An exceptionally shameless lie:

Federal prosecutors on Friday asked the judge in Florida overseeing the classified documents case against Donald Trump to bar the former president from public statements that “pose a significant, imminent and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents” participating in the prosecution.

The request was made to the federal district judge in the case, Aileen Cannon. It follows a distorted claim by Trump earlier this week that the FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, in August 2022 were “authorized to shoot me” and were “locked and loaded ready to take me out and put my family in danger”.

Not distorted so much as flagrantly untrue.

Trump was referring to the disclosure in a court document that the FBI, during the search, had followed a standard use-of-force policy that prohibits the use of deadly force except when the officer conducting the search has a reasonable belief that the “subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person”.

Trump and his family were not at Mar-a-Lago when the FBI searched the premises. Prosecutors said that the search had been planned that way, so that the Trumps would be out of state, and it was coordinated in advance with the US secret service, which guards former and sitting presidents. No force was used in the raid.

Trump wasn’t there. He wasn’t in the state. The FBI planned it that way.

It’s an absolute brazen lie to say they were ready to “take him out.”

The Times on that thing Literary Alliance Scotland had on its website for weeks but now says is “inappropriate” and they don’t know how it got there:

A briefing document on providing safety for trans people published by the Literary Alliance Scotland (LAS) said that “Terfs” — trans-exclusionary radical feminists, a derogatory term for women considered hostile to trans people — were joining forces with “fascists”.

It said this was a “societal issue” and urged bookshop owners not to “stay out of it”. It added: “This rise in transphobia signals a danger to all LGBTQ+ people, to reproductive rights, etc.”

Good old “etc” yeah? That can mean anything you like. Very professional, very literary.

The alliance, formed in 2015, is Scotland’s largest literary network with a membership “committed to advancing the interests of literature and languages at home and abroad”, according to its website. It says it is a “trusted, strong, collective voice” that brings together writers, publishers, educators, librarians, literature organisations and national cultural bodies.

But not women who know that men are not women.

The guidance was written for LAS by Eris Young, a “queer, transgender writer of speculative fiction and non-fiction”. It was removed from the LAS website on Friday after details emerged online.

Wait what? They’re a literary alliance but they can’t manage to write their own “guidance”? They have to outsource it to an idiot? They then fail to notice how vituperative and misogynist it is?

Young asked: “How do organisations promote safety for trans people in their spaces?” In a section titled “for bookshops”, it said: “Don’t sell Terf books/platform Terf authors. Don’t expect trans booksellers to sell them. Trans people who see Terf books or ‘gender criticism’ in a bookshop will understand that the bookshop doesn’t want them there.”

That’s embarrassing. It’s also stupid and dishonest and malevolent, but for this Scotland Literary Alliance thingy it’s acutely embarrassing. It’s childish stupid sloganeering, not writing, and certainly a million miles from “Literary.”

The guidance adds: “Terfs are actively joining forces with fascists. For example, see BRAVE books, which seeks to ‘Bring Real American Values that Endure into the hearts and minds of children and their families’.”

Pssst. This is Scotland.

Other sections gave guidance for literary festival organisers and suggested that organisers “allocate resources and opportunities to trans writers in proportion to the attacks they are facing”.

Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, co-authors of The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht, a book about grassroots women’s rights movements, said: “We are shocked and saddened at the tone and substance of the guidance issued by the LAS. It is akin to a heresy hunt and the assertion that women are joining forces with fascists is defamatory. The alliance should withdraw the guidance immediately and apologise unreservedly.”

It should do more than that. An apology is the bare minimum.

Magi Gibson on Literary Alliance of Scotland and the blacklisting of feminist women:

Let’s start with this piece, which seems not so much guidance or advice, but an uncompromising imperative. (Screenshot from the guidance document)

This is extremely worrying. How can an organisation purportedly committed to inclusion and diversity endorse a call which not only uses a derogatory term about women, and is essentially a call to blacklist certain books from bookshops, and to no-platform certain authors?

