism is now the de facto dominant ideology in the UK and a significant force in the United States, where, ironically, GC feminists ally with (male) “family-values” conservatives whose goals are often antithetical to those of GC feminism.

Wut? Gender critical feminism is now the de facto dominant ideology in the UK?? You must be joking. No kind of feminism is the dominant ideology anywhere on the planet, let alone the gender critical kind in the UK. And we don’t “ally with” family values conservatives. We do overlap with them on the question of whether people can change sex, but guess what, we all sometimes overlap with people we disagree with on most things, because there’s so much that everyone agrees on.

His final summing up:

Whatever one’s views on the immutability or otherwise of biological sex, gender is itself a sociolinguistic construct. While it certainly has a basis in biology, it is confected in a cultural context. And non-Western cultures take different views as to whether gender identity must align with biological sex as assigned at birth (see my previous post). The takeaway from this is that while freedom of speech is important, so is tolerance of opposing views, without resorting to perceived transphobic tropes.

That’s the takeway? You could have fooled me. He hasn’t mentioned “transphobic tropes” before this abrupt conclusion, so we don’t even know what he considers a “transphobic trope.” It’s funny that he takes the precaution of calling them perceived transphobic tropes, but since he hasn’t specified any, his meaning remains conjectural. Dude tries to tell women what women are, fails.

Oh great.

Furthermore he pronounces it pootin. Poot is slang for fart.

Ok listen up, what’s with all this endless whining and fussing about some writer, the people who really need our support and sympathy and worship and support are the ones who chat about books on social meeja.

Tilly Fitzgerald, a former Waterstones employee and a prominent figure on social media for book enthusiasts, has publicly expressed her gratitude following substantial backing from the literary community in an open letter. Fitzgerald’s dismissal from the bookstore chain has sparked significant controversy and debate around freedom of expression and the responsibilities of employees on social media.

Prominent; substantial; significant. We know we’re in the presence of Important Stuff when we get that many Inflative Adjectives in one short paragraph.

Kidding. Actually we know we’re in the presence of a bad writer.

Fitzgerald, known for her engaging book reviews under the username TillyLovesBooks, came under fire after posting a provocative comment on the social media platform X…

The incident led to Fitzgerald’s termination, with Waterstones citing a breach of their social media policy. However, the decision was met with a wave of support for Fitzgerald, culminating in an open letter signed by over 500 authors and industry professionals, urging Waterstones to reconsider their stance.

How does a wave culminate? Bad writing, I tells ya. Probably stemming from extremely bad thinking.

Sometimes the bitterness is overwhelming.

The Guardian puts the boot in:

More than 500 authors and book industry professionals have signed an open letter calling on Waterstones to reverse a decision to dismiss an employee who said she would tear up and throw away books written by a gender-critical author.

Yes that’s right, side with the bratty entitled snot who tried to sabotage a novelist, don’t even consider siding with the novelist who did nothing to deserve the sabotage.

Figures including Chocolat author Joanne Harris, writer and podcaster Dorian Lynskey, and author and culture journalist Jason Okundaye have backed Tilly Fitzgerald, who posts book-related content and reviews under the username TillyLovesBooks on social media. Fitzgerald was sacked after responding to a post on X by author Christina Dalcher, which appeared to endorse a publishing network for those “concerned about the impact of gender ideology” on the sector. Fitzgerald wrote: “Ooh, I’ll enjoy tearing up your books and popping them in the bin today. Thanks for the heads up.”

Maybe just maybe writers shouldn’t be defending the brat who bragged about tearing up books at the expense of the non-brat who writes them.

Fitzgerald told the Guardian: “My intention responding to Dalcher was only to let her know that I would no longer be supporting her books in my personal capacity as a reviewer.”

Brazen lie. She could have just told her that. Bragging about tearing up Dalcher’s books is another thing altogether.

The open letter, which was published by British comedy script writer Sara Gibbs, said that its signatories “feel it is an egregious error to terminate the employment of a dedicated, passionate and knowledgeable bookseller for expressing a personal opinion about an author and their work on their social media page.”

Another brazen lie. She didn’t just “express a personal opinion.” She went well beyond that.

“We would like to express support and solidarity with Tilly, and to urge Waterstones to do the right thing and reinstate her,” the letter goes on to say.

No solidarity for Christina Dalcher then.

