Once in awhile Twitter will show me completely random tweets, from people I don’t follow and don’t want to follow, so occasionally I see a wack tweet I didn’t even go looking for. Like:

https://twitter.com/alanalevinson/status/1149329288564314112

Oh yeah, it’s only conservatives who dispute the claim that men can get pregnant. Definitely.

So I followed the link.

The subhead:

Pregnancy is still believed to be something only a woman will experience, but trans men and non-binary people can and do get pregnant too

Language games. Stupid language games. Pregnancy isn’t believed to be a woman-only thing, it simply is a woman-only thing. The gotcha has no got. Yes of course trans men i.e. women who call themselves men can get pregnant too, because they are women. Yes of course “non-binary people” can get pregnant if they are women. “Trans men” and “non-binary people” are just labels, and they don’t change the underlying reality. The fact that people have come up with new labels such as “trans men” and “non-binary people” does not change mammalian biology.

The article is not an improvement on the subhead.

Washington’s army seized the airports, and the kidney is in the heart.

Donald Trump surprised the medical community on Wednesday afternoon, when he claimed “the kidney has a very special place in the heart”.

Speaking as he announced a government plan to tackle kidney disease, Trump went on an extended riff about the efforts of specialists.

“You’ve worked so hard on the kidney. Very special. The kidney has a very special place in the heart. It’s an incredible thing,” Trump gushed.

See this is what happens when you get someone whose brain is disintegrating rapidly and who loves to hear himself talk. He generates words, just words, whatever words he can clutch as they float past, and since most of his words have disappeared as his brain melts, you get these repetitions. Speshul. The kidney is speshul. Speshul is the kidney.

So then you get it accidentally bounced into the heart.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Speaking of McKinnon…

https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1149288615949819904

“says the cis white man”…says the white man. Says the white man who loves nothing better than to talk over, chastise, shout at, and bully women. “Rachel” McKinnon who steals medals from female athletes does not get to use his trans status to pretend to be many categories below white men on the Ladder of Privilege.

This is a must-watch from the WPUK Fair Play event yesterday.

Excellent video from one of the women who competed against Rachel McKinnon.
She’s an athlete and orthopaedic surgeon & examined evidence informing IOC rules. https://t.co/2lacfdsYq2

— Amy Eileen Hamm (@preta_6) July 10, 2019

She’s the one on McKinnon’s left.

One law for the rich, and another for everyone else.

Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with city cops in the eight-plus years since a Manhattan judge ordered him to do so every 90 days — and the NYPD says it’s fine with that.

After being labeled a worst-of-the-worst, Level 3 sex offender in 2011, Epstein should have reported in person to verify his address 34 times before he was arrested Saturday on federal child sex-trafficking charges.

But hey. He’s rich. He’s white. He’s a man. Capeesh?

Violating requirements of the state’s 1996 Sex Offender Registration Act — including checking in with law enforcement — is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a first offense.

Subsequent violations carry a sentence of up to seven years each.

The police and the prosecutors are both saying “No it’s their fault.”

The NYPD cop assigned to monitor Epstein has repeatedly complained to Vance’s Sex Crimes Unit that Epstein wasn’t in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But prosecutors told the cop to merely send Epstein a letter reminding him of his reporting requirement.

A Vance spokesman denied that allegation, saying “the NYPD — which is the agency responsible for monitoring SORA compliance — has repeatedly told us that Mr. Epstein was in full compliance with the law.”

Has anybody checked in with Law and Order SVU?

Emoluments? What emoluments?? I don’t see any emoluments; do you see any emoluments???

A constitutional challenge to President Trump’s continued ownership of his businesses has been ordered dismissed by a federal appeals court.

The case was brought by the attorneys general of Washington, D.C., and Maryland, arguing that Trump had violated the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses of the U.S. Constitution by accepting money from state and foreign governments via his Washington hotel and business empire.

A three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled unanimously that the attorneys general did not have the standing to bring the lawsuit and instructed a lower court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote in the opinion: “The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts, which were created to resolve real cases and controversies between the parties.”

And the emoluments case is not real because…erm…

All three of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents.

This case is not the only emoluments challenge against President Trump. Another federal court is still considering a lawsuit brought by Democratic members of Congress.

