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.

This happened:

Boohoohoo, all she did was try to bully a novelist for having Non-approved views.

Mind you, I don’t really think she should have been fired for that, at least when I think about it. The novelist in question doesn’t think so either.

But still. There is a certain schadenfreude in seeing it happen.

The novelist is Christina Dalcher.

Ah well. Forget it Christina: it’s Chinatown.

I tried to find the original of this on the Canadian Museum of History website but couldn’t (because I couldn’t figure out how to narrow the search from 4,300 hits). Secondary source will have to do for now.

How backward can you get?

Has anyone ever understood the point of feminism at all???

No, you dumbfux, finding axes in women’s graves doesn’t = anshent peeple new genner idenniny are complikated. Finding axes in women’s graves = it appears that some women used axes.

Yes it’s interesting. Yes it could mean that gender roles weren’t always strictly enforced, or were unlike our ideas of gender roles. It could mean a lot of things of that type. What it’s highly unlikely to mean is that ancient people thought about gender the way brainless hipsters do in 2024.

The Telegraph on the Dodds issue:

Anneliese Dodds, who was appointed on Monday, has been called “nonsensical” for her beliefs on gender.

Two years ago, when she was Labour’s shadow equalities spokeswoman, Ms Dodds said in a BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour radio interview that there are “different definitions legally around what a woman actually is” and, when pressed again, said: “I think it does depend what the context is.”

JK Rowling has hit out at [criticised] Ms Dodds following her appointment.

Reposting a transcript of the interview, Rowling said: “And if you happen to be wondering how I have the transcript of that Woman’s Hour to hand, it was sent to me by Dodds’ office after I publicly criticised her prevarication on the programme. They seemed to think I’d find her comments less nonsensical if I saw them in print.”

Hahahaha that’s a good one.

Bridget Phillipson, the Education Secretary, will also have the title minister for women and equalities because the title has to be held by someone of Cabinet rank. Ms Dodds will take leadership on the issue but does not hold a Cabinet post.

Ms Dodds had said in opposition that she was going to be the first Secretary of State for Women and Equalities. She will combine the role with that of aid minister, in what will be seen as a significant downgrading of the position from pre-election promises.

Probably because it is in fact a significant downgrading of the position from pre-election promises.

During the election campaign, Ms Phillipson was criticised for refusing eight times to answer whether a biological male should be able to use a women’s toilet during a radio interview with LBC.

Presenter Nick Ferrari then presented a specific scenario about a trans woman with a penis needing to use a public toilet in a restaurant, asking: “The trans woman with a penis would use which lavatory?”

Ms Phillipson repeatedly suggested that businesses should provide “a range of different options”, even when Mr Ferrari specified that the hypothetical restaurant only had two options – male and female toilets.

That’s a classic example and illustration of how this ridiculous brand of advocacy works – by ignoring all reasonable questions and simply singing little arias of hope and joy instead of answering them. There will be a range of options tralala, they will be lovely, they will be decked in ribbons, they will taste like ripe peaches, you will be so happy you won’t know what to do.

JKR reminds us of Anneliese Dodds’s chat with Emma Barnett on Woman’s Hour two years ago.

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

Annaliese 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 then doesn’t say how you define either of those things. I mean that’s then… you’ve got the biological definition, the legal definition, all of this kind of thing.

Emma Barnes: With respect I didn’t ask for that. What’s the Labour definition?

Annaliese Dodds: Well, I think with respect Emma I think it does depend what the context is, surely. You know there are people who have decided to…that they have to make that transition. You know, I’ve spoken with many of them. It’s been a very difficult process for many of those people, and you know understandably because they live as a woman they want to be defined as a woman. That’s what the Gender Recognition Act – again a Labour process – brought into place.

Let’s think about that. “It’s been a very difficult process for many of those people, and you know understandably because they live as a woman they want to be defined as a woman.”

It’s been hard work for these men to pretend to be women, therefore we should all pretend they are indeed women.

Hey, it’s hard work to break into a bank vault; does that mean the breakers-in should be allowed to keep the money?

Starmer did this as a calculated insult, didn’t he. He has to have, because he can’t not know what an insult it is.