Well now that’s something I realized I needed to know more about.

The world’s only, eh? Ok then. Goldsmiths QH MA:

Why study MA Queer History at Goldsmiths

This is the world’s first postgraduate programme in Queer History. It engages with histories of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other (LGBTQ+) people, identities and communities. It is innovative, creative, free-thinking, stimulating, diverse and challenging – everything that is distinctive about history at Goldsmiths.

And other LGBTQ+ people, identities and communities – so what does that mean? You’ve already got the +, so what does the “and other” mean? It’s about LGBTQ people and + people and other LGBTQ people – so what does that mean?

‘Queer’ is an inclusive term, encompassing the complex experiences of sexuality and gender diversity across history. In the past, ‘queer’ has been used as a term of derision, but many today have reclaimed the term to capture the complexity of gender and sexuality.

Is that part of the + and the “and other”? We get + and the other and queer? Each with its own distinctive meaning which we don’t know what it is?

I ask because normally the goal with this kind of thing is clarity and specificity, not vagueness and infinitude.

Maybe it’s part of queering the MA, or the academy, or knowledge, or all of the above + more + more + more.

• Adopting the Department’s thematic and interdisciplinary approach, the course explores the queer past across period, region, and theme from the early modern period to the present.
• You’ll develop your research skills and understanding of key debates and methods used by historians of the queer past.
• You will learn to interrogate past understandings of queer identity and experience. You will question binaries between heterosexual and homosexual, male and female and will learn about the contexts of queerness and issues of intersectionality.
• You will develop your own specific subject interests through a range of option courses, primary research, and a dissertation on a theme of personal interest.

You will have so much fun, and by the end you will know how to swim.

The BBC is incoherent with shock and rage and confusion.

Braverman sparks outrage after LGBTQ+ flag comments

What mean? What mean, BBC? Sparks outrage after comments or because of comments or at comments? And what does “sparks outrage” mean anyway? Does it perhaps just mean a BBC reporter finds the comments outrageous? And what are flag comments anyway? And do you actually mean “LGBTQ+” or do you just mean one or two of those initials?

Rishi Sunak is facing calls to expel Suella Braverman from the Conservative Party following remarks she made about an LGBTQ+ flag.

Is he? Or is that just BBCese for “I think Sunak should expel her for remarks I don’t like”?

Ms Braverman, MP for Fareham and Waterlooville in Hampshire, criticised the flying of the Progress Pride flag at the Home Office in comments that some found offensive.

Oh some found offensive, did they. How very newsworthy. How many? Two? Just you?

Designed in 2018, the flag was created to represent people of colour in the LGBTQ+ community, as well as the trans community and those living with HIV/Aids.

What do you mean “as well as the trans community” when it’s already there? In the T: see it? Why does the trans communinny get a double mention when no one else does? Not to mention the familiar issue that T is not the same as LGB and shouldn’t be mashed in with it.

Casey Byrne, a former Conservative candidate for Reading Borough Council and LGBTQ+ campaigner, said Braverman should be “expelled” for the comments she made at the National Conservatism Conference in the United States.

Hey. Excuse me. You haven’t told us what they were yet. This is sly manipulative evasive incoherent “reporting.” You shouldn’t be shouting about who found some mysterious comments expulsion-worthy before telling us wtf you’re talking about.

We get three more one-sentence paragraphs of empty shouting before we finally get a particular.

Ms Braverman also criticised the flying of the Progress Pride flag at the Home Office to “show how liberal and progressive we are”.

In her speech, she said: “I couldn’t even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.”

Finally a particular.

She then appeared to describe teenagers having gender transition surgery as “mutilation”.

She said: “The Progress flag says to me, one monstrous thing: That I was a member of a government that presided over the mutilation of children in our hospitals.”

Oh the horror. The mutilation, you mean? No no, of course not: the horror is mentioning it.

On the NHS website, surgery is only listed as a treatment option for gender dysphoria for adults.

So there have been zero such “treatment options” for minors?

Then we get a huge beaming photo of Casey Byrne the former Conservative candidate for Reading Borough Council and LGBTQ+ campaigner.

Mr Byrne, from Reading, said she should be “ashamed” and that her words had “real potential to cause harm to LGBT+ people”. Speaking to the BBC, he said: “Suella Braverman has crossed a very clear line that only her expulsion from the Conservative Party, would be an appropriate consequence. Rishi Sunak, as leader, should expel her from the party and send a clear message – we will not tolerate hate.”