…

Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh issued a joint statement that said the panel of judges “got it wrong,” and that they will continue to pursue their legal options.

They said the court “failed to acknowledge the most extraordinary circumstance of all: President Trump is brazenly profiting from the Office of the President in ways that no other President in history ever imagined and that the founders expressly sought — in the Constitution — to prohibit,” Frosh and Racine wrote.

The pair said they would continue their legal efforts to “hold President Trump accountable” for what they viewed as his violation of the emoluments clauses.

Checks and balances: do we even have any?

Fired for refusing to call a man “madam”? Sounds very Monty Python, doesn’t it.

Dr David Mackereth, 56, claims he was sacked as a disability benefits assessor by the Department of Work and Pensions over his religious beliefs.

The father-of-four alleges he was asked in a conversation with a line manager: “If you have a man six foot tall with a beard who says he wants to be addressed as ‘she’ and ‘Mrs’, would you do that?”

Well you can’t address people as “she,” can you. That’s a minor point, I know, but it gets so annoying seeing this confusion so often.

A hearing in Birmingham was told how Dr Mackereth believes transgenderism is a “delusional belief” and an ideology “which I disbelieve and detest”.

In a statement admitted into evidence, he told the court: “If you believe in gender fluidity, gender is no more than one’s own fantasy about oneself.”

And the thing about that is that one’s own fantasy about oneself is of interest only to oneself and should never, ever be forced on other people. We know some people just can’t get enough of talking about themselves, but there’s a limit to what they can force on the rest of us.

The DWP argues that Dr Mackereth’s views are in breach of the 2010 Equality Act. APM, the recruitment company who hired the medic, is also being sued for religious discrimination.

The company claims that the doctor’s beliefs “are not compatible with human dignity”.

Really? What if people started claiming to be horses or bicycles or daffodils or Poland? What does treating people’s lies about themselves as truth have to do with human dignity? What about the human dignity of people forced to lie about others?

The Telegraph mixes a whole bunch of nonsense about Christian beliefs into it, but that seems entirely beside the point to me.

Women’s Party UK held a public meeting this evening on keeping women’s sport women-only. (I assume it’s over now, at nearly 11 their time.) It was at a large venue and the place was packed.

Huge #WPUKFairPlay public meeting on keeping women’s sport female-only in central London. Sharron Davies @sharrond62 speaking, video messages from @Tanni_GT & @damekellyholmes, in the audience is @Daley_thompson. pic.twitter.com/zFP2XB95YC

— Hannah Bayman (@hannahbayman) July 10, 2019

The room is absolutely packed.

Do not underestimate the importance of this topic to #Women#WPUKFairPlay pic.twitter.com/V8CF95BMxA

— FiLiA (@FiLiA_charity) July 10, 2019

Now for the science bit: Up now Dr Emma Hilton @FondOfBeetles, developmental biologist, is telling us why transition does not take away men’s advantage in sport. #WPUKFairplay

— Dr Karen Ingala Smith (@K_IngalaSmith) July 10, 2019

"What I find terrible about the whole situation is the intimidation [that prevents] free speech" @sharrond62 #WPUKFairPlay
Athletes young and old that she speaks to all feel the same way, most are afraid to speak up despite their information being based on scientific fact. pic.twitter.com/vgZXjUmZJ8

— Nicola (@scrapegroat) July 10, 2019

https://twitter.com/50shadesoftrace/status/1149026028930719752

Yes why didn’t they? Obviously one could have testosterone levels lower than those of men but still higher than those of women.

#WPUKFairPlay @sharrond62 is telling us how she speaks to elite athletes all the time, young and elite and they all feel the same way as her on this topic. She is here to speak out knowing the pressure that is there preventing others from speaking out…

— Woman’s Place UK (@Womans_Place_UK) July 10, 2019

Sharron Davies admits to being so vocal because she was cheated as an elite athlete by “state run doping programmes.” She is not happy with the ‘intimidation’ around this debate. #WPUKFairPlay

— Sonia Poulton (@SoniaPoulton) July 10, 2019

Originally a comment by Steamshovelmama on Go, and sin no more.

