Glamour magazine had a long talk with that most glamour lady of all, Munroe Bergdorf. Glamour asks a profound question:

How have you learnt to become at one with yourself in that sense what have been some turning points in your kind of discovery of your sense of self?

In other words tell us more about your Self, which Bergdorf is only too happy to do.

As a trans person you’re forced to find who you are in a world that really doesn’t have any space for you. You’re forced to exist within the world that constantly wants to tear you down and invalidate your feelings, invalidate your identity, invalidate your contributions, invalidate your possibility of having what we would call a normal life or an authentic life.

Well, no. That turns things inside out. Nobody “forces” trans people to do anything; trans people decide that they are different from everyone else and then complain that nothing fits. It’s a bit like saying you identify as having ten feet and then that it’s unfair for shoe stores to expect you to pay for five pairs of shoes instead of one pair.

It’s not really reasonable to claim to live in a way that’s the opposite of the way the vast majority lives and then accuse that vast majority of blocking your ability to have a normal or authentic life.

Does Bergdorf even want a normal life? A male Bergdorf would not be getting all this attention.

As a person of colour, as black person, as a trans person, as a queer person and as a woman, I’ve been navigating a hostile environment my whole life. I do feel like now that we’re all confronted with our phones, much more than we were we’re not distracted. I think that we’re all starting to see exactly what’s wrong with society.

Bergdorf is doing a lot of double-counting there. A person of color and a black person? That’s two points instead of one? And a trans person and a woman? He gets to count both? A man who says he’s a woman gets two disprivilege points where a man who doesn’t say he’s a woman gets none and a woman gets one? When literally speaking a man who says he’s a woman is in fact a man? Is this all just a big con game to accrue points?

Then he explains how feminism is all wrong because it doesn’t center him.

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of really unhelpful feminism out there, such as the feminism that J.K.Rowling follows which is called gender critical feminism which believes that trans women are men and that the only women are women that have a uterus. That is awful because a lot of women can’t have children and does that mean that they’re less women because they’re no longer of use? It also doesn’t centre the needs of black women, of sex workers, of the people that really need feminism the most which is the most oppressed cross sections of society. So, I believe that feminism needs to lift up people that are on the front lines when it comes to sexual violence which are people that engage in sex work whether or not that’s for survival or choice, not just sex slavery of sex trafficking. But also, trans women, disabled women, people that are often overlooked within society or have the least rights need the most access to feminism.

Except that trans women are in fact men, and feminism is for and about women, not men, not even men who claim to “feel like” women, men who say they are women, men who “identify as” women, men who claim to think or even know they are women.

I think journalists should stop asking men for their criticisms of feminism. Men do enough of that without prompting.

The Post’s editorial board on Trump’s criminal pardoning of a criminal who crimed on behalf of Trump, who pardoned him:

Though Attorney General William P. Barr moved to reduce Mr. Stone’s sentencing recommendation after conviction, even he called the case against Mr. Stone a “righteous” prosecution. [Stone] was sentenced to 40 months in prison and was due to surrender on Tuesday — thus prompting Mr. Trump’s Friday night action.

As Mr. Trump discussed granting clemency to his criminal friend, Mr. Barr publicly defended the sentence, perhaps to prevent a mutiny among Justice Department staff who signed up because they believe in the rule of law, not the arbitrary rule of an unusually petty man in the White House.

The arbitrary rule of an unusually petty and criminal man in the White House who is not too squeamish to grant pardons to his own criminal accomplices, in full public view.

The president seems to be doing his best, within the confines of the U.S. constitutional system, to emulate the gangster leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin, a man whose ruinous reign Mr. Trump has always admired. If the country needed any more evidence, Friday confirmed that the greatest threat to the Republic is the president himself.

We didn’t need any more evidence though. That’s been all too obvious all along.

Updating to add: commutation, not pardon.

These sleazy fucks.

Attorney General William Barr persistently pressured Manhattan’s former top federal prosecutor to resign during a June 18 meeting at a New York hotel and in a subsequent phone call, the ousted prosecutor, Geoffrey Berman told lawmakers Thursday, detailing for the first time the series of events that led to his removal the next day.

