Oh, brilliant, Trump is in London lecturing other people on being “nasty” and “disrespectful.” Trump is.

Macron had tried to galvanise the agenda for the summit in London by calling the 70-year western alliance “brain dead”, but Trump said: “Nato serves a great purpose. I think that’s very insulting.”

He added: “Nobody needs Nato more than France. It’s a very dangerous statement for them to make.”

Macron made his criticism of Nato in an Economist interview partly to reflect his frustration that Turkey, a Nato member, had entered northern Syria in October without coordination with any Nato partner apart from Trump. Macron believes the invasion has undermined the fight against Islamic State.

But Trump appeared to side with the Turkish leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, saying Turkey “couldn’t be nicer, more supportive, very helpful.”

Sigh. Macron is “insulting” and “dangerous” while Erdoğan is “nicer” and “supportive” and “helpful.”

We’d be better off if we’d sent Ivanka’s youngest child to do the job.

He also reeled off a string of insults against France, saying: “I think they have a very high unemployment rate in France. France is not doing well economically at all.

“It is a very tough statement to make when you have such difficulty in France, when you look at what is going on with the yellow vests [anti-government protesters].

“They have had a very rough year. You just can’t go around making statements like that about Nato. It is very disrespectful. I’m looking at him [Macron] and I’m saying that he needs protection more than anybody, and I see him breaking off [from Nato]. So I’m a little surprised at that.”

Does Ivanka have any pets? Maybe we could send them next time?

Oooh yes, so it might, thank you for spotting that. Feeling more comfortable in trousers is definitely likely to mean not that you want to be warm enough, or don’t want bare skin chafing, or want to feel free to run or do headstands or sit on a bus without worrying about showing your bum, it’s likely to mean you want to “identify as male” despite being female and having the body to prove it, either now or in the future or indeed in the past. Never mind those silly body things, nobody cares about those, they’re chaff, husks, dirt, the true reality is clothes.

Anti-vaxxing makes it hard to remember how to word.

James Kirkup at the Spectator addresses the “how did this become mandatory dogma so fast?” question.

Well, thanks to the legal website Roll On Friday, I have now seen a document that helps answer that question.

The document is the work of Dentons, which says it is the world’s biggest law firm; the Thomson Reuters Foundation, an arm of the old media giant that appears dedicated to identity politics of various sorts; and the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Youth & Student Organisation (IGLYO). Both Dentons and the Thomson Reuters Foundation note that the document does not necessarily reflect their views.

The report is called ‘Only adults? Good practices in legal gender recognition for youth’. Its purpose is to help trans groups in several countries bring about changes in the law to allow children to legally change their gender, without adult approval and without needing the approval of any authorities. ‘We hope this report will be a powerful tool for activists and NGOs working to advance the rights of trans youth across Europe and beyond,’ says the foreword.

Step one is be sure to ignore the parents. What business is it of theirs?! Who knows better, adults or adolescents? Well then!

Then there’s advice to get out ahead of government.

‘In Ireland, Denmark and Norway, changes to the law on legal gender recognition were put through at the same time as other more popular reforms such as marriage equality legislation. This provided a veil of protection, particularly in Ireland, where marriage equality was strongly supported, but gender identity remained a more difficult issue to win public support for.’

So, in other words, sneak it past them. Tie it to other causes and then TALK VERY LOUD AND FAST and hope no one will notice. That’s what’s been going on for the past ten or so years.

Originally a comment by iknklast on The medical paradigm establishment narrative.

I am so sick of the anti-scientific, anti-expert obsession, especially in women’s health issues. Challenging the patriarchy does not mean rejecting every single thing any man has ever done or said. It does not mean branding science as a “male” field, or branding medicine as something “men” do to oppress “women”. It means getting rid of the things men do to oppress women, while maintaining the things that are in our best interests. It does not mean abandoning all rationality and reason, though I have seen that argued (in my playwriting program, I protested parts of one book my mentor had me read because they implied women don’t do rationality and scientific thinking, we need a mother paradigm and emotional woo-based things).

Women do science. Women do medicine. And women are expanding these fields in new directions, taking women’s needs and women’s “lived experience” into account, to incorporate the unique bodies and experiences of women into the scientific paradigm of the medical establishment. So we don’t kill women with stupidity, or with treating them like deviant versions of men, but as fully functional human beings in their own right.

It is people like Paltrow and Block that contribute to the patriarchy, because they willingly accept the long-standing paradigm that women just feel things, and can’t think them through rationally. They buy into the language of the male-dominated establishment that told women we couldn’t be what we wanted to be because our brains were fuzzy lady brains, and not fit to do math or science. Women like Jen Gunter are proving them wrong, and too many women are trying to push her back into the box.

Shame on you, Jennifer Block, for aiding and abetting the patriarchy by showing them yet more examples of women who react in an emotional, fuzzy way, rejecting science in favor of woo.

