How can we do more? More more more? The situation is desperate; we must do more.

The profession being discussed is philosophy (i.e. the university job).

After reading several accounts by transgender colleagues reporting very negative experiences in the profession–accounts that a number of other trans colleagues wrote on social media cohere with their own experiences–Helen and I commissioned the following guest post on ways to support our trans peers better. We hope the post will lead to constructive, supportive dialogue on this important issue – as we believe that our profession should be a welcoming and supportive place for all of its members, particularly those who have been marginalized and who experience the profession as less welcoming that it should be.

Which of course doesn’t mean women. Women are not and have never been marginalized, and they do not and never have experienced the profession as less welcoming than it should be.

Supporting Our Transgender Peers in Philosophy

By Isela González Vázquez, Jules Holroyd, and Rory Wilson

Department of Philosophy,  The University of Sheffield

Many of us will have been saddened to read the two pieces – here and here –  from trans students describing their experiences within academic philosophy. While we strongly disagree with the views of ‘gender critical’ philosophers, and are grateful to those who have engaged with their arguments, that’s not what we want to do in this post. We don’t want to add more fuel to the flames here. Instead, we want to ensure there is space to discuss the kinds of support we should be making available to trans staff and students. What we can do better? How can we, academic philosophers, cis and transgender, together support trans staff and students within our departments and within our discipline?

And how can we make sure to let gender critical feminists know we don’t support them right at the outset?

Jumping way ahead (it’s a long piece, as is only right for this Most Important Subject of All) –

In addition, there are some basic support measures that each of us, as individuals, could work towards on a daily basis:

• • Adopting the general practice of considering the specific needs of transgender individuals. Crucial here is respecting gender identity. Misgendering, or the act of referring to a person with gendered language that does not match their gender identity is frequently encountered by transgender individuals. Whether intentional or not the act can serve to make a trans person feel a host of negative emotions.
  • Often advice around misgendering is to ask people their pronouns outright. We believe this is not always the best approach as especially in the context of a classroom, asking such a question can be experienced as harmful in its own right. A person you are asking might be not out, so the asking of the question of pronouns makes them either come out not on their own terms or position them to misgender themselves. It also could put someone in a position of being unsafe if there are others who have intent to do harm to this person on finding out this information.
  • A better approach is one of respecting gender identity as a matter of privacy. Always use pronouns that a person voluntarily shares with you.

Never ever misgender anyone. Don’t ask people what gender they are. Look out!

Have a nice day.

Liam Madigan informs us that Karen Ingala Smith is not a feminist, on the grounds that her list of murdered women is a list of murdered women. She “purposely” doesn’t include men on her list of murdered women, therefore she is not a feminist in the view of Liam Madigan, Labour Students National Women’s Officer.

https://twitter.com/NOLSWO/status/1138172193395892225

Also Liam.

https://twitter.com/NOLSWO/status/1138064028943732736

I don’t think Liam would recognize a fact if it bit him on the ass (as we vulgarly say over here – swap in “arse” if you prefer).

Oh goody, a town hall. A Two Spirit, Dyke, Queer & Trans Community Town Hall, Hosted by Coalition Against Trans Antagonism and Vancouver Dyke March.

Vancouver Dyke March is the one that doesn’t like lesbians. It has a video about trans inclusion.

I feel like the word “dyke” is so inclusive of so many different idenninies.

That’s at 22 seconds in and I’m not watching any more because that’s plenty stupid enough. The word “dyke” is inclusive of lesbian identities; why does it have to be inclusive of “so many” other ones? Why can’t it just name what it names? Why do words have to be inclusive at all? The more inclusive they are the less they tell us, and words are supposed to be tools for telling us things.

Back to the event page.

Coalition Against Trans Antagonism & the Vancouver Dyke March are teaming up to hold an important community discussion. Join us to debrief, reflect on, and strategize with regards to last year’s and this year’s Vancouver Dyke March and the TERF/SWERF fascist violence and oppression.

Yes that’s what dyke marches should be all about: demonizing other dykes and accusing them of fascist violence and oppression.

Safer Space Information:
This event is a safer space event. We insist attendees conduct themselves within decolonial and intersectional frameworks. TERFs, SWERFs and any other forms of fascists and supremacists are not welcome. All attendees will be vetted at the door.

In other words feminists who think men are not women and feminists who think the sex trade exploits and abuses women are not welcome at this oh so intersectional meeting.

Laurie Penny makes a reasonable suggestion.