Berman, in a written statement to the House Judiciary Committee, said Barr repeatedly attempted to coax Berman into resigning his post by suggesting he consider other positions in government, including the chairmanship of the Securities and Exchange Commission or the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

That’s interesting, because it means not only is Barr corrupt and sleazy, but also he has no substantive reason to want Berman out. He presumably wouldn’t offer him jobs of that kind if he did. “Dude we desperately need you to resign, wouldn’t you love to be the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division instead?” “But why do you desperately need me to resign?” “is it hot in here?”

“I said that there was no job offer that would entice me to resign from my position,” Berman told lawmakers in his opening statement, obtained by POLITICO.

Berman’s testimony raised a suggestion from Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that Barr’s offer of a different position in exchange for stepping down could amount to criminal activity.

“What we don’t know yet is if the attorney general’s conduct is criminal. But that kind of quid pro quo is awfully close to bribery,” Nadler said after exiting the interview with Berman.

Also raises questions about his reasons for pushing Berman to resign.

The ousted prosecutor told lawmakers that Barr, later on June 18, issued a statement announcing Berman’s resignation anyway, which triggered Berman to publicly respond that he had done no such thing. The extraordinary exchange culminated the following day, when Barr agreed to name Berman’s deputy as his successor and President Donald Trump ordered Berman’s firing.

In other words it’s all filthy, filthy right up to the roofline.

The events have raised alarms on Capitol Hill that Trump was seeking to assert control over the office of a prosecutor handling cases connected to Trump himself and his close associates.

Gee, ya think?

“The Attorney General pressed me to take the Civil Division position, saying that the role would be a good resume builder. He said that I should want to create a book of business once I returned to the private sector, which that role would help achieve,” Berman said. “He also stated that I would just have to sit there for five months and see who won the election before deciding what came next for me.”

Ugh, god. What a festering pool of sick that man is.

Trump is so excited about “acing” that cognitive test.

In a live phone interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump bragged about his test score on a cognitive exam at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center after Hannity invoked presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, asking the president whether he believed Biden had the “mental alertness” to be president.

Trump said he didn’t think the Democrat could pass the cognitive exam like [as] he did.

“I actually took one very recently when, you know, the radical left was saying, ‘Is he all there? Is he all there?’ I proved I was all there, because I aced it,” Trump told Hannity. “I aced the test. … He should take the same exact test, a very standard test. I took it at Walter Reed Medical Center in front of doctors and they were very surprised. They said, ‘That’s an unbelievable thing. Rarely does anyone do what you just did.’”

Does that sound like something a clutch of doctors would say? To anyone, let alone to Prez Mushbrain.

It’s not clear what cognitive test Trump was talking about.

The most recent publicly disclosed cognitive test Trump took at Walter Reed was in January 2018, when the White House’s top physician said he got a perfect score. The exam Trump took then was the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which is designed to detect mild cognitive issues, largely in older people. The 10-minute exam asks patients to identify animals in pictures, draw a clock, and perform basic word-recall exercises.

Doctors were reeling around the room in amazement that Trump recognizes a dog in a picture and can sketch a clock.

His comments about the cognitive test are part of a pattern of attacks on Biden’s mental acuity while aggressively defending his own. As The Washington Post reported last month, Trump’s preoccupation with projecting an image of intelligence and physical strength has intensified in recent months after critics mocked him for episodes such as shuffling cautiously down a ramp and slowly drinking a cup of water with both hands.

Along with his staggering, horrifying, gobsmacking stupidity. Don’t forget that part.

Fabulous.

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro is leading a Trump administration effort to demand the Food and Drug Administration reverse course and grant a second emergency authorization for the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

They’re not medical experts. They shouldn’t be demanding any drug be authorized, because they don’t know what they’re talking about. They should stay out of it.

Navarro, armed with a controversial new study that he says shows the drug’s effectiveness, is being cheered on by President Donald Trump, who has long touted the drug as a “game changer” and even used himself as a possible preventive measure. Trump praised the study on Twitter earlier this week, urging the FDA to “Act Now.” The campaign also has been promoted by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, and Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News.