Labels… *sigh*. This is a conversation I have had many times with my 22 year old daughter, who is rather more woke than me. Labels are important, especially to young people who feel lost and excluded because there is no one else like them in their culture and/or peer group. To that young person, finding that there is an actual name for what they are is a huge validation – and young, unhappy, confused, isolated people do need that validation.

The problem is, as always, reification. The label is usually an artificial term, placing boundaries round something that is really a point on a continuum. Unfortunately, people are strongly prone to believing that those boundaries represent something real and objective. When that happens, the label becomes a trap. No longer just “This describes what I feel, and I share this feeling with these people,” but more “This is what I am, and because of that, I know I cannot be that other thing as well, because that lies outside the boundaries of the thing that describes me.”

Of course, this applies to identities that are rooted outside the physical – ace (arguably), aro, demi etc.

re: the adoption of fragility

I don’t get this either. I’m 50, and for most of my life strength has been something to aim for. I grew up as a member of he English working class, which in itself is a strong non-physical identity (USAians may not experience this, but take it from me, in England class is a major part of your identity).

I grew up in a female culture where women considered themselves superior to men in all senses but the physical. The joke was: Q. What do you call a woman who wants to be equal to a man? A. Unambitious. Men were frequently regarded as immature boys (which, of course, meant that many of them were happy to play that role).

Women were the ones who held the family together, who took on all the responsibilities of feeding and clothing everyone, of stretching the “housekeeping” to do it, despite many of them working part or full time themselves. The very idea that you might need some sort of validation for who you were would have been considered ridiculous. You looked after your own, and if you wanted something you damned well got off your arse and worked out how to get it.

You developed a thick skin, especially towards male attitudes because, growing up, you were cat called and/or harassed on an almost daily basis from about 11 years onward. Now, that is certainly not how it should be (and it does seem to be a little better now, looking at my daughter’s experience), but the idea that you might be deeply hurt by a name (or pronoun) that somebody called you? Your Mother, Grandmothers, Aunts and friends would tell you to bloody well get up and stop making a fuss.

One of the most insulting things you could say about a woman was that she was “precious” – dainty, ladylike, feeble. Proper women were tough. They’d have had no time whatsoever for some man (and they would certainly see a trans woman as a man) poncing about in women’s clothes and talking about feminine essence. Feminine was not a large part of their lives or self image.

Ron Lindsay on Pompeo’s “natural law” commission:

“That some persons are free and others slaves by nature … and that for these slavery is both advantageous and just, is evident.” So said Aristotle, one of the first advocates of the “natural law” approach to ethics. (See his Politics, Book I, ch. 5.)

Thus we see one of the problems. Different people have different ideas of what “natural law” is, and the ideas may have more to to with the convenience of the haver than the well-being of everyone else. Trump thinks it’s natural law that everyone should flatter him without cease.

Natural law theory has had a number of different proponents throughout history, and the exact contours of the theory vary from proponent to proponent, but the core of the theory is comprised of these three elements: there are some things that are intrinsically good and intrinsically evil because of their relationship to human nature; the human intellect, through reason correctly applied, can discern these fundamental goods and evils; actions are right or wrong depending on whether they further or oppose these fundamental goods and evils. From this summary, one can see that the cornerstone of this theory is its understanding of human nature.

And if one thinks about it for a few seconds one can see how easy it is to understand human nature in a way that flatters or benefits the self or the self’s tribe.

How do we argue for human rights? Roughly, through an approach something like this: Think of the purposes of morality (fostering trust, facilitating cooperation in achieving shared and complementary goals, providing security, ameliorating harmful conditions, etc.) and ask what rules and rights most everyone in the moral community would accept if such rules and rights applied to everyone. (For more detail, one can consult John Rawls, Tim Scanlon and a host of other philosophers and thinkers.) Does such an approach ensure unanimity, an end to any disagreement? Of course not. Does it imply that humans are the source of morality? Sure, because we are.

Throughout much of our history, many have tried to impose on others their view of right and wrong by claiming their view is backed by God or natural law. It’s time to rid ourselves of this pernicious fantasy. With respect to morality, there is no special authority. We’re all in this together.

Imagine if we could ask tuna and salmon, chickens and lambs, shrimp and lobsters what morality is.

Oh is he indeed.

Alexander Acosta, the US labor secretary under fire for having granted Jeffrey Epstein immunity from federal prosecution in 2008, after the billionaire was investigated for having run a child sex trafficking ring, is proposing 80% funding cuts for the government agency that combats child sex trafficking.