Let’s start by acknowledging that women are not things. Before we talk, like we have to, about what the attacks on abortion access mean for this anxious, awful political era, let’s establish as a ground rule that women are not vessels, or incubators, or an undifferentiated natural resource. Women are human beings whose human rights matter.

And one item that looks a good deal like a human right is the power to decide what happens to your body, within the realm of possibility. You can’t decide you will never get ill, but you can decide to do something about getting ill. Medical technology being what it is, women now can decide they will never get pregnant, if they choose, but they should also have the right to undo a pregnancy that they don’t want. Pregnancy doesn’t happen off in some other room, with a baby placed in the hands 9 months later; it happens inside a woman’s body, and if she doesn’t want it to, it’s not for anyone else to force it on her.

But, Penny goes on, lots of people in the US think it is.

This has been coming for a long time. It’s all part of a strategic  frontal assault on women’s right to choose, a deliberate ploy to overturn  the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling upholding abortion access as a constitutional right in the United States. These laws are not about whether a fetus is a person. They are about enshrining maximalist control over the sexual autonomy of women as a foundational principle of conservative rule. They are about owning women. They are about women as things.

Women as things that are comfortable for men – things that never disagree, never object, never snap, never refuse. Whether it’s making dinner or spreading her legs or gestating an infant, she’s always compliant.

Mm hm.

https://twitter.com/CCriadoPerez/status/1137719041395712001

A guy who “identifies as” a woman tells women that straight and “cis” women don’t have to deal with men forcing us to be sexual.

Hmm, category of Things Not Needed department: a Straight Pride parade.

A group in Boston wants to hold a “Straight Pride” parade in August. The event, pending city approval, will be hosted by a group called Super Happy Fun America.

The movement seeks to advocate on behalf of the “straight community in order to build respect [and] inclusivity,” among other things, according to the group’s website.

“Straight people are an oppressed majority,” John Hugo, the group’s president, said on its website. “We will fight for the right of straights everywhere to express pride in themselves without fear of judgment and hate. The day will come when straights will finally be included as equals among all of the other orientations.”

So clearly it’s partly a “joke” of sorts, or at least sarcasm. But a joke about what? About the fact that not all that long ago it was considered creepy and terrible to be anything other than straight and that now lots of people don’t see it that way? Do we really need jokes about that? Not that “political correctness run mad” jokes aren’t hilarious, but do we really need new ones?

Daniel Kaufman at The Electric Agora walks us through the t philosopher-Justin Weinberg campaign to ostracize and silence The Evil TERFs, starting with t philosopher:

Woke philosophy’s most recent moves can be found in an “open letter” to the profession, published anonymously (by “t-philosopher”) and entitled “I am leaving academic philosophy because of its transphobia problem,” as well as a lengthy essay, written by none other than our intrepid Weinberg, “Trans Women and Philosophy: Learning from Recent Events” and published at the Daily Nous. The two pieces are an exquisite pairing: T-philosopher is wounded and empowered and terrified and accusatory and defeated and defiant, all at once – sometimes, even in the same sentence – and then, suddenly, thankfully, as if out of a puff of smoke, Weinberg appears on the scene to help us sort it out so that we all might become Better People.

T-philosopher announces to the profession – all of it – that she is leaving because of philosophy’s “transphobia” and the terrible harm she has suffered at the hands of “bigots” like Kathleen Stock (who else?), whose presence renders her no longer “safe in professional settings.” Then comes the inevitable “call to action”: Journals must refuse to publish articles critical of gender identity theory and activism; conferences must no-platform philosophers seeking to present gender critical arguments; gender critical thinkers must be barred from public discourse, whether on blogs, discussion boards, social media sites, comments sections, or other online venues; and anyone and everyone who is going to engage in both professional and public philosophical discourse on the subject had better accept that “any trans discourse that does not proceed from this initial assumption — that trans people are the gender that they say they are — is oppressive, regressive, and harmful” and that “trans discourse that does not proceed with a substantial amount of care at amplifying trans voices and understanding the trans experience should not exist.”

If you’ve raised a teenager, as my wife Nancy and I have done, you’ll immediately recognize this as very typically adolescent behavior. The clueless narcissism (“to the academic philosophy community…”); the catastrophizing (I know Kathleen Stock. You can watch video of Kathleen Stock.  One cannot possibly be “unsafe” because of Kathleen Stock); the empty (because toothless) demands; the emotional blackmail (You see what you’re making me do!); even the proverbial running away from home (I’m leaving and never coming back!)  It’s all there.