Also Bozo the Clown, and Kanye West, and a guy on the bus, and Michael Cohen’s cell mate, and the pope.

But Navarro, an economist known more for his aggressive approach to trade issues and China policy than for his medical credentials, faces serious challenges as he denounces what he calls “media-induced hydroxy hysteria.”

Yes, the only reason we don’t gulp down random medicines on the advice of Donald Trump and his playmates is hysteria. All sane rational people take a malaria drug to treat a new disease because Donald Trump says to.

Desecularization in Istanbul:

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has ordered the Hagia Sophia museum, one of Istanbul’s most famous landmarks, to be converted into a mosque.

He made the announcement Friday, hours after a top court cleared the way for him to make the change.

The Hagia Sophia, a major draw for tourists, has a long and complicated history. The architectural marvel was built as a church by the Byzantines in the 6^th century and then converted to a mosque after the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453.

In 1934, Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s cabinet decreed that it be turned into a museum. It is widely regarded as a symbol of peaceful religious coexistence.

But we don’t want peaceful religious coexistence, we want holy war!

Friday’s court ruling invalidates the 1934 decree. It grants Turkey’s president the authority to restore the museum to its status as a working mosque. The decision said the site is listed as a mosque in its title deed and that cannot be changed, Turkey’s Anadolu news agency reported.

Sure it can, just invent another message from the god.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this month that converting the Hagia Sophia would limit “its unsurpassed ability — so rare in the modern world — to serve humanity as a much-needed bridge between those of differing faith traditions and cultures.”

This is one time I agree with Mike Pompeo. The Hagia Sophia was a church for nine centuries and a mosque for five, and making it a museum for everyone seems like a good peace treaty.

Elizabeth Prodromou, a professor focused on geopolitics and religion atThe Fletcher School at Tufts University, said the Hagia Sophia decision was a “tragedy, quite candidly, although it’s not surprising.”

The Hagia Sophia, she said, “has been a lightning rod for a synthesis of religio-nationalism and instrumentalized as a symbol by the Erdogan government.”

“It’s just another example of the long pattern now of Turkey’s turn away from its commitments as a member of the NATO Western alliance, and its commitment to the norms that are associated with democracy,” Prodromou added.

That’s why Trump likes him.

A letter in response to the letter.

On Tuesday, 153 of the most prominent journalists, authors, and writers, including J. K. Rowling, Malcolm Gladwell, and David Brooks, published an open call for civility in Harper’s Magazine. 

First sentence; doesn’t bode well. Badly written. “the most” out of what?

Plus the 153 didn’t publish the letter, of course, they signed it. Big difference.

So from the very first sentence we know we’re dealing with sloppy writing and weak grasp of the facts.

The signatories, many of them white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms, argue that they are afraid of being silenced, that so-called cancel culture is out of control, and that they fear for their jobs and free exchange of ideas, even as they speak from one of the most prestigious magazines in the country.

The people in question are not endowed with platforms. The platforms are not an inheritance or a gift. They have them because of popularity or skill or both – usually both, because popularity in writing requires some kind of skill, even if not a particularly admirable one. David Brooks, for instance – he’s a signer, and I have never been able to figure out why he is such a hot ticket when he is so complacently dull, but he is. He must have a skill at appealing to media gatekeepers who like complacent dullness of his type.

In reality, their argument alludes to but does not clearly lay out specific examples, and undermines the very cause they have appointed themselves to uphold.

Say the people writing a letter in response, who have appointed themselves to do so. This snide accusation of self-appointing is just silly. We all appoint ourselves whenever we say anything, deal with it.

In truth, Black, brown, and LGBTQ+ people — particularly Black and trans people — can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially; this seems to be the letter’s greatest concern.

Oh look who’s being left out; what a surprise.

The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. They are afforded the type of cultural capital from social media that institutions like Harper’s have traditionally conferred to mostly white, cisgender people.

Oops, you did it again!

While the Harper’s letter is couched in the events of the last few weeks, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Ok this is one reason some people get platforms and others don’t. You have to know how to use the word “couch” correctly. I know it seems arbitrary, but I don’t make the rules.

