Notes and Comment Blog

Historians struggled to cite an equivalent threat

Jun 3rd, 2019 5:17 pm | By

Meanwhile Trump is still trying to put the muscle on CNN, as is totally normal for presidents to do.

President Trump took his long-running attacks against CNN to a new level on Monday by suggesting in a series of tweets that a consumer boycott of its parent company, AT&T, could force “big changes” at the news organization.

“I believe that if people stoped [sic] using or subscribing to AT&T, they would be forced to make big changes at CNN, which is dying in the ratings anyway,” Trump tweeted. “It is so unfair with such bad, Fake News!”

The comment, which Trump tweeted in response to seeing CNN coverage while traveling in London during a European tour, fueled criticisms that the president was using his power inappropriately to intimidate critics.

Whaddya mean inappropriately? He hates CNN. He’s the president. You do the math.

Historians struggled to cite an equivalent threat even from presidents such as Richard Nixon renowned for their hostility toward the press. Less democratic nations with more tenuous press freedoms often use government regulatory power, criminal investigations or tax audits to punish news organizations seen as providing unflattering coverage, but past U.S. presidents rarely have taken such public shots at the businesses of the owners of major American news organizations, historians said.

By “rarely” they mean “never,” but they’re being cautious. Don’t want to make him mad, obvs.

Donnie dresses up

Jun 3rd, 2019 4:31 pm | By

Updating to add: I had to hit the Google to see if I was wrong to think Trump wasn’t supposed to be showing several inches of waistcoat below his jacket. GQ says nope I wasn’t wrong:

You will need a low cut, white evening waistcoat (so the shirt is visible) and the bottom of the waistcoat shouldn’t stick out under the jacket. This is a subtle point, but it is worth trying to adhere to since it helps keeps the balance of the suit.

So he didn’t mess that up by just a little bit.


Trust me, it’s very funny

Jun 3rd, 2019 3:52 pm | By

Oh this is glorious.

I’m sure it’s the pouring rain keeping them away.

I want to invite that police officer over for brandy and chocolate.

Look at the crowd roaring approbation.

That officer gets the brandy and chocolate too.

I hope he’s sobbing himself to sleep rather than taking it out on Melania.

If that’s the hand of friendship…

Jun 3rd, 2019 11:38 am | By

No, he’s not offering America’s hand of friendship. Don’t be silly. For one thing the two countries were already friends, before he was elected, before he ran, before he was even born. The relationship has deteriorated since and because he became president. And for another he comes offering nothing, he’s there for his own glory and nothing else.

For another thing he’s not democratically elected; he’s undemocratically elected. Big empty states get to overrule smaller fuller states.

And the bit about giving him a welcome to match the office and the country as opposed to the festering pustule that he himself is? No. The two can’t be separated and he’s an evil, cruel, genocide-ready man. He should not be welcomed anywhere by anyone.

Image result for trump uk

Thoughts in the air

Jun 3rd, 2019 10:28 am | By

A few hours ago, the plane is over London, Trump is getting restless, so he decides this is the time to broadcasts some insults directed at the mayor of London. Perfectly normal behavior, yes? When you’re in the car on your way to a party, you call the hosts to insult them, right? Doesn’t everyone? “Hello, Inglund, I’m on my way! You’re stupid and ugly, I look forward to our frenndship!”

He sends a pair of tweets calling the mayor of London a stone cold loser, foolish, nasty, dumb, incompetent, and short – and then says he looks forward to being a great friend to the UK.

God how I wish he would just drop dead. Right now. Face first into the soup, dead as mutton. I wish we could be assured of never hearing or reading another word out of him.

Some men came over to try to get us to leave

Jun 3rd, 2019 9:56 am | By

Saturday in Bradford:

Yesterday a group of lesbians went to Bradford Pride to celebrate their sexuality and challenge the erasure of lesbians by transactivists.

They had a banner saying “lesbians don’t have penises” so you can guess what happened next.