Another way of understanding it is simply as narcissism. The two are pretty much the same thing – we know narcissists when we see them because they act like angry teenagers even though they are grown-ass adults. They don’t all threaten to run away from home, to be sure, but the trans activist variety sure do invoke suicide a lot.

Then he gets to Weinberg. He is not an admirer.

Suffice it to say that Weinbergism is alive and well and holding court: the phony even-handedness (a not-very-effective trick he employs is to repeatedly suggest that those on his side of the issue are likely as dismayed by what he has said as his opponents); the credulous embrace of the testimony of those with whom he is already sympathetic (“Reader, what do you do when you are confronted with the anguish of another person?”); the breathtaking hypocrisy (“Be attentive to hostile rhetoric in work you are considering hosting or publishing”); the false modesty (“Yes, that’s my name up there. No, I’m not going to defend myself in this post. That’s not the point of this”); the obligatory swipe at Brian Leiter, with the equally obligatory misrepresentation of things that anyone with a pulse, two fingers, and an internet connection can check for themselves (“a well-known philosophy-blogger’s obsession with belittling graduate students who use Twitter to discuss trans issues” (2)); the by-now legendary lack of self-awareness (“Note the venues. Much of the trans-exclusionary writing by philosophers that has fueled recent controversies has been self-published (e.g., at Medium) by philosopher-activists..,” published on Weinberg’s personal site, in an essay about a politically-soaked letter published on Medium).  It’s classic Weinberg; Weinberg as only Weinberg can be.

He goes on to point out that woke philosophy isn’t philosophy at all but politics. I would think, though, that philosophers could carry the skills and the norms they rely on for philosophy into their other endeavors. Is that fatuous? Kaufman points out that their goals are very different: politics is about working for a specific outcome, while philosophy is about good arguments. (Sloppy paraphrase, but you get the drift.) If you can’t come up with a good argument for your favored outcome you should probably conclude that you ought to stop favoring that outcome…but political commitments often have to do with loyalties. It’s tricky. What if a good argument, one you can find no way to dispute, justifies an abhorrent conclusion? What do you do?

Jane Clare Jones has a must-read post on Justin Weinberg’s long and intensely clueless post about the sorrows of “t philosopher.” She has resolved, somewhat to my chagrin, to curb her tendency to jokes and swears by way of professional courtesy. She also plans to be calm even though she is pissed, man, and even though this having to pretend not to be furious is in fact central to what she’s saying.

The letter written by the anonymous ‘t philosopher’ is principally an emotional appeal to vulnerability, an intent to share the philosopher’s “pain and anger about being forced out of a career that I once loved.” The argument is, essentially, ‘allowing these women to express their views makes me feel so intolerably bad I have to leave, recast as ‘being forced to leave’ (a.k.a “you made me do it”?).

This. t’s letter is maudlin, and what it’s maudlin about is t’s fee-fees and t’s desire to make the women stop talking. This makes it a tad infuriating to see men like Justin Weinberg rush to sympathize and agree.

The first thing I want to note, is that Justin responds to this appeal as if it describes an entirely foreign vulnerability. There are several instances of this:

“But most of us are fortunate enough never to have had our toughness tested in this way.”

“For most of us, our well-being is almost never jeopardized by our work environments.”

“Most of us have not experienced what t philosopher has experienced.”

I picked Justin up for this on twitter, because, of course, as is immediately evident to anyone who is not a white man, this is not a foreign experience to some of us at all. (Note: I am not claiming that trans philosophers’ experiences of marginalization are the same as women’s, that is not something I could ever know. I am merely noting that the idea of being ignorant of what it’s like to be mentally jeopardized by our work environment is a statement that could only be made by white male (and probably straight) philosophers.) In response to my tweet Justin has clarified that that is why he wrote ‘most of us,’ and has since amended the post to reflect the recognition that the profession is 70% male and 85% white. I still, however, want to underline what is going on here. We are having a conversation about whether some women should be effectively muzzled in the profession, and the person writing the post is male, and the audience he is imaginatively addressing is also male. That is, the men are talking about whether a few women should be silenced, without acknowledging anything about how the men’s sex is affecting their understanding of the situation, and how that might be different for the women they are discussing – the women who, implicitly, are the ‘problem’ here.

That. So much that, that I want to stop reading it for awhile, so that I can let that part settle in, like watering the flowers at dusk.