Rowling, one of the signers, has spouted transphobic and transmisogynist rhetoric, mocking the idea that trans men could exist, and likening transition-related medical care such as hormone replacement therapy to conversion therapy. She directly interacts with fans on Twitter, publishes letters littered with transphobic rhetoric, and gets away with platforming violent anti-trans speakers to her 14 million followers.

Rowling “gets away with”…with what now? Platforming speakers to her followers? How can you “platform” someone on Twitter? Do they mean quote, cite, link to, talk to? Are they saying she shouldn’t be allowed to do that – shouldn’t “get away with” it? Yes, no doubt they are. She “spouts,” you see, she “litters,” she mustn’t “get away with it.”

Jesse Singal, another signer, is a cis man infamous for advancing his career by writing derogatorily about trans issues. In 2018, Singal had a cover story in The Atlantic expressing skepticism about the benefits of gender-affirming care for trans youth.

But what if he’s right? What if it really is not a great idea for teenagers to make radical changes to their bodies before their brains have fully developed? What if that is not “anti-trans” but pro-safety? What if skepticism about the benefits of drugs and surgeries is not hostile or malevolent but genuine concern and alarm? What if, even, it’s not wrong or anti-trans to argue that drastic changes to the body shouldn’t be necessary for people to have whatever personality and self-presentation they like?

The signatories call for a refusal of “any false choice between justice and freedom.” It seems at best obtuse and inappropriate, and at worst actively racist, to mention the ongoing protests calling for policing reform and abolition and then proceed to argue that it is the signatories who are “paying the price in greater risk aversion.” It’s particularly insulting that they’ve chosen now, a time marked by, as they describe, “powerful protests for racial and social justice,” to detract from the public conversation about who gets to have a platform. 

Now there I agree with them. I flatly disagree with that part of the letter.

Its conclusion however…

The intellectual freedom of cis white intellectuals has never been under threat en masse, especially when compared to how writers from marginalized groups have been treated for generations. In fact, they have never faced serious consequences — only momentary discomfort. 

Uh…Stalin’s USSR? Mussolini’s Italy? Hitler’s Deutschland? Occupied France? Quisling’s Norway? The postwar US? Greece under the colonels? Pinochet’s Chile?

Originally a comment by iknklast on Strict supervision.

It seems that JK Rowlings’ tweets may be the top 10 list all by themselves. But really, when you look at what the trans lobby talks about as harm:

Tweets saying men aren’t women

Tweets saying women don’t have penises

Being called sir by a clerk

Being asked to leave a women’s room

Being told they aren’t really a woman just because they’re wearing a dress

Feminine hygiene products bearing the woman symbol

Women’s health clinics being called women’s health clinics

Not being able to get bustiers in their size (I haven’t actually heard this one, but I have heard some related)

Women writing books that say women are vulnerable to men

Women not liking to be called cis

Lesbians deciding on their own terms who they want to have sex with, and who they don’t

Every now and then, we will hear about something that might be a problem, a serious one, such as high suicide rate and high homicide rate, but this comes with mostly hand-waving and some mumbo-jumbo statistics which don’t seem to support their case, but you’re not allowed to point that out, and some statistics that encompass the entirety of the LGBTQ++++++++++ spectrum, and seem to be mostly LGB statistics that they pretend are totally T statistics. They throw words at you, emotional words, words appropriated from other vulnerable groups, and don’t give you a chance to process the reality that those words do not apply to this group of uber-entitled men who want to be women, but don’t seem to want to be treated like women are treated. When they do receive treatment like women are treated, they assume it is because they’re trans, and never realize that, at least in some cases, they are actually being validated by being treated like a woman. They think women have it great, and they have it badly, and since they do not recognize the treatment they receive as misogyny, they assume they are more oppressed than women, because they assume we don’t experience any of that.