Is it hate to say that minors should not be mutilated?

Then we get someone else expressing shock and in conclusion

Ms Braverman made a second speech on Tuesday at a Westminster conference of Popular Conservatism where she spoke of the need to insulate government bodies from what she called the “lunatic woke virus”.

The BBC has contacted Suella Braverman, the Conservative Party and the Home Office for comment.

It’s really shockingly bad “journalism.” 90% trying to work up outrage and 10% humdrum facts about something Braverman said.

Yikes. Lachrymose Tilly the former Waterstones employee is still publicly trying to ruin the life of Christina Dalcher.

And then sobbing Tilly finishes with “please don’t buy her books.”

What a piece of work.

Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey on They win we lose.

A short list of reasons why I think this is silly:

1) It’s usually much harder to sue the government for things it has failed to do than things it has done. This is especially true when you’re trying to sue because the government didn’t do stuff to that guy/corporation over there.

2) Related to point (1), there are likely some major standing problems. An industry that is aggrieved by a regulation it contends is too restrictive has an obvious injury it can point to — we’re losing money because of this regulation. Environmental groups have to rely on more indirect theories — our members are people, and people will suffer from climate change if this isn’t done — and SCOTUS has been trimming back that kind of standing for years now.

3) You won’t “DDOS” the courts. You’ll add a few cases to the dockets of the district court judges in the 9th Circuit where you propose to file these things. If you actually manage to file enough of them to annoy the judges, they’ll just start issuing boilerplate Orders to Show Cause why your case shouldn’t be dismissed, and they’ll quickly get disposed of. Keep filing them, and you’ll eventually exhaust their patience and get yourself sanctioned.

4) Even if you could overburden the district courts, SCOTUS ain’t gonna care, and neither will a Trump administration.

Basically, this is an Underpants Gnome strategy:

Step 1: File lots of borderline frivolous lawsuits

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Victory!

Now, to extract a serious point out of all this: sure, in principle Chevron isn’t inherently conservative or liberal. The case actually originated out of a challenge to the Reagan Administration’s EPA, run by now-Justice Gorsuch’s mother.

The problems are:

1) It’s an asymmetric battle. Industry groups have the resources and incentives to fight every fight. Environmental and consumer groups tend to be much more limited and have to pick their battles.

2) Conservatives rule the courts. Oh, you got some district court judge in California to order Trump’s EPA to do something? And the Ninth Circuit denied the government’s emergency appeal? How nice for you, bravo, bet you spent a lot of time and money on that. Well, Scotus just issued a stay in a one-sentence order on the shadow docket, so there goes that.

More demands for submission and compliance:

A WORCESTER councillor has called for an end to the “political rhetoric” that leads to trans hate crime.

Robyn Norfolk was speaking at a meeting of Worcester City Council at the Guildhall on Tuesday, July 9. Cllr Norfolk had introduced an annual report to the council as its member champion for equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI). She said it had been a pleasure to work with council officers.

I suspect Robyn Norfolk is a man. The photo at the top of the article certainly looks like a man.

Cllr Richard Udall said hate crime is a growing concern for many people and that “perpetrators are causing significant harm to individuals”. He said: “Some of the public participation in this chamber was targeted at the trans community and I’m also aware that the trans community top the list of victims of hate crime in West Mercia.”

How are you defining hate crimes?

I found a news item on “transphobic hate crime” in West Mercia from last October:

WEST Mercia saw more hate crimes committed against transgender people in 2022-23 than during the year before, new figures show. The Home Office says public discussion by political leaders and the media could be behind a rise in transphobic hate crime across the country.

New figures from the Home Office show West Mercia Police recorded 105 hate crimes against transgender people in the year to March – a rise from 91 in 2021-22.

But, again, we don’t know how they’re defining hate crime. How things are defined when it comes to trans people is a very knotty issue. Lots of trans ideologues consider it a hate crime just to say that people can’t change sex or that men can’t be women.

West Mercia Police recorded 2,142 hate crimes in 2022-23 – down from 2,272 the year before.

Among these, 1,399 offences (65%) were motivated by race or ethnicity, 386 (18%) by sexual orientation, 58 (3%) by religious belief, while 278 crimes (13%) were against those with disabilities.