It’s amazing – it amazed me when I first read Weinberg’s post – that the audience he is imaginatively addressing is also male, because the audience he is literally addressing is not all male…but it might as well be for all the difference it makes. He did say that thing – “But most of us are fortunate enough never to have had our toughness tested in this way.” Yeah, right, it’s only trans women who are ever made to feel unwelcome or mocked or ignored or talked right over.

I hope he reads Jane’s post. I hope his cheeks burn with shame.

Has the water sunk in a little? Onward.

One thing that is incredibly striking to me about this is that the men are extending a degree of concern and empathy to the experience of t philosopher that is completely foreign to how I, as a woman, have come to understand men’s reactions to women’s experience of philosophy.

Men tend to see women as the opposite of philosophy, as being Pathos as opposed to Logos, and it follows that women can’t express any emotion without confirming that very stereotype. It’s quite a bind.

The culture at large, as is reasonably well recognised, is littered with images of ‘hysterical’ ‘angry’ ‘vengeful,’ women. Any expression of women’s needs which refuses to comply with male people’s desires or demands is frequently characterised as wanton aggression (which is highly relevant to the emotional force of the image of the TERF).

Aw, yeah – I hadn’t thought of that before. The deep weirdness of the emotional force of the image of the TERF has always puzzled me as well as pissing me off, and that is very helpful. We’re Medea, we’re Clytemnestra, we’re Medusa.

So next she points out that because of all that we couldn’t write a post like that and get the reaction t philosopher did. In us it would just be seen as more of the same pathetic emoting that women do and why do they even try to philosophy? And that’s why we need to be able to name the sex of people, and it’s not just to be big ol’ meanies.

because yes, I am claiming that the very fact that t philosopher thought expressing her pain in this manner was a potentially effective political manoeuvre, and that people responded to it as such, is something to do with her not being female.

Everyfuckingthing to do with it.

The fact is, therefore, that those of you who are male do not know a great deal about female people’s experiences of harm in the profession, because we do not tell you, and we may, furthermore, go to some great lengths to conceal it from you.

I was thinking this, in an infinitely more inchoate way, when reading t philosopher’s lament. I was wondering why the hell t philosopher felt so comfortable writing such an extended “pity me me me me me me” when no woman in philosophy would dare write such a thing. Sally Haslanger wrote a great piece on the treatment of women in philosophy but it was nothing like t philosopher’s.

These issues surrounding the non-expression of women’s feelings also relates to the fact that we are trying very hard, in this situation, not to let anyone see how distressing this whole conflict is to us, because we have no confidence that it will not simply be weaponised against us. (Justin for example instructs us in the manner we should respond – cordially, calmly, although the whole conversation is precipitated by an extreme – and some might think, manipulative – expression of emotion which is, nonetheless, being given enormous, uncritical, weight).

Oh so he does. I didn’t even pick up on that.

I’ll stop talking now so that you can read it all in peace.

A woman writes about the mandatory high heels for women issue:

It’s hard to imagine men enduring decades of pain and long-term physical injury just to “look the part” in the workplace – after all, many bemoan the necktie as too restrictive for the daily grind.

Now consider this: millions of women around the world, at all levels of the workplace hierarchy, have consistently spent their working hours tortured by blisters, bloodied flesh, foot pain, knee pain, back pain and worse, as a result of the pressure to conform to an aesthetic code – sometimes explicitly written into contracts or policy, more often subliminally expected as a societal and cultural standard – that deems it appropriate to wear high heels.

Strange, isn’t it. The cover story is that it’s all about aesthetics, but I’m not convinced. I think it’s part fetish and part disable them so that they can’t escape. I think the proportions of each vary with the individual.

Fascination with the footwear appears to be endless, with a new exhibition celebrating Manolo Blahnik’s work opening at London’s Wallace Collection tomorrow.

Fetish.

In my former roles as a newspaper fashion editor and TV fashion correspondent, I revelled in the regular opportunities I had to dress up in exotic footwear. However, motherhood and life as a freelance journalist based in a rural village have made it necessary to adapt to changing needs, so trainers, brogues and wellies now feature more frequently. While I find heels empowering and enjoyable to wear on the right occasion, I would challenge any employer who stipulated I was contractually obliged to do so.