A different style of silencing in a different part of the world –

Sueko Urasaki, 82, who came forward as the “trembling girl” in an image from the Battle of Okinawa, was, according to sources contacted on June 25, visited by a man who made accusatory remarks doubting her story. Urasaki has been avoiding contact with the outside for the past year. There have been other similar incidents involving the individuals who testified to the mass forced suicides in Zamami during the battle. The lasting inheritance of the Battle of Okinawa has become a topic of late, and someone familiar with the effort to suppress the testimonials of survivors raised the alarm bell, saying, “We cannot allow survivors to become hesitant, hindering the lessons to be passed down from the battle.”

That is, Urasaki was photographed by the US military during or after the Battle of Okinawa, and she has been a source of accounts of forced suicides in that battle. I know little or nothing about those forced suicides, and now want to know more. It’s all part of the giant notebook of Appalling Things Humans Do.

An unknown man showed up at her door one day to intimidate her.

Terrified, she began refusing visitors and refrained from going outside. Her relatives reflected, “Reliving the Battle of Okinawa was painful. She felt that the man’s intention was to prevent her from spreading her story.”

There were also incidents of people trying to suppress stories about the Battle of Okinawa in the past as well. Harumi Miyagi, 70, an Okinawan women’s history researcher who compiled her mother’s notes about the compulsory suicides in Zamami, has received hate mail, threatening phone calls and unwanted visitors to her home.

Miyagi’s book was used as evidence when Japanese commanding officers from the battle filed a lawsuit against author Kenzaburo Oe and Iwanami Publishing for his descriptions of the compulsory suicides detailed in his book, Okinawa Notes, supporting their claim that, “They had given no such order.” Miyagi did not intend her writing to be supportive of the officers’ case, and released a new edition of her book that indicated “military orders” and the “compulsory nature” of the suicides.

So she received a lot of intimidation too, as did others.

In September of 2007, when a citizens committee was held to demand that the Japanese government retract their decision to downplay the Japanese military’s role in mass suicides, a survivor of the suicides in Zamami was visited at home by two men clad entirely in black who demanded to know “Were you really there?” The survivor reflected, “I was unable to speak,” but the fear stuck with them. They said of that time, “They meant to scare me to keep me silent. I have not forgiven them, but I refrained from making the incident public so as not to further incite them.”

But the war ended 75 years ago. The people responsible for the mass suicides are all or mostly gone. Why are people defending them with menaces now?

Well. Why are people defending Confederate generals with menaces now?

Adam Schiff sent a letter to Lt. Colonel Vindman.

Jesse Singal on the reaction to that Harper’s letter:

I watched a sizable subset of the online progressive intelligentsia respond with intense fury, disbelief, and indignation to an open letter published online yesterday by Harper’s magazine. The letter, which will also appear in the magazine’s October issue, was simply a stout defense of liberal values from people primarily on the left at a time it feels like these values are under threat. It made no bones of the fact that President Donald Trump and right-wing authoritarianism in Europe are both major threats to liberal society. It simply said that in addition to these threats, it’s probably time to get our own house in order. “The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted,” the letter reads, in part. “While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought.”

Emphasis mine. The letter is not wrong about that.

Because the American left is basically a war zone at the moment—or online it is, at least—what happened next shouldn’t surprise anyone: A group of us posted the letter and celebrated it, while another much angrier group denounced it and held it up as proof of…well, whatever it is they hate about us and want to get us fired over (this crowd likes calling the manager).

Zing.

One such reaction came from Parker Molloy, a staffer at the left-leaning Media Matters, who insisted, of a letter that includes Rushdie and Kasparov, “not a single one of them have been censored anytime in recent history.” In the subsequent tweetstorm, she said of the signatories:

“They want you to sit down.

They want you to shut up.

They want you to do as you’re told.

By them. Specifically.”

“They are totalitarians in the waiting,” she wrote. “They are bad people.”

She seems not entirely honest or fair.

All this in response to a letter saying people shouldn’t be punished too harshly over disagreement or missteps!

Well of course, because the reality is no punishment is too harsh. TERFs get the wall etc etc.

Another example of the hit-dog-hollering principle in action yesterday: “i really wonder if some of the people who signed this thought long and hard about whose names they’d appear next to,” tweeted Matt Gabriele, who teaches medieval studies and chairs the Department of Religion and Culture at Virginia Tech.