Oh gee whaddya know look what isn’t even mentioned. No hate crimes against women at all then? So you’re counting rape as what, a love crime? Or is it just that women fly under the radar entirely because meh, who the hell really gives a damn about women, amirite?

Cllr Udall asked how the council can help to eradicate such hate crime. Cllr Norfolk responded: “I’m glad to say, in the 10 years or so that I’ve been out, I’ve received very little abuse for being trans.

“But having said that I do know of a small but youthful trans community in Worcester that regularly complain about trans hate crime. We have to stop the political rhetoric that goes along the lines that ‘you cannot change your gender’, ‘you cannot change your sex’, ‘we are mutilating young kids’.”

Yup, there it is – it’s “hate crime” to say that you cannot change your sex and by golly the stats on hate crime are through the roof.

When will people get bored with this nonsense?

The sobbing Tilly saga continues to sprout new limbs.

A writer for the Independent, Emma Guinness, wrote the predictable snotty story about the big meany writer and the poor tragic Waterstones worker who raged about the big meany writer in public and got fired. Guinness is claiming – also in public – to have invited Dalcher to comment on the hit piece about her. The problem there is that she seems to have sent her invitation(s) to random people instead of to Dalcher.

It’s almost as if the “give people who claim to be trans whatever they demand” movement attracts people who are startlingly bad at human relations.

A piece of good news:

On the 10th of July 2024, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) discontinued all charges imposed on Selma Taha, Divina Riggon and Danae Thomas – the #KingsCross3. The CPS attributed this to lack of evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. Speaking outside Highbury Magistrates’ Court this morning, the defence Barrister Rajiv Menon KC asserted that it’s an outrage for such a case to have been pursued for prosecution in today’s day and age.

I like that “lack of evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction” explanation – which being interpreted means they didn’t do it.

In September 2023, Selma, Divina and Danae were verbally and physically assaulted in a racist incident on London public transport. The assailant, a white woman, made monkey sounds and called the three “Black bitches”, and “slaves”. The abuse escalated into physical violence. The assailant pulled clumps of hair off Selma and Danae and bit Selma’s flesh, leaving a deeply embedded imprint of her teeth which necessitated tetanus and hepatitis injections and antibiotics. An off-duty Metropolitan Detective Constable was present in the tube carriage but failed to intervene to de-escalate the incident. When the train arrived at King’s Cross station, the three women had to challenge the inactivity and apathy of the police officer and ask him to treat the matter seriously and arrest the assailant.

The #KingsCross3 are victim-survivors of a horrific racist attack during which they were not just subjected to trauma inflicted by verbal and physical abuse, but also by the inaction of an off-duty police officer present on the scene. In an utterly incomprehensible and unjustifiable move, instead of charging the assailant, the CPS made the decision to charge Selma, Divina and Danae with common assault by beating. Divina and Danae had also been charged with public order offences, with racial aggravation for Danae, in relation to alleged conduct towards a white British Transport Police (BTP) officer on the platform at King’s Cross after disembarking from the tube, which were eventually dropped on the 2nd of July 2024. The assailant was offered and has accepted a caution for racially aggravated conduct in relation to one instance of racist abuse. No further action was taken against her in relation to other instances of racist abuse or the assault. In a highly unusual move, prior to the trial, the CPS also made applications for special measures such as screens and reporting restrictions including on naming the police officers involved, which were rightfully denied.

The assailant got “a caution.”

Now if the Kings Cross 3 had been trans sisters instead of Southall Black sisters, I daresay the perp would have received more than a caution.

Ominous:

Four days after the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo, overturning the 40-year-old precedent known as the Chevron deference, the justices announced they would be sending nine cases back to lower courts in light of their ruling.

This batch of cases may be the first indication of the legal upheaval that could play out across the United States judiciary now that one of the most widely cited Supreme Court opinions has been reversed.

…

By reversing its 1984 ruling in the case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — which let judges defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of statutes when language was unclear — the court slashed the authority of regulators and empowered the judiciary.

Slashing the authority of regulators of course is the dream of corporations and their fan base. Fuck worker safety and consumer safety and planetary safety, fuck everything except profit.

In two of the cases remanded to lower courts in light of the Loper decision, the plaintiffs share the same lawyer: the Pacific Legal Foundation, or PLF. 