We had decided to meet in a coffee shop before going into the square. Whilst sat drinking coffee we were approached by two police officers from West Yorkshire Police. They explained that someone had come to them and said that they’d seen some placards and so they wanted to make sure that there was nothing derogatory and that we were not a hate group. We assured them that we were just lesbians going to Pride. That WYP felt it necessary to question a group of lesbians sat in a public place should concern everyone. The state has no business intimidating or policing the peaceful behaviour of its citizens just in case they offend someone.

The placard in question read ‘Lesbian = Female HomoSEXual’. That this was worthy of attention from the police illustrates our point. Our belief is that lesbians have the right to chose their partners based on sex and not gender identity. This position does not conflict with the right of individuals to express themselves or to live their lives in the gender they choose- we are not anti-transgender or transphobic.

Doesn’t matter. It says the words or it gets the hose.

After Pride’s opening speeches, some men came over to try to get us to leave, when we refused they attempted to cover our banners with transgender flags. A gay man came over to explain that lesbians have no right to oppress transgender women by refusing to have relationships with them. A video of that exchange was recorded and even watching it back I can see a man looming over a woman on a mobility scooter trying to intimidate her. Gay men telling lesbians that they are bigoted to want same-sex relationships. A group of large men telling women to be quiet and capitulate to what men believe is right. Who is oppressing who here?

LGBT organisations do not advocate for or represent the L. This is typified by their stance on gender identity (see Stonewall’s revamped definition of the word ‘homosexual’) but it by no means ends there. Where is the funding for lesbian-only spaces and groups? Lesbians face additional challenges when coming out or being openly homosexual because they are women; this is rarely acknowledged and women are not supported. We are concerned that young women who are lesbian and gender non-conforming are instead being encouraged to become straight transmen. This is modern conversion therapy.

Aka woke conversion therapy.

Meet the vacuum

Jun 3rd, 2019 9:38 am | By

I haven’t seen Jared Soninlaw Kushner in action before. It’s not an edifying spectacle.

Have you seen Trump do or say anything racist, Mister Soninlaw?

Absolutely not. You can’t not be a racist for 69 years n then run for president and be a racist –

Let me stop you right there, Mister Soninlaw. Trump was not not a racist for 69 years. He very much was a racist during that time frame. He was raised racist by a racist landlord father who excluded black people from his rental properties. He said many racist things over those 69 years. He spent his own money to try to get the Central Park Five executed for a crime they had nothing to do with. He pretended to think Obama was born in Kenya. He wasn’t just a racist, he was a vocal, public, proud, frothing racist.

Was birtherism racist?

Look, I wasn’t involved in that.

I know you weren’t. Was it racist?

I wasn’t involved in that.

I know you weren’t. Was it racist?


Any surprises? Is he smarter than we thought? Is there a moral core?

Nope nope and nope.

But we had reasons

Jun 2nd, 2019 4:54 pm | By

The “nope” to a court order is a red flag.

The Justice Department argued that the documents need not be released because “it did not rely on such recordings to establish Flynn’s guilt or determine a recommendation for his sentencing.” Moreover, “Prosecutors also failed to release an unredacted version of portions of the Mueller report related to Flynn that the judge had ordered be made public.”

Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe tells me, “Even if the district court’s order to release the Flynn-Kislyak transcripts goes further than justified by the sentencing matter before the court, I would’ve thought that, in a government of laws, the only way to avoid compliance is to take an appeal to a higher court.” The government made its arguments to the court, did not obtain a stay to our knowledge and did not seek an emergency appeal. From all appearances, the Trump administration has deliberately and willfully defied a court order.

I wondered about that when the story was reported on Friday. The judge ruled make it public and the DoJ said “No and here’s why.” It was my understanding that the “here’s why” bit takes place in court, and that once the judge says make it public anyway, you don’t get to just say no and here’s why. You have to go to court to say why, and if you’ve already done that and the judge ruled against you…that’s the end of the road. “We decided to ignore the court order because reasons” doesn’t look good from anyone, and especially not from the Department of [ahem] Justice.