Again, the amount of stuff being revealed, right in the open, if you only care to look, is surprising: Gabriele, who holds an important, gatekeeping position at a major American university, wants people to think “long and hard” before putting their names on an unobjectionable expression of liberal values, lest someone come along and wrongly judge through the lens of some ridiculous guilt-by-association standard. The writer Oliver Traldi calls this style of discourse “rhextortion“: It would be a shame if someone unfairly judged you as a result of the names on this letter rather than the content of its text itself.

Well, we live in a world where people feel justified in demanding why you follow persons X and Y on Twitter.

One of the points of the letter is to push back against the fire-anyone-for-anything trajectory of the present moment, especially when it comes to social media posts. Gabriele, who enjoys academic tenure, doesn’t have to worry about this. He can call people on Twitter names like “piece-of-shit bigot” or “asshole” without having to realistically fear repercussions, unlike those stiffs out there who have to worry that if the wrong person takes some random Facebook post the wrong way, they’ll be called into their boss’s office and canned on the spot. So Gabriele and his pals get free rein, while anyone who points out that maybe it’s not a good idea to promote the norm of firing people over social-media blowups gets yelled at for being part of the problem, or for being an evil, bigoted reactionary—because who else could possibly want a more forgiving, liberal approach? This combination of enjoying virtually unfettered online speech while angrily lashing out at those who want to extend this benefit to as many people as possible is a good system! If you’re in the in-group, at least. 

Then, finally, there’s Emily VanDerWerff, a critic at large for Vox who happens to be trans. One of her colleagues, Matt Yglesias, signed the letter, and VanDerWerff didn’t like the letter, so she did the only reasonable, adult thing: She sent him a quick DM asking if they could talk the matter over.

Kidding! She publicly announced that she had reported Yglesias to his editors for signing the letter. She posted a version of the note on Twitter, and in it she claims the letter was “signed by prominent anti-trans voices” and contains “many dog whistles toward anti-trans positions.” “Dog whistles” used to mean something like coded, racist appeals of the sort Richard Nixon employed but has more recently, on Twitter at least, taken a definition closer to referring to an accusation I don’t want to provide evidence for. That Yglesias signed a document with such signatories and dog whistles “makes me feel less safe at Vox,” she wrote.

Meaning what, Ygelisias was going to open fire at an editorial meeting some day? Come off it. Also let’s remember that VanDerWerff isn’t literally a “she” but a man. Men don’t usually say things like “my male colleague’s signing a document makes me feel less safe” because men are discouraged from being that kind of performatively fragile.

The note contains some boilerplate closing language about not wanting to get Yglesias in trouble, suggesting an interesting strategy that makes perfect sense: After all, when I don’t want to get a colleague in trouble, the first thing I do is send their bosses an email about how something they have done has made me feel less safe, and the second thing I do is post that note publicly to Twitter. It’s just a classic example of not wanting to get a colleague in trouble, if I ever saw one.

Trans women, being The Most Oppressed of All, are allowed to have things both ways. It’s only fair, right?

If the chairman of the Joint Chiefs can see it…

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley criticized Confederate symbols before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, and called the Civil War an “act of treason.”

Milley said that minority service members — which he noted make up 43% of the U.S. military — may feel uncomfortable that Army bases are named for Confederate generals who “fought for an institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their ancestors.”

“For those young soldiers that go on to a base of Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, whatever, named after a Confederate general, they can be reminded that that general fought for an institution of slavery.”

“I had a staff sergeant when I was a young officer who actually told me that at Fort Bragg. He said he went to work every day on a base that represented a guy who enslaved his grandparents.”

And there’s no compelling reason to go on doing that, is there. We’re allowed to change the names of things. It’s not as if there’s a shortage of remarkable people bases could be named for.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason at the time against the union, against the stars and stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”

But they got bases named after them, and former slaves got lynched.

Ooh, novelty, the Guardian runs a piece explaining why trans people women deserve all of our attention all the time.

For as long as the human species has existed, so have trans people.

Oh? How would this writer (Eleanor Morgan) know that?