By imitating all the other organizations and institutions that do so.

The truth is that this guidance sanctions the blacklisting of books of any woman who has written or expressed a view on the reality of biological sex.

This is not a healthy state of affairs, and certainly not one that Literature Alliance Scotland, an organisation funded to ‘encourage awareness of contemporary literature… in all sectors of society’ should have any involvement with.

Literature Alliance Scotland is now claiming it was all a mistake, but that is frankly not very credible.

We just want to square the circle, that’s all.

I want to see it easier and more humane for how trans people can access a gender recognition certificate, but I also want to make sure we’re protecting single sex spaces based on biological sex

Well you CAN’T, because those two items cancel each other. The whole nonsensical idea of a “gender recognition certificate” renders women’s rights an absurdity. If men can get “certificates” that say they are women then women can’t have women-specific rights. You can’t do both.

Oh really?

A rape crisis centre that gleefully taunts women:

From Woman’s Place UK a couple of years ago:

For the International Women’s Day episode of BBC Woman’s Hour, Emma Barnett interviewed Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, and asked her for a clear definition of ‘what a woman is’.

And didn’t get one. Of course.

Anneliese 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 see how you define either of those things. I mean, obviously, that’s then you’ve got the biological definition, legal definition…

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

Anneliese Dodds: Oh, I think with respect, Emma, I think it does depend what the context is surely. I mean surely that is important here. You know, there are people who have decided 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, you know, they want to be defined as a woman. That’s what the gender recognition act…again a Labour…is brought into place.

And on it goes, waffle waffle waffle.

The BBC solemnly informs us that a teenager is going to “become a saint.”

Carlo Acutis died in 2006, at the age of 15, meaning he would be the first millennial – a person born in the early 1980s to late 1990s – to be canonised. It follows Pope Francis attributing a second miracle to him. It involved the healing of [a] university student in Florence who had bleeding on the brain after suffering head trauma.

So why did Carlo Acutis die? If he can heal a university student in Florence why can’t he cure himself?

Carlo Acutis had been beatified – the first step towards sainthood – in 2020, after he was attributed with his first miracle – healing a Brazilian child of a congenital disease affecting his pancreas.

Two! He’s a two-miracles guy! So why couldn’t he heal himself, if only so that he could heal more people? Seems only sensible.

The second miracle was approved by the Pope following a meeting with the Vatican’s saint-making department.

Ah yes the saint-making department, right next door to the water into wine department and across from the covering up priestly child abuse department.

Miracles are typically investigated and assessed over a period of several months, with a person being eligible for sainthood after they have two to their name.

Oh good. Good good. That’s very reassuring. No rushing into things here, it’s all very deliberate and careful. I’m impressed.

H/t Acolyte of Sagan

Yeah. Same.

The ACLU three weeks ago:

Anti-abortion politicians brought this case all the way up to the Supreme Court to deny pregnant people access to emergency abortion care that is necessary to prevent severe and potentially life-altering health consequences, and even death.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, which will determine whether politicians can put doctors in jail for treating pregnant patients experiencing medical emergencies. The ultimate decision in the case — which is expected by the summer — could have severe consequences on the health and lives of people across the country facing emergency pregnancy complications.

Etc etc etc. The ACLU doesn’t say “women” or “woman” even once in the entire piece.

It’s like writing a piece about lynching without ever mentioning race.

The fact that women are the half of humanity that creates and pushes out all of humanity is why they are treated as inferior and subordinate. It’s not some irrelevant detail, it’s central.

The ACLU would not in a million years do a piece on racism while carefully never mentioning the people who are the targets of racism. Why is it so comfortable omitting women from discussions of abortion?

Perfect. The Supreme Court says yay racial gerrymandering; let the fun begin.

The Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision along party lines on Thursday, which represented its fullest endorsement of partisan gerrymandering to date. 