That’s the bit that made me decide to do a note here. She finds heels “empowering”??? How? In what sense of the word? How can that possibly make sense when heels are necessarily disempowering? They’re hobbles. They’re also sexy (see: fetish) but they can’t not be hobbling too. They are radically different from normal functional shoes that we wear to protect our feet from broken glass and dog shit: they are deliberately and calculatedly not functional, but rather anti-functional. No one would voluntarily wear them to run a race or to escape from a bear or to walk a few miles. The highness of the heels in High Heels makes them anti-functional as shoes: the highness slows the gait and makes it at least somewhat painful, and increasingly painful with more time and more steps. So in what sense can they be “empowering”?

This must be the ultimate in libertarian choosy-choice empowerment feminism: modern day footbinding is “empowering.”

The second tweet directly follows the first.

…..there is not, we can always go back to our previous, very profitable, position of Tariffs – But I don’t believe that will be necessary. The Failing @nytimes, & ratings challenged @CNN, will do anything possible to see our Country fail! They are truly The Enemy of the People!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2019

Twitter should let the banned Conservative Voices back onto their platform, without restriction. It’s called Freedom of Speech, remember. You are making a Giant Mistake!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2019

The New York Times and CNN are truly The Enemy of the People! Also, it’s called Freedom of Speech!

Also Pink News:

Let trans people swim in peace. https://t.co/zuehcMZclk

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) June 9, 2019

Let trans people swim in peace. Fine, let them, by all means. But what about women? Can we let women swim in peace too?

Hahaha don’t be silly, no, of course not, because what Pink News means by “Let trans people swim in peace” is let men who are trans swim with women and make women swim with men who are trans. It does not mean let women swim with women. It would be exclusionary to let women swim with women, but it’s inclusive to make women swim with men who are trans. Only some people get to do things in peace in this brave new world, and women are decidedly not among them.

A trans woman is suing The Times for…you’ll never guess.

A former editor at the Times is suing the newspaper for anti-trans discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unfair dismissal on the grounds of gender reassignment — in a landmark case that, if she wins, could transform the UK media’s coverage of transgender rights.

Katherine O’Donnell was the night editor of the Scottish edition of the Times until January 2018, when she was made redundant after 14 years at the title, during which she transitioned.

Her allegations, which encompass bullying and blocking of promotions and pay rises before she unfairly lost her job, involve multiple senior figures at the Times, including the current editor, John Witherow.

O’Donnell transitioned on the job, which must mean that colleagues had to make the transition along with O’Donnell. Other things being equal it would seem the humane and decent thing to do to go ahead and make that transition…but how confident can we be that other things were equal? I ask that because the more we see of trans activism the more clear it seems that the movement attracts narcissistic bullies. Was O’Donnell reasonable and collegial about it? Or did O’Donnell take pleasure in making angry demands? If it’s the latter, could it be that O’Donnell’s deteriorating personality contributed to the redundancy, rather than the transition itself? To put it more crisply, is the issue with trans people often not that they’re trans but that they’re assholes?

The Times of course says it’s all bullshit.

The hearing at the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal, which began on Wednesday, could have far-reaching implications for UK’s news outlets. In addition to the standard employment law charges such as discrimination and victimisation, the case also rests on an argument that has never before been tested.

O’Donnell and her lawyer — Robin White of Old Square Chambers — allege that it wasn’t just what happened in the newsroom but also what those inside it published in the newspaper about trans people that constituted a hostile, anti-transgender place to work.

Sly. Very very sly. Bring one case and (if you win) make it so that the news media can no longer write or broadcast anything critical of trans activism or trans ideology. Wouldn’t that be awesome.

Should O’Donnell be successful, therefore, it would mean that a newsroom’s output could be deemed an internal, employment issue, too. News outlets may in the future have to consider how their coverage of trans people and other minority groups could be in breach of employment laws that protect members of these communities on their own staff from discrimination and bullying.

She claims that there was an atmosphere at the Times hostile to trans people in general and therefore also to her.

I wonder though. I wonder if the atmosphere was really hostile to trans people, or rather to the claims of trans ideology. It could have been both, of course.

O’Donnell alleges that she was excluded from consideration for acting editor in Scotland and believes this was because of her gender identity.

She told the tribunal that in the summer of 2014, the then–Scotland editor of the Times, Angus MacLeod, informed her about a discussion between him and two senior executives in London about who should be put in place while he undertook chemotherapy. When the subject of putting O’Donnell in that position arose, one of the executives replied, “Under no circumstances”.

But could that be because O’Donnell is a narcissistic asshole rather than because O’Donnell is trans? Given that being / becoming trans is currently functioning as a portal to being a completely selfish self-obsessed petulant bullying shit, the odds seem high.