At what point in human evolution did it start? Is it possible that Lucy was trans? Should be have been calling her I mean him Luke all this time?

(In Amharic her name is Dinkenish, which means “you are marvelous.” Better.)

All women’s fears are valid, however they come to be. Our long history of assuming women’s narratives are inherently untrustworthy still lingers. When a woman says she is in distress, it’s like her words come with a pop-up ad saying: not to be taken at face value. Feeling truly heard when we talk about our distress, whatever form it takes, still seems like a rare thing; as though when we say we feel hurt, sad or scared, some kind of “hysterical” or deviant undertow is assumed. This is as true for trans women as it is for cisgender women.

No. This is why we argue.

Or at least, it may be as true (it’s not as if we can measure), but it’s not the same thing. I can easily accept that trans people face heightened suspicion, but what I don’t accept is the claim that it’s the same suspicion as the kind or multitude of kinds that women face, or that we can’t talk about women without bringing trans people into it. I don’t accept the invasion or the appropriation.

I’ve known pain and mental distress, but none of this makes me think trans women are any less “real” than me – nor that the term “woman” is being erased by the existence of trans people who want equal rights.

…

Are there experiences that make a woman real, anyway? Periods? Giving birth? Many women don’t experience the latter, some don’t experience the former. Or perhaps it is about knowing what a life spent reeling from the objectification of men feels like? Dealing with sexual violence and harassment? But, no: trans women face sexual violence, too.

The issue isn’t being “real.” The issue is claiming to be literally an X that in fact you are not. You are not a nail or an osprey or a peach. I know this because none of the entities named can read what I just typed. Claiming to be something isn’t magic. Sometimes it’s actual fraud and can get you in big trouble.

Trans people are saying they are frightened and in pain because people are questioning their rights, and we’re not listening. Where will this end?

What are women saying?

Another man bravely steps forward to tell JK Rowling what she should be doing instead of what she is doing.

Scrolling through J.K. Rowling’s Twitter page is a surreal experience. 

The Harry Potter author is currently celebrating the success of her new children’s book, The Ickabog, engaging her young fans by retweeting and praising their artwork. 

Well, it’s more that she’s taking the time and trouble to make a lot of her young fans extremely happy by retweeting and praising their artwork.

In between these adorable, enthusiastic retweets, Rowling will, randomly, offer her opinion about trans people. Much of it can be described as “politely worded bigotry,” rhetoric that recklessly harms the trans community, seemingly innocuous on the surface. 

Randomly. Yes, she’s just some bit of fluff who has no reason to have opinions about the way women are being redefined. It’s all so random and inexplicable and puzzling.

Despite constant, vocal pushback from trans activists and medical experts, Rowling continues to post her strange screeds, nestled right next to the artwork of young children, who will likely be exposed to her opinions while exploring her Twitter page, searching for fan art.  

Medical experts? What medical experts? I haven’t seen any vocal pushback from medical experts. Is being trans a medical issue now? I thought it was a matter of self-definition? What could medical expertise have to say about self-definition and the absolute right to be “validated” as whatever you identify as which?

Is Rowling’s Twitter page a place where her young, impressionable fans can browse artwork, or is it a place to debate trans rights? Because this bizarre blend of trans-exclusionary talking points and children’s fanart is deeply, almost hilariously, inappropriate.

Is it any of this guy’s business what Rowling’s Twitter is for? Is Rowling not allowed to decide for herself what her Twitter is for? Not if she’s using it to abuse or harass, but she’s not, so in the real world, can’t she decide for herself what to tweet about? Without journalists correcting her?

“Nobody asked for this” was the joke behind the meme, and considering how Rowling now spends an embarrassing amount of her time passionately engaged in a debate that doesn’t even concern her, it’s as though the meme has manifested itself into reality. 

Dude. The debate concerns us.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you’re an obscenely wealthy and influential author, constantly using your massive platform to punch down on the marginalized isn’t just stating an opinion – it’s pure entitlement.