“Normally when prosecutors don’t want to make something public for national security reasons, etc., they file a document under seal with the judge explaining that reasoning and requesting relief from the presumption that things should be made public,” says former prosecutor Mimi Rocah. “The fact that the government didn’t do that here is puzzling. Instead, they took a very unusual tact of refusing the judge’s order publicly. which suggests that they didn’t think the judge would go along with keeping the material under seal.” Rocah continues, “While it doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have legitimate motives, the disrespectful and atypical nature of their action makes me suspicious. And it certainly doesn’t mean the judge is just going to say, ’Okay, let’s just forget I asked.’ ”

If I were the judge I’d be feeling pretty annoyed. I’d be all “Pretty soon I’m just another fella around here!” about it.

Make no mistake, Trump’s conduct resembles conduct that was the basis Impeachment Article 3 against Richard M. Nixon. (“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.”)

Emphasis added.

Magical inner essence

Jun 2nd, 2019 4:15 pm | By

A column I wrote for the April/May issue of Free Inquiry is online. It’s about “authenticity.”

The idea of an “authentic self” has, oddly, become a theme of political discourse as well as Oprah-style uplift. We’re being told that people have a right to live as their authentic selves, which often means as opposed to their outward appearance, that mere physical dross. It’s a weirdly religious idea, reminiscent of the contemptus mundi of medieval monks, but it’s presented as political rather than religious. What I keep wondering is how it’s possible to make a sane politics out of the denial of material reality.

The irony is that what is meant by the authentic self in the current dialect is not a self that comports with the actual facts—with the biography, the history, the Curriculum Vitae, the parentage, the body—but a self that contradicts such dull literal realities, as if some absent-minded official had simply made a mistake in the paperwork. The authenticity in question is not the kind we mean when we talk of an authentic Vermeer or Patek Philippe; it’s a distinction between the social self and the private one, between the self that others perceive and the one that we alone know from the inside.

As you probably already know, I don’t believe in such a thing as an “authentic self.” I also don’t believe that obsessing about one’s own self, authentic or otherwise, is a branch of politics; I think it’s the opposite of politics.

The mayor rolls out the black carpet

Jun 2nd, 2019 3:48 pm | By

Sadiq Khan doesn’t think much of Trump either.

This is a man who tried to exploit Londoners’ fears following a horrific terrorist attack on our city, amplified the tweets of a British far-right racist group, denounced as fake news robust scientific evidence warning of the dangers of climate change, and is now trying to interfere shamelessly in the Conservative party leadership race by backing Boris Johnson because he believes it would enable him to gain an ally in Number 10 for his divisive agenda.

Donald Trump is just one of the most egregious examples of a growing global threat. The far right is on the rise around the world, threatening our hard-won rights and freedoms and the values that have defined our liberal, democratic societies for more than seventy years. Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Matteo Salvini in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France and Nigel Farage here in the UK are using the same divisive tropes of the fascists of the 20th century to garner support, but are using new sinister methods to deliver their message.

And let’s not forget Bolsonaro and Duterte and Erdoğan.

Trump is seen as a figurehead of this global far-right movement. Through his words and actions, he has given comfort to far-right political leaders, and it’s no coincidence that his former campaign manager, Steve Bannon, has been touring the world, spreading hateful views and bolstering the far right wherever he goes.

That’s why it’s so un-British to be rolling out the red carpet this week for a formal state visit for a president whose divisive behaviour flies in the face of the ideals America was founded upon – equality, liberty and religious freedom.

Why are they doing it?

A crass error

Jun 2nd, 2019 3:25 pm | By

The Guardian editorial board is not excited about Trump’s state visit.