The Times’ counsel responded by pointing to the email MacLeod had sent recommending someone else for the job and saying that “there was a better candidate” in the view of management, who were also concerned about the “difficult” working relationships O’Donnell had with staff in the London office. Callan also said that members of the staff found O’Donnell “aggressive”.

In her witness statement, O’Donnell wrote that “the framing of his argument — that I was ‘difficult’ to deal with was fundamentally sexist. Difficult and abrasive are terms frequently used to describe women in the workplace who stand their ground.”

But O’Donnell is not a woman. O’Donnell started out in life as a male, and thus received the training and the unconscious cues that male people are expected to stand their ground and be aggressive, and almost certainly brought it with him when he transitioned. Men as a group tend to be aggressive anyway, and trans activism gives them license to be even more so on the spurious grounds that trans women are doubly triply quadrupally oppressed because they are BOTH women AND trans. This does in fact produce people who are difficult to deal with.

It’s tricky. O’Donnell is of course not wrong that people who get unequal treatment are routinely labeled “difficult” and aggressive and all the rest of it. It could be true that The Times treated O’Donnell unfairly. It will go on being true that I don’t like seeing men help themselves to women’s status and then announce that they’re far more oppressed than women have ever been.

By popular(ish) demand.

They aren’t though. They aren’t equivalent at all.

Stop with the transphobic nonsense. Signs and protests like these are equivalent to having signs that say "women don't have sex with women". There are women who have sex with women and it is equally true that some lesbians have penises. #YorkPride2019 #YorkPride #acceptance pic.twitter.com/CMGnyl8Xuu

— ♿ Daniel Holt (@daniel_p_holt) June 8, 2019

Same-sex attraction is not the same kind of thing as claiming to be the sex opposite to your body. It’s a different kind of thing. Same-sex attraction is not the same kind of thing as gender dysphoria. Same-sex attraction is not the same kind of thing as thinking you were “born in the wrong body.” Same-sex attraction is not the same kind of thing as thinking you have a “woman’s soul” in a man’s body.

And why do lesbians feel the need to make this point? To carry signs saying lesbians don’t have penises? Because many trans activists bully lesbians for not wanting to have sex with male-bodied people. If trans activism hadn’t moved in a direction so hostile to women they wouldn’t have to. If trans activism hadn’t moved in a direction so hostile to lesbians they wouldn’t have to. They’re not doing it to be mean, they’re doing it to say they have a right to say no and a right to have boundaries. It’s not for a Daniel Holt to tell them otherwise.

Trump and his gang continue to think they can deal with climate change by lying about it.

The White House blocked a State Department intelligence staffer this week from issuing testimony to the House warning that human-caused climate change could be “possibly catastrophic,” according to The Washington Post.

The Post, citing several senior administration officials, reported that officials from several different White House offices took issue with written testimony Rod Schoonover of the State Department planned to deliver to the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday.

Because the problem isn’t that climate change will be catastrophic, it’s that warning us about it will interfere with somebody’s profits.

Officials told the Post that the White House Office of Legislative Affairs ultimately decided Schoonover could go before the committee but would not let him submit prepared written testimony to the panel.

That way climate change will just pack its bags and go away.

The written testimony, as published by the Post, offered major warnings “on the national security implications of climate change.” It stood in marked contrast to the generally dismissive tone Trump has taken towards climate change and to recent remarks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

“Climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security over the next 20 years through global perturbations, increased risk of political instability, heightened tensions between countries for resources, a growing number of climate-linked humanitarian crises, emergent geostrategic competitive domains and adverse effects on militaries,” the blocked testimony stated.

It concluded: “Absent extensive mitigating factors or events, we see few plausible future scenarios where significant — possibly catastrophic — harm does not arise from the compounded effects of climate change.”

So, better to keep the whole thing a secret and just proceed as we’ve been doing.

Pink News still saying Be Inclusive, Exclude the Feminist Women.

We stand for an inclusive community. Say no to TERFs. #Pride pic.twitter.com/zC8MdHUJYl

— PinkNews (@PinkNews) June 8, 2019

He actually said that.

AG Barr: "As we've been watching the coverage of June 6, 1944 D-Day, I had the thought that my arrival this time felt a little bit, I think, like jumping into Sainte-Mère-Église on the morning of June 5, trying to figure out where you could land without getting shot." pic.twitter.com/D36xU0uYSj

— The Hill (@thehill) June 8, 2019