That’s definitely a good look.

The bureau’s budget would fall from $68m last year to just $18.5m. The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk.

ILAB has the task of countering human trafficking, child labor and forced labor across the US and around the world. Its mission is “to promote a fair global playing field for workers” and it is seen as a crucial leader in efforts to crack down on the sex trafficking of minors.

Yes, well, when you elect criminal exploitative plutocrats president, this is what you get. They don’t want a fair global playing field for workers, they want a global playing field that makes it easy for them to exploit workers.

Katherine Clark, a congresswoman from Massachusetts, said Acosta’s proposed cut was “reckless” and “amoral”. When seen alongside the sweetheart plea deal he granted Epstein in 2008, when Acosta was the US attorney in Miami, she said, it indicated that the labor secretary did not see protecting vulnerable children as a priority.

“This is now a pattern,” Clark told the Guardian. “Like so many in this administration Mr Acosta chooses the powerful and wealthy over the vulnerable and victims of sexual assault and it is time that he finds another line of work.”

What I’m saying. That’s what this administration is.

Clark grilled Acosta about the proposed cuts in April, when he presented his departmental budget to the House appropriations subcommittee. On that occasion, she said, she found him “rude, dismissive, challenging”.

Imagine our surprise.

It’s as if all of life has become a war between The Narcissists and everyone else. The Narcissists have definitely won this round, but it might not serve their purposes in the larger war.

(Is that a built-in shield against Narcissists? The more they win the more they disgust everyone else, so their power is always fragile and temporary? It’s a pretty thought, at least.)

The resignation of Sir Kim Darroch followed the failure of the likely next prime minister, Boris Johnson, to say he would support him staying in post – despite being given repeated chances to do so during his TV debate with Jeremy Hunt. As the current Foreign Office minister Alan Duncan put it, by six times refusing to back the ambassador, Johnson had thrown him under a bus.

And thrown Trump a whole truckload of ice cream.

There will now be white hot anger across the Foreign Office and in parliament – not just at the leaker and Trump, but also at Johnson. Whatever sanctimonious expressions of regret he mouths, and however much he blames the leaker, King Charles Street knows the Conservative leadership candidate effectively sacked Darroch on the orders of the president.

And on the orders of the president not for any weighty reasons of state but because the president’s throbbing engorged vanity is wounded. How pathetic is that? What kind of pitiful needy childish loser – to use Trump’s favorite epithet – admits to taking it personally when an ambassador reports to his government? What kind of pitiful needy childish loser takes it personally in public and calls the truth-telling ambassador silly schoolyard names? What kind of chickenshit lickspittle toady backs him up when he does so? Donnie and BoJo, that’s what kind.

Still on the Darroch issue: Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, has issued a statement:

The fact that Sir Kim has been bullied out of his job, because of Donald Trump’s tantrums and Boris Johnson’s pathetic lick-spittle response, is something that shames our country. It makes a laughing-stock out of our government, and tells every one of Britain’s brilliant representatives abroad that the next Tory prime minister will not stand up for them, even when they are simply telling the truth and doing their job.

Sir Kim Darroch should hold his head high for the wonderful job he has done representing our country, while Boris Johnson should go and hang his head in shame. He claims to regard Winston Churchill as his hero. But just imagine Churchill allowing this humiliating, servile, sycophantic indulgence of the American president’s ego to go unchallenged.

Johnson likes to accuse opponents of being ‘supine invertebrate jellies’. How does he think he looks today? If this is what represents the future of leadership in our country, then it is all the more reason why we must force Johnson to call an election, and let the British people decide if such an obsequious weakling should be our prime minister.

Note to the world at large: Donald Trump’s ego needs to be starved, not fed.

Do not feed the dragon.

Chalk up another win for President Monster:

Sir Kim Darroch, the UK ambassador to Washington who has been at the centre of a diplomatic row over leaked cables criticising Donald Trump, has resigned.

The Guardian understands he concluded his position was untenable having watched the Conservative leadership debate on Tuesday, in which the frontrunner, Boris Johnson, stopped short of backing him over the leak.

So President Hulk gets rewarded for yet another bout of trashy vulgar namecalling and the US slides a few miles farther down the slope of degradation.