So we might as well read that open letter to Jen Gunter by Jennifer Lang.

There is nothing the patriarchy likes to see more than a good cat-fight. I read your open letter to Ms Paltrow when it was published in 2017, and at the time found it very unfortunate. I, too, struggled with whether it was worth my time or mental energy making a public response as urgent social, environmental and political events piled up around us. I decided to classify your letter as yet one more public beat-down of a female voice offering an alternative narrative to the monopoly-on-truth claimed by the western medical model. I ignored it. However, the publication of your new book and in particular the Guardian Interview article I read this morning have goaded me into a response.

First, I’ll say that I have no interest in participating in a take-down of any woman, least of all a single mom with medically-challenged kids who (I truly believe) is trying to help. This f***ed up patriarchal world does enough of that every single day. I celebrate strong female voices, professional success, and especially doctors who have found ways to bring in alternative revenue streams as insurance company reimbursements decline by double-digits annually. That being said, the condescending tone and overall arrogance of the stance you take on these issues is, in my opinion, the precise reason why so many women are moving away from allopathic medicine and seeking alternative or complementary care and sources of information.

I find in your words a callous blanket dismissal of the lived and felt experience of women, justified by the claim that you are an “expert.” What I do not encounter in anything you have written or been quoted as saying in an interview, is a genuine humility regarding our understanding of the complexities of the human body, nor an acknowledgment that the dominant medical advice of the moment has often been subsequently proven erroneous. I do not hear or see any responsibility-taking for the well-documented and very serious harms that have resulted from women unquestioningly following the advice of experts like ourselves prescribing pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions.

In other words Gunter doesn’t frame her criticism of the exploitative, expensive bullshit of Goop within apologies for the mistakes doctors have made in the past. But why should she? Why can’t she focus on Paltrow’s profitable scam which wouldn’t be so profitable if it weren’t marketed as “alternative” and “spiritual” and womany? Personally, I find Lang’s invocation of “lived and felt experience of women” far more annoying than anything Gunter says. Why can’t Lang do her thing and let Gunter do hers?

A couple of comments on Jennifer Block’s Facebook post reporting and denouncing the removal of her hit-piece on Jen Gunter:

Maya Shetreat You hit a nerve because you’re taking aim at the misogyny of medicine and of patriarchy in general. How dare you imply women are capable of making educated decisions on their own?! You are describing a paradigm that is deeply threatening to the establishment.

It doesn’t feel good when the haters swarm, but know it’s because what you’re saying is deeply important and resonates with many people. Otherwise they’d ignore you…

Jennifer Lang Maya Shetreat It’s nice to see you here. I KNOW you understand what happens when the dominant narrative gets challenged in a poignant and insightful way. Grateful to have your voice and wisdom here.

Jennifer Lang was cited by Block in the hit piece because she’d written an open letter to Gunter on Facebook hitting the same themes.

All these catch-phrases – patriarchy, women are capable, describing a paradigm, the establishment, the dominant narrative – they can reflect a truth but they can also be used as tokens, symbols, substitutes for thought. It can be true that some doctors are too dismissive of women’s concerns and that Jen Gunter is pretty much the worst example of that that Block could have come up with.

Maya Shetreat Also, can you imagine in a million years someone saying that men should only listen to the medical experts, because they will otherwise be misled by potentially non-scientific options? 😒

Uh…yes? That is, if she means “can you imagine in a million years someone saying that men should pay attention to medical professionals on medical issues rather than Gwyneth Paltrow or Doctor Oz,” then yes, I can easily imagine that, in under a second.

News from Pakistan:

A ten-year-old girl in rural Pakistan was stoned to death by family members after a tribal council decided she had been planning to elope, according to local reports.

Gul Sama, a resident of the village of Shahi Makan, in Pakistan’s southern Sindh province, was killed on November 22. Local activists and residents were threatened with death by the tribal council, or jirga, if they spoke about it. However, social media posts showing the girl’s grave went viral with activists calling for justice. The police stepped have arrested the dead girl’s parents and Mushtaq Laghari, a cleric who conducted the funeral in secret.

“Her face and head were unrecognisable and she was brutally killed,” a resident of the village said.

Ten.years.old.

Trump is on his way to London to embarrass us and disgust everyone else some more. He told some more lies before getting on the plane.

Speaking to reporters before he left for London, Trump falsely claimed the Ukrainian president had cleared him of wrongdoing in a recent interview with Time magazine.

“The Ukrainian president came out and said very strongly that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong. That should be case over,” Trump told reporters. “But it will never end it because [Democrats] want to do what they want to do.”

In reality, Volodymyr Zelenskiy criticized Trump for holding up Ukraine’s military assistance and said that the US president had harmed his country’s economic propsects by calling it corrupt.

“Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing,” Zelenskiy told Time magazine. “But you have to understand. We’re at war. If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying.”

That doesn’t sound much like ” The Ukrainian president came out and said very strongly that President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong,” does it.