The wealthy part comes from the popularity of her books, not from grinding the faces of the poor. She sold millions of books. She didn’t grow cotton with slave labor or mine coal with child labor or market tobacco while lying about its health effects; she wrote books. The obscenely part is questionable given the fact that she’s given a lot of it to good causes. As for the marginalized…women are marginalized. Men who say they are women are not the worst-off people in the world.

Oops. Michael Cohen was allowed out of prison to serve his time at home because of the virus, and at home meant at home.

He forgot to stay home.

Oops.

Apparently it was the Post that ratted him out.

Michael Cohen could soon be back to chowing down in a prison cafeteria.

The recently sprung jailbird was caught by The Post dining out on Manhattan’s Upper East Side — and the meal may cost him his freedom, legal experts said Friday.

Exclusive photos show President Trump’s former personal lawyer seated at a sidewalk table outside Le Bilboquet, a French restaurant around the corner from his Park Avenue apartment, on Thursday night.

Cohen, his wife, Laura, and another couple spent about an hour chatting before they became the last patrons to leave around 11:30 p.m.

They couldn’t just order takeout?

The Cohens both put on face masks before exchanging hugs with the other couple and walking off.

So much for social distancing.

The friend guy is on his phone. Look, if your buddy is going to risk going back to prison to eat out with you the least you could do is put your phone away!

Anyway. My god what a doofus. All he had to do to avoid more prison time was stay home, but noooooooo.

So that’s how it’s done.

In other words, “the vast majority of responses to this are bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch women”…who are pointing out that women as a class are more vulnerable than men.

Simon Curtis is doing this ever-more-popular trick of stacking up privilege-pejoratives in front of the word “women” so that we’ll know to hate them by the time we get to the noun. Oh oh oh they’re middle-aged and white and British and cis, they are KARENS. Women who are middle-aged and white and British and cis don’t get to say they are part of a subordinated group of any kind ever, because they are Karens. (Applies also to American, French, Swedish, Australian etc women too of course. Bitches.)

There are of course plenty of women who have a lot of privilege of various kinds – but they’re still women. They’re still subject to misogyny, they’re still subject to the kind of dismissive contempt shown by this Simon Curtis fella.

Also, it is in fact simply a literal truth that women as such are more vulnerable than men as such. Politically speaking women are of course not always the most vulnerable group in a given situation or conflict, but literally speaking – yes, sadly, we are.

Trump of course is still raging.

Says Crimey McCriminal.

SO UNFAIR! JUST BECAUSE HE’S THE MOST CORRUPT AND CRIMINAL PRESIDENT IN OUR HISTORY!

Oh and by the way –

Trump is having a bad day.

The supreme court has issued its decision in one case involving subpoenas for Trump’s financial records.

The justices issued a 7-2 decision that the president’s tax returns and business records may be turned over to a grand jury in New York.

The ruling marks a defeat for Trump, who has pushed for years to hide the documents from the public.

The next ruling is a little more helpful to him.

It is another 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, and it calls for sending the case back to the lower court to more closely review concerns over the separation of powers.

“The courts below did not take adequate account of the significant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President’s information,” Roberts wrote in the decision.

The upshot of that is that Congress almost certainly won’t get to see the information before the election – in other words yes we still have to vote on this criminal with vital information about his criminality withheld from us because…he is the president. But that’s the very thing we need to decide on! Do we want a criminal as president?! We need to know now! Sorry, the wheels of justice grind slow.

It’s a win for presidential accountability long-term, but a loss for making Trump accountable this-term.

Like so:

In terms of the substance of the two supreme court decisions, the opinions mark a defeat for Trump because the justices rejected his legal team’s argument that the president should be immune from such proceedings.

However, the president appears to have secured a victory in terms of the logistics of the decisions.

The justices ruled that Manhattan district attorney Cy Vance may receive the president’s tax returns and financial records. However, even if Vance can get the records soon, they will likely not be made public because they will be turned over to a grand jury, legally requiring them to be kept secret.

In terms of the House subpoenas, the supreme court sent the case back down to the lower court to more closely consider separation of powers issues. That will almost certainly delay the release of Trump’s financial records to the committees until after the election.

All very dignified and unhurried and judicialicious, but the result is that vital information about Trump’s criminality is being kept from the voting public until after the election.