Two and a half years after Theresa May rushed to become the first world leader to meet the newly inaugurated President Trump in Washington, she has chosen to make a state visit that should not be taking place the final act of her premiership. While the prime minister’s poor political judgment and obstinacy have been hallmarks of her three years in office, the spectacle of the next three days will make a particularly awful ending. Mr Trump is only the third US president ever to be honoured with a state visit, the others being George W Bush and Barack Obama. Inviting him in the first place was a crass error. Following through in the midst of the UK’s current political crisis is an act of gross irresponsibility.

That’s because, though such visits are symbolic occasions, there is more at stake here than pomp and circumstance. Mr Trump is a demagogue who represents a threat to peace, democracy and the climate of our planet. As elected leader of the UK’s closest ally, he can’t be ignored. But making him, his wife and four adult children the honoured guests of the Queen risks legitimising his destructive policies, his cronyism and his leanings towards autocracy.

Also his bullying, his rank misogyny, his bragging about assaulting women, his racism, his xenophobia, his ignorance, his malice, his incompetence, his endless lying, his greed, his vanity, his narcissism, his self-dealing, his callousness…

I could go on this way for a long time. Anyone could. He has a long long list of bad qualities and not one good one. He’s historically grotesque in every way, so yeah, bad idea to give him the royal treatment. Seriously bad idea.

Maybe that’s not the best backdrop

Jun 2nd, 2019 11:43 am | By

Normal. It’s normal. Totally normal. Nothing to see here. It’s not unreasonable. Not unreasonable at all. You could even say it’s reasonable. Maybe. On a good day. Anyway it’s normal. So so normal.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney defended the administration’s advance team for asking the Navy to obscure the USS John McCain during the president’s recent state visit to Japan, arguing the request was not “unreasonable.”

Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Mulvaney said that “it was probably someone on the advance team” in the White House who was responsible, adding that the unidentified staffer who requested to hide the ship, named for the grandfather of the late Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, would not be fired.

“The fact that some 23, 24-year-old person on the advance team went to that site and said, ‘oh my goodness, here’s the John McCain, we all know how the president feels about the former senator, maybe that’s not the best backdrop, can somebody look into moving it?’ That’s not an unreasonable thing,” Mulvaney said.

Whee! That was a great big jump he made there. Top marks for jumping. Yes, we all do know how Baby Donnie feels about McCain, but we do not all jump from that all the way to “So he will lose his shit if he sees the name John McCain on a ship, because he is that fucking childish, so we’d better hide it from him somehow.”

“The president’s feeling towards the former senator are well known. They are well known throughout the office, they are well known in the media, but to think you’re gonna get fired over this is silly.”

They are well known, but even then we didn’t realize he was such a spoiled petulant whiny brat that he couldn’t be trusted to see the name John McCain on a ship. Thanks for clearing that up for us, I guess.

He’s not interested in the details

Jun 2nd, 2019 10:42 am | By


Kathleen Stock has a thread this morning.

Quoting the rest for ease of reading.

Rather, they’re concerned with what Austin would call perlocutionary effects of my arguments. That is, the indirect effects of my arguments on feelings, thoughts, and actions of others, whether or not these are grounded in charitable or accurate interpretations of my views. In vain do I ask critics to engage with my writing (pinned) in a fair, non-snarky manner typical of their philosophical engagement with others. I’ve come to realise most won’t do this, because for them it’s not the point. The point is, my views allegedly lead to harm: fear/anxiety, people allegedly leaving the profession, and possible violence to trans people by others. Yet it seems to me that they’re equally or more guilty of indirectly causing such things. To uncharitably construe my views as harmful, for people who haven’t read them, is self-fulfilling, with respect to exactly the sort of harm they claim to be most worried about: spreading fear and anxiety amongst trans people. If they described me more accurately and less febrilely, this effect could be limited. So I finish by reminding my critics and other readers of my actual, stated views, with italics for emphasis. (See also my pinned tweet). I argue for:

Then she tagged