No.

How does the word “anti-vaxxer” marginalize women specifically? There are plenty of male anti-vaxxers, and there’s nothing sex-specific about being an anti-vaxxer, so I’ll thank her not to rope us into her bullshit.

But Steelclaws said it better.

Updating to add:

Hmm.

Is it simplistic or just simple?

Sure, “there isn’t one” is simple, and easy to say, and kind of bare bones – indeed boring, but that’s not really much of a reason to abandon atheism for christianity is it? Baroque complication may be more fun but that doesn’t make it true.

I don’t know. There’s too much empty space. Everything is way too far apart. None of it is cozy or manageable enough to make the human idea of a “God” at all believable. It even smells weird in space – a burnt metal sort of smell. That’s simplistic, if you like.

Again with this crap.

No, they can’t, because trans women are male people, so they can’t be sisters so we can’t find “sisterhood” with them. Men are not our sisters. That’s not some terrible thing, it’s just reality. White people shouldn’t run around flapping their hands and trying to force people of color to accept us as fellow people of color because we’re not. Same with women.

What ever happened to “respect boundaries”? Wasn’t that a thing for awhile?

You what now?

So the problem is that boardmembers of a women’s center want the women’s center to be for women?

That is, board members of a woman’s center don’t want to be “inclusive” of men, because it’s a women’s center. Morgane Oger finds this scandalous. If he were a woman maybe he would understand why women want to be able to organize and meet as women without having to be “inclusive” of men all the time, even men who tell us they are women trapped in male bodies.

Updating to add more information via a comment by Naif:

As a founding member of the Nelson Women’s Centre with a long history of involvement as both a volunteer and board member, I feel compelled to present the other side of this story.

When the leadership of the centre decided to change its mandate to include all genders, they contravened the West Kootenay Women’s Association’s constitution that for 46 years has guided an organization for women, serving the needs of women in the community.

At the 2018 annual general meeting, a resolution to include all genders in the membership of the society was discussed. The resolution did not receive sufficient votes to pass. Yet the leadership of the centre ignored this result and proceeded as if the resolution had passed.

The decision by the leadership to change this 46-year-old mandate without proper procedures and without respecting the membership resulted in disagreement and confusion. Questioning or challenging the new direction became defined as “bullying.” But the “bullying” referred to was not one-sided, as the article implies.

Women who’ve been long-term volunteers, former board members and supporters of the women’s centre have been “bullied” by being banned from the centre and some threatened with legal action if they come to the centre. So who is bullying whom?

Where does Goop come in?

Here, for one:

A mouthpiece for conventional obstetrics and gynecology, eh? As opposed to being a mouthpiece for Goop?

Jennifer Block is rallying her troops on Facebook.

Hey all, yes, my piece got pulled. You can still read it in the archive (see link in comment) and read The Daily Beast’s take on what happened (also in comment). It’s been a wild Thanksgiving! I need to say more and figure out in what forum. Meanwhile, Dr. Gunter has blocked me on Twitter (@writingblock if you want to follow me, though be prepared!) I managed to stay present, connecting with people in the real world for much of the holiday, and just this evening posted some responses to the criticism (some reasonable) and unfounded accusations. I guess I hit a nerve. Anyway, thanks for being here.

Uh huh the old “I hit a nerve” defense. Well, yes, it is true that telling a lot of hostile lies about a person is likely to hit a nerve, but that by itself does not make the lies true or valuable.

And now we can combine our two themes of the morning.

Some further responses from Jen Gunter:

Jennifer Block is angry that Scientific American removed her bad hit-piece on Jen Gunter.

Of course it’s not “anti-science to acknowledge people’s lived experience,” whatever that may mean, but it is anti-science to substitute “lived experience” for properly conducted research,

Wellllll no. Gunter’s “public rhetoric” is about substantive issues around quack remedies and “wellness” and Block’s piece made claims about those substantive issues.

Yes this is definitely an important hill to die on – the freedom to call women you don’t like “evil little cunt.” Our ability to reason and argue and discuss will wither and die without that freedom! Freedom freedom FREEDOM.

Good. It never should have been posted in the first place, but good that it’s been removed.

Jen Gunter a few hours ago:

The post about me has been removed from @sciam for not meeting editorial standards. Thank you everyone for your support. Half truths, obfuscations, and lies help no person have agency over their body.

Note where the article used to be:

Editor’s note. The post that originally appeared here has been removed because we’ve determined that it doesn’t meet our editorial standards.

Jen Gunter a couple of hours later:

Removing this piece was important not just for me, but for health care. Naturopaths, anti-vaccine doctors, and people who claim they can “balance hormones” with food etc were celebrating my “take down” in @sciam seeing it as proof that they are right.

The acting editor in chief apologized to me by phone this morning and I have accepted his apology.
And so let’s move on to leftovers, puppy and kitten videos, shoes, coffee, wine and, of course, science.