According to its website, the PLF — which called for an end to the Chevron deference in an amicus brief it filed in the Loper case — represents at least five different plaintiffs whose cases stand to benefit from Chevron’s reversal. 

The public interest law firm is one of several conservative, anti-regulation groups that have been preparing for the Supreme Court’s reversal of Chevron, according to Accountable.US, a nonpartisan research organization focused on special interests.

A new report from the group identifies four organizations, including the PLF, planning legal challenges and lobbying efforts now that the precedent has been overturned. The others are the Balancing Act Project, which says on its website that it will work to define “a new regulatory environment” in the post-Chevron world; the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation nonprofit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority; and Americans for Prosperity, the Charles Koch-backed network whose lawyers represented the plaintiffs in Loper.

Yes let’s just do away with all regulation and have nothing but Competitive Enterprise and Prosperity for the people at the very top.

The Great Lanyard War grinds on.

A Government crackdown on so-called “woke” lanyards in the civil service has been dropped by Labour after the general election, i understands…Esther McVey, who was the Cabinet Office minister known as “minister for common sense” in the last Government, gave a speech in May arguing that officials should not seek to express their views or identity in the workplace…The change was widely seen as a response to a trend of civil servants wearing lanyards in rainbow colours to express support for LGBT causes.

Leaving aside questions about banning a particular form of lanyard, what I wonder is why it’s always LGBT causes. Why is it never women? Or workers? Or the poor?

But especially women, who are, after all, half of all people, and the source of all people.

Why does the LGBT brand soak up all the attention and celebration and incloosion and advertising and lanyard-wearing?

From March:

Florida’s Senate on Tuesday approved a bill that would ban cities and counties from adopting requirements for mandatory water breaks and other workplace protections against extreme heat.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted 28-11, along party lines, to pass Senate Bill 1492, which would prohibit local governments from determining workplace heat standards that go beyond those required by federal law. In effect, the bill would strip cities and counties of the ability to require water breaks for workers and time to rest in the shade throughout the day.

That’s evil. Genuinely, literally evil. Heat kills. Humans are not built to tolerate extreme heat, and they die when they get too hot. They don’t “get used to it” or “adapt” or anything like that, any more than people get used to having their heads cut off. There’s a hard limit on how much heat we can survive, and legislators don’t have the power to change that.

The state legislation comes after the planet notched its hottest year in recorded history in 2023. Nearly the entire southern part of the U.S. last summer suffered weeks on end of oppressive humidity and triple-digit temperatures in a series of long-lasting heat waves that climate scientists said were intensified by global warming.

No doubt that’s part of the motivation of the murderous senators, along with wanting to stick it to people who failed to lie and exploit and cheat their way to vast wealth. Must block all safety laws related to heat because must pretend planet is not cooking.

labor organizations have said workplace heat standards are necessary to keep people safe, particularly for individuals who work in construction, agriculture and other industries that require them to be outside.

Similar legislation was passed last year in Texas, as part of a state law that limited local governments from, among other things, establishing ordinances for mandatory water breaks and time in the shade for outdoor workers.

Heat causes more deaths in the U.S. each year than any other weather event, according to the National Weather Service, and outdoor workers are among those most vulnerable to heat-related illness and death when temperatures spike.

Yeah no shit, because they’re stuck outside in it, working.

The Indy reports:

Waterstones has come under fire for sacking a bookseller who claimed she would “tear up and bin” an author’s novel over their gender-critical views.

Their gender-critical views?? Her views. She’s a woman and doesn’t pretend otherwise.

Book influencer and Waterstones employee Tilly Fitzgerald, who uses the TikTok page Tilly Loves Books to share her reviews of novels, was fired after breaching the retailer’s social media policy during an interaction with author Christina Dalcher.

“Book influencer.” Yuck.

Ms Dalcher was subject to Ms Fitzgerald’s criticism after the author appeared to endorse a new publishing network for those “concerned about the impact of gender ideology” and the safeguarding of women’s rights. This prompted Ms Fitzgerald to write on X/Twitter: “Ooh I’ll enjoy tearing up your books and popping them in the bin today. Thanks for the heads up.”

The bookseller was subsequently dismissed from her job and took to social media to tearfully express her sadness – and clarify her stance on Ms Dalcher’s books. She said her intention was not to have the author removed from the shelves of Waterstones – merely that she did not want to personally support the author.