We need more research, and more and more and more and MORE to find out what we already know. It will take many generations to get at the truth, despite the fact that we already know.

Much more research is needed to determine whether it’s fair or not to allow trans women to compete in the women’s category in sporting competitions, according to a leading scientist.

In an interview with the programme’s presenter, Maxine Hughes, Dr Shane Heffernan, an expert on the physiology of elite athletes at Swansea University, says a bigger sample is needed to determine results, in current and future studies, and encourages more trans people to volunteer.

Yes because we just have no clue, and never have had. Are men stronger than women? Are women stronger than men? No idea; it’s a black box.

At this month’s Paris 2024 Olympic Games, for the first time in the games’ history, there will be equal representation of male and female athletes.

Yay!

But, of course, there’s a catch.

However, the individual governing bodies for each sport still have the final say over whether to allow trans women to compete in each sport’s female categories, prompting the call, by many of the people interviewed for this programme, for the IOC Olympic Committee to give greater leadership.

Non Evans has competed for Wales in several sports – wrestling, judo, rugby, weightlifting, touch rugby and boxing. She strongly believes that trans women should not compete in women’s categories:

“I do have an issue with a man growing up with larger bones, higher levels of testosterone in the body, a larger heart, and everything else. It makes no difference to me if someone is transgender. I wouldn’t have had the same success in my career competing in judo, wrestling, rugby, weightlifting had I competed against a person who has changed gender after 20 years.”

This is what I keep saying. It’s not the “trans” part, it’s the male part. Lazy or captured journalists keep saying it’s about trans but it’s not, it’s about male.

Meghan Cortez-Fields from the USA is a swimmer who is a trans woman. She competed in the men’s team at college for three years before transitioning to a woman and started swimming for the women’s team:

“A lot of people…at the forefront of this… cross that line where it comes to invalidating our identify. Claiming us to be these monsters”.

Yeah fuck off. No we don’t. We don’t care about your precious idenniny, and what we say is that if you’re male you have an advantage and it’s grossly unfair for you to exploit it.

There’s no doubt that, behind the headlines, there are people who are affected by this complex and sensitive debate, which has driven a huge division into the world of sport.

But Dr Shane Heffernan is firmly of the opinion that further research and time will be able to determine if it is fair for trans women to compete in the same category as women:

“If you come back to me in ten years time and ask this question, we’ll have ten years more knowledge that we’ll be able to apply to trying to determine the correct policies.”

Bullshit. We have the knowledge already. We’ve had it all along.

Sigh.

The Guardian reported on Friday:

Keir Starmer’s cabinet will have the highest number of state-educated and female ministers in history, as Rachel Reeves became the first female chancellor ever, although ethnic representation has fallen.

That sounds nice but what does it mean? Will the “female ministers” actually be women or will some or most or all of them be men who call themselves women? We don’t know, do we. Labour is adamant that men can be women, as is the Guardian, so we can’t assume that when they say they’re appointing a lot of female ministers they actually mean the “female” part.

The Labour veteran and Britain’s first black female MP, Diane Abbott, will become mother of the house in the new parliament, having served her Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency for almost 40 years. More than 40% of seats in the Commons will be held by women, a record that includes 46% of Labour MPs and 24% of their Conservative counterparts.

But when you say “by women” what do you mean?

So that’s it then.

We are so screwed.

Joe Biden’s doctor met with a leading Washington neurologist at the White House this year, it was reported on Saturday.

The report came after Biden on Friday ruled out taking an independent cognitive test and releasing its findings publicly, in an interview with ABC News arranged following his disastrous performance in last week’s presidential TV debate with Donald Trump.

According to White House visitor logs reviewed by the New York Post, Dr Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson’s disease expert at Walter Reed medical center, met with Dr Kevin O’Connor, a doctor of osteopathic medicine who has treated the president for years.

Biden refuses to take a cognitive test.

Later in the broadcast, Biden was asked if he would do an independent neurological and cognitive exam and release the results. “I get a cognitive test every day,” Biden said. “Everything I do – you know, not only am I campaigning, but I’m running the world.”

No no no no no that’s not how that works. Also are you aware that you’re not running the world?