Asked whether in an episode such as this it would be expected that the entire establishment would support Darrock, [the head of the diplomatic service] said: “Yes”, adding the Foreign Office had noted with gratitude the support given to Darroch by the prime minister and the foreign secretary. He made no mention of Boris Johnson.

It makes zero sense not to support him. Obviously an ambassador has to be able to tell the truth to the government that made the appointment, without worrying about whether it’s flattering to the subject or not. Darroch saw chaos and incompetence in the Trump administration and he reported that fact to his superiors; what else was he supposed to do? It’s grotesque that Johnson is taking the “flatter Trump regardless” line.

The White House did not put out a formal statement on Darroch’s resignation. Marc Short, vice president Mike Pence’s chief of staff, offered only a brief comment to reporters in Washington on Wednesday.

“I think the reality was that in light of the last few days his ability to be effective was probably limited, so it was probably the right course,” Short said.

That is, in light of the fact that Trump chose to take the leak as an invitation to yet another outburst of vulgar childish namecalling, Darroch was in an impossible position. Trump could, if he were not Trump, have chosen to be an adult and say that naturally ambassadors give their honest opinion to their governments and there’s nothing more to be said.

A vindictive part of me would like to see everyone who is asked to be the new ambassador say a resounding “No.”

Another shunning achieved! Break out the parsnip champagne!

The University of British Columbia is barred from marching in the Vancouver Pride Parade after allowing a controversial figure to speak on campus earlier this summer.

Andrea Arnot, executive director of the Vancouver Pride Society, says all entries to the parade have to meet specific requirements — judged on a point system— to be allowed to participate.

“We reject applications every year,” Arnot said.

Any guesses on what the “controversial” refers to?

UBC fell below the required number of points by allowing Jenn Smith, who has been labelled by critics as transphobic, to host an event on campus in June that criticizes B.C.’s sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum (SOGI).

Someone criticized a curriculum. The horror.

Vancouver Pride issued a statement.

Representatives from VPS and UBC Administration met on July 3, 2019 to discuss the June 23 event and UBCs plans to move forward. UBC began by letting us know they were concerned about the potential impact on students and faculty who may be denied the opportunity to partake in Pride.

We have encouraged UBC to revise the policy after consultation both with LGBTQAI2S+ communities on campus and a professional agency. We have also suggested that UBC make a statement which takes responsibility for any harm done to the campus community and outlines a way forward.

We are hopeful that UBC will create changes in policy and practice to support their entire campus community. Until then, UBC will not be able to participate as an institution at our events. We welcome LGBTQAI2S+ UBC students and faculty to our events.

We are making this decision transparent to hold UBC accountable.

They do love their little bit of power, don’t they.

Trump’s trashy vulgarity of course sets the tone for others in his “administration.”

No one who works in the WH as a senior counselor to the president should ever speak like this about two women, elected to Congress. Major Meow Mashup is language I'd expect from an immature high school girl. https://t.co/YYz7rHJN8z

— Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) July 9, 2019

“Major Meow Mashup” hur hur geddit they’re all women it’s a catfight meow hur hur hur.

I’m so tired of the trashy vulgarity.

You have got to be kidding.

A dangerous sex offender has been granted freedom from a West Australian prison and will be able to visit sex workers in a bid to reduce his risk of reoffending.

Edward William Latimer, 61, has a criminal record dating back to his teenage years and has spent most of his adult life in prison for offences including sexual assaults and wilful exposure.

So let’s make women his safety valve. What could go wrong?

WA supreme court justice Anthony Derrick said in his decision handed down on Tuesday that while Latimer remained a serious danger to the community, the risk could be managed in the community.

“There are adequate safeguards contained in the supervision order conditions to ensure that if the respondent begins to regress this will be quickly noticed by those responsible for his supervision and … he will [be] brought back before the court,” he said.

“Access to sex workers will not of itself resolve the issue of the respondent’s ability to manage his sexual urges … [but] the option for the respondent to engage in regular, albeit infrequent, sexual contact should serve as an additional protective factor.”

Or he could get a doll or a pound of raw liver or a hole in the ground. Women are not objects that dangerous sex offenders need access to to keep from exploding. Women are not a public utility.