And she did want to personally trash the author on social media.

Following news of Ms Fitzgerald’s dismissal, supporters of the LGBTQ+ community have flooded Waterstones’ social media posts with comments encouraging the bookstore to reinstate her.

There is no such “community.” It’s a fiction of the initials-besotted.

Ms Fitzgerald uttered some deepities for the Independent.

“I’m so grateful for all the support people in the book community have shown. The last thing I would consider myself is an activist (although I’m forever in awe of those who are brave enough to fight so relentlessly), but to me, it’s fairly simple – we just let people be who they want to be and begin with kindness.”

Sure, let people be who they want to be. Let Trump be a descendant of enslaved people if he wants to be. Let all white people be descendants of enslaved people if they want to be. Let people be Barack Obama or Harrison Ford or Simone Biles or Taylor Swift if they want to be.

Trans “activism” adds one more to the body count.

She’s an editor.

The “be kind” set strikes again.

Waterstones has spoken.

I suppose Waterstones has a policy that covers little pranks like publicly trashing books Waterstones sells.

Another brave activist steps up to tell us all about qrxself.

As I opened the envelope last summer – during the beginning of warmer weather and, aptly, of Pride season – I felt like I was opening the next chapter of my life.

The envelope contained my deed poll – a legal document that proved I changed my name – and receiving it was one of the most joyful and emotional moments of my transition. I identify as non-binary; and the deed poll confirmed my name is – at long last – Dee Whitnell. 

Is that the most exciting thing you’ve ever read or what?

But I haven’t always been able to celebrate my identity in this way – far from it. For as long as I can remember, I’ve never felt like a girl or a boy.

I didn’t fit into either group at school, and either isolated myself by hanging out on my own because I thought I was the only one to experience these feelings, or threw myself into hyper-femininity to try to convince myself that I was a girl. I grew my hair long, fake-tanned and wore my school skirt rolled up to make it shorter – because that’s what the girls did.

Meanwhile every single one of the other girls, of course, had no such feelings or qualms or doubts whatsoever, because they were all dull conformist drones, unlike Precious Self.

There’s a whole lot more in the same vein, about how her mother doesn’t get it about her name, and how hard it is to vote, and enthralling details like that. A feast of delights for the narcissist-fancier.

Land of liberty.

[C]hild marriage, which activists describe as one or both parties entering a union while under age 18, remains legal in 37 US states. There are no federal laws against it, meaning minors can marry, with parental consent, before they can vote, drink, or buy lottery tickets in the majority of the country. Some states have a minimum marriage age on the books, which ranges from 15 to 18. Four states – California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Mississippi – do not specify any minimum age at all.

So the bride is 3, so what? She has liberty too you know.

In many states, statuatory rape is not a crime within marriage, creating a legal loophole that entices predators and increases the likelihood of sexual abuse. “Child marriage can be seen as a workaround for child rape,” said Fraidy Reiss, founder of Unchained at Last.

Or to put it more simply, child marriage is child rape. I think it’s pretty much always the female half of the equation who is the child.

So far this year, survivors have successfully campaigned to get child marriage taken off the books in three states, marking steady progress towards their goal of ending child marriage completely in the US by 2030. But, Reiss says, indifference is a challenge: “It’s been difficult to get legislators to pay attention to the issue and to take the simple, commonsense step of saying you have to be 18 to marry, the same way you have to be 18 to enter into almost any other contract.”

Advocates also face interference from a seemingly odd cohort: rightwing politicians who are using child marriage as ammunition in their war on reproductive rights, and left-leaning organizations who say they are defending the rights of young people by protecting the legality of child marriage.

Like the ACLU for instance? [scrolls down] Ah yes.

However, some secular organizations have argued against the coalition’s efforts: in California last year, local chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood came out against a law that would have banned child marriage in the state. “They see it as a reproductive rights issue, that the ability to decide to get married is an issue of choice,” Syrett, the historian, said. The law did not pass because, according to the Los Angeles Times, these organizations exerted influence over Democratic lawmakers.

Well yes and the ability to drink a bottle of rum or smoke fentanyl or drive an SUV at 90 miles an hour down a city street is also an issue of choice. What’s your point? Children don’t get to make choices in all circumstances, because they’re children.