He did two radio interviews in which the White House wrote the questions and ordered the interviewers not to ask any other questions. The interviews were to demonstrate how brilliant he is.

[T]he eight visits Kevin Cannard has made to the White House over the past 11 months are certain to raise further questions about the 81-year-old president’s mental abilities in the wake of his debate with Donald Trump and subsequent verbal mistakes, including during a radio interview on Thursday when he said he was “proud” to be the “first Black woman to serve with a Black president”.

So he’s trans now?

We are so so so screwed.

Hm. Boy says “I’m gay not queer” and all hell breaks loose.

12-year-old boy has allegedly been referred to counter-terrorism authorities after posting an online video saying “there’s no such thing as non-binary”. The child, who remains unnamed, reportedly created the video to counter bullies who had mistakenly assumed he supported transgender rights. In the footage, he reportedly declares: “[I’m] gay not queer.”

Are people required to say they’re queer now?

According to the boy’s mother, school officials informed her that the video had prompted them to report her son to Prevent, the Home Office programme aimed at thwarting potential terrorists.

Ah. Kid age 12 says he’s gay and the school concludes he’s a terrorist.

The boy’s mother told the [Daily] Mail that both agencies had visited her in what felt like an “interrogation” after she uploaded the video on his behalf.  She said: ‘We think that he was targeted as the children believe gay people agree with trans ideology. He made a video which I uploaded to YouTube where he said ‘there are only two genders’ and ‘I’m gay not queer’.

“The school phoned up and were incensed by it. They said that they would refer him to Prevent for that video. They said that he was at risk of radicalisation – not that he had been, but was a risk when he gets to 13 and is entitled to his own social media accounts. There was a risk he would fall in with far right groups.”

Because it’s far-right to say you’re gay not queer.

Make it make sense.

Harry Miller answers the difficult question “What the hell is going on Harry?”

How can they do both?

The Fawcett Society July 5:

After yesterday’s election, there are more women MPs in our Parliament than ever before. It’s an historic moment, but the work has only just begun.

There is a huge opportunity for this new critical mass to work together, across party lines, to improve the lives of women across the country. 

Drawing on inspiration from the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament, the Fawcett Society will shortly convene all women MPs to facilitate the launching of a powerful women’s caucus.

Ok, good, but…

There’s their “position on sex and gender” to consider.

In response to recent questions, the Fawcett Society’s position on sex and gender (which we consulted on widely in 2018) remains unchanged (available here).

To be clear, we are a trans-inclusive organisation. We represent women in all their diversity in the fight for equality. Fawcett recognises the importance of intersectionality and the impact this has on women’s experiences.

So by “women” and “the lives of women” and “all women MPs” they mean women plus men who call themselves women – so they don’t actually mean women.

The youngest MP:

A 22-year-old elected as an MP with a razor-thin majority has said he does not want his age to be the focus as he heads to Westminster.

Labour’s Sam Carling is likely to be the “baby of the House”…

I.e. the youngest, the Beeb helpfully explains.

However, he doesn’t want his age to be a focus. “I want us to get away from this strange mindset towards younger people’s age. As far as I’m concerned we’re just the same as anyone else. I just want to get on with the job.”

Ah well there you are then, demonstrating one of the reasons there is and must be an age threshold for people in government. The younger you are, the less experience you have, and the less time you’ve had to learn and observe and think and self-correct and all that kind of thing. You don’t even have a fully mature brain yet.

Very young people can be brilliant at campaigning (for want of a better word). The US Civil Rights movement was jam-packed with very young people, and their passion and courage were vital to its success.

But the Nazi movement was also full of very young people, as was Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Youth does not always have the answer.

He only recently became interested in politics, saying he saw a connection between social and economic decline and “decisions made in Westminster”. Mr Carling grew up in a rural town in the north-east of England, which he described as “a very deprived area”.

“I saw a lot of things getting worse around me. I was concerned about shops closing on local high streets that used to be a thriving hub and are basically now a wasteland. And the sixth form closed, but I didn’t make the connection to politics until later.”

My point exactly. Making connections is an adult skill that takes time and learning and experience to develop.