In the past, legal restrictions on racial gerrymandering — maps drawn to minimize the voting power of a particular racial group, rather than the power of a political party — had the side effect of also limiting attempts to draw maps that benefitted one party or another. While the Court largely tolerated gerrymanders that were designed to lock one party into power, those maps sometimes failed because they also targeted racial minorities.

Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, however, is written explicitly to permit political parties to draw rigged maps, even when those maps maximize the power of white voters and minimize the power of voters of color. Indeed, Alito says that one of the purposes of his opinion is to prevent litigants from “repackag[ing] a partisan-gerrymandering claim as a racial-gerrymandering claim by exploiting the tight link between race and political preference.”

Exploiting it, he says. Exploiting the ugly fact that one of the two major political parties is friendly to racial gerrymandering.

Alexander achieves another one of Alito’s longtime goals. Alito frequently disdains any allegation that a white lawmaker might have been motivated by racism, and he’s long sought to write a presumption of white racial innocence into the law. His dismissive attitude toward any allegation that racism might exist in American government is on full display in his opinion. “When a federal court finds that race drove a legislature’s districting decisions, it is declaring that the legislature engaged in ‘offensive and demeaning conduct,’” Alito writes, before proclaiming that “we should not be quick to hurl such accusations at the political branches.”

Except the ones that try to avoid racist gerrymandering of course.

Keir Starmer is still pretending Rosie Duffield doesn’t exist.

Rosie Duffield was snubbed from Sir Keir Starmer’s election launch event in Kent on Thursday – even though she is the only elected Labour MP in the county. The MP for Canterbury – who has angered many in her party for her stance on women’s rights – only found out about the event on social media. No Labour leader had visited Kent for years after Ms Duffield was elected in a shock 2017 victory.

He’s so determined to exclude her that he ignores the opportunity to big up his own launch event for the sake of blacklisting her.

The Labour leader was joined by Angela Rayner, his deputy, Naushabah Khan, the party’s local candidate, and several councillors from the area. It is believed Ms Duffield only found out about the event on X, formerly Twitter, after people messaged her to ask why she was not there.

She must have done something really terrible, yeah?

The Canterbury MP has angered many in her party for supporting the right of women to same-sex spaces such as toilets, changing rooms and rape crisis centres. She was also vilified by some for saying that only women have a cervix and that transwomen are not women. Ms Duffield was subject to an internal investigation after she was accused of anti-Semitism and transphobia, after which she was exonerated. However, Sir Keir never apologised to her about the ordeal. For years he refused to meet her, but then did so for the first time in Westminster earlier this month.

And now he’s conspicuously snubbing her yet again. Misogynist much?

Oh come ON.

Meaning what, their foot slipped and they typed “gender critical” instead of “transphobic”?

Come on. It wasn’t a fumble or a blunder or a pratfall or a “genuine mistake.” It was an iteration of the trans dogma that the two are the same thing, and equally evil and deserving of punishment and exile. It was yet another instance of the hatred of women that saturates this boneheaded ideology.

Get out of here with that smarmy “genuine mistake” crap. Nobody is fooled.

Unbelievable.

Bad enough yet?

He’s still hasn’t been fired.

It’s all just a game to some of them.

As Democrats lauded the White House’s 200th judicial confirmation, though, a partisan firestorm raged in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans ground proceedings to a halt during a confirmation hearing for the latest slate of court nominees.

Among the appointees who faced questioning Wednesday morning was Sarah Netburn, tapped by the Biden administration to join the bench on the Southern District of New York.

GOP lawmakers on the committee dialed in on a 2022 case she presided over as a magistrate judge in the same district, in which she granted the request of an incarcerated transgender woman who asked to move to a women’s prison from a men’s prison. The petitioner was a registered sex offender serving a sentence for distributing child pornography.

And a man. Men should not be in women’s prisons, because it’s not safe for the women.

Republicans, pointing out that the petitioner had previously served an 18-year sentence for sexually assaulting both an underage boy and girl, framed Netburn’s decision to allow the prison transfer as a political act which put other incarcerated women at risk.

Louisiana Senator John Kennedy labeled the nominee a “political activist,” a charge which she denied.

Netburn argued that she allowed the petitioner to be transferred because she had “serious medical needs,” adding that the petitioner “had engaged in no physical violence and no acts of sexual violence whatsoever” in the years since she had completed her initial sentence.

Of course all the women in that prison had serious safety needs, but apparently that doesn’t matter.

Oops. Turns out it wasn’t the neighbors after all.

If you’re going to write a book about the Church and its hatred of women, don’t accept a glammed-up tits-out cover. Like this one:

This is how you do it:

Cover by Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin

More Wings Over Scotland on Adam Ramsay:

Since 2019 Ramsay has been the editor of Open Democracy, an activist “news” site funded – to the tune of millions of pounds a year – chiefly by large grants from American and other corporate and industrial charities like the Ford Foundation, created by the notorious racist and anti-Semitic car magnate Henry Ford.

…

These grants are provided, naturally, mostly in the name of “social justice”, “diversity” and “inclusion”. Many of the donors, like the Wellspring Philanthropic Fund which provided OD with $800,000 in grants in recent years, are deeply opaque, with their website declining to identify even which country the fund is based in and having been described by some investigative websites as “a near-bottomless pit of “dark money” […] fed by a handful of mysterious hedge fund billionaires”.

So more like Dark or Cryptic Democracy.

With crushingly predictable irony, OpenDemocracy is absolutely obsessed with other people’s funding by “dark money”

When they do it v when we do it.

OD is utterly captured by the trans movement, and nobody more so than Ramsay himself, who regularly and vitriolically lambasts the likes of For Women Scotland and gay-rights charity the LGB Alliance as “hate groups”. He continues to do so despite the latter having survived numerous attempts by transactivists to strip it of its charitable status and [its] having been confirmed as a wholly legitimate and respectable organisation by the Charity Commission after a thorough investigation in 2021.

He frequently dismisses the valid concerns of gender-critical feminists and others about women’s rights, LGB rights, child safeguarding and freedom of speech (that validity having been established by a growing string of tribunals and court cases) as an “anti-trans moral panic”.

Campbell includes copious illustration of all these claims; I recommend reading the whole thing.

Rev Stuart Campbell at Wings Over Scotland responds to Adam Ramsay’s threats toward people who dispute him:

Adam Ramsay is Definitely a Liar

Ladies and gentlemen (and non-binary genderfluids), meet Adam Ramsay.

Adam Ramsay grew up in what his family describes as a “small castle” nestled in a 1300-acre estate in Perthshire that’s been in the family since 1232.

Check out the photo of the not all that small castle.

He was educated at the extremely exclusive private Glenalmond College, which he describes as the “poshest” school in Scotland, prone to outbreaks of “chav hunting”, and whose alumni include a lot of people called things like “Torquhil”, “Crispin”, “Rupert”, “Nairne”, “Dennison”, “Ernley”, “Beauchamp”, “Ninian”, “Logie”, “Adair” and “Turtle”, none of which we have made up, as well as figures known to Wings readers like Scottish Secretary Alister Jack and Times columnist Alex Massie and his father Allan.

Check out the photo of the enormous prodigy house-style Glenalmond College.

So that’s who is bullying and threatening feminist women on behalf of Open Democracy. Tribune of the people raised in one castle and educated in another. Intersectionalism has never been so intersecty before.

What a horrible man.

“These facts” he says. What facts?

Wadhwa has dedicated the last 14 years of her professional life to supporting women who are victims of sexual violence. But for the last three years, she’s faced torrential abuse including unfounded smears that she’s a sexual predator and numerous threats of violence – all because she is trans.

But Wadwha of course is a man, so referring to him with “her” and “she” has nothing to do with facts.

The Times has run seven stories about Wadhwa since May last year, often based on complaints from small groups opposed to trans rights…

No, not opposed to the rights of trans people. Opposed to the displacement of women by men who call themselves women. Men don’t have any right to do that; doing that is not a right.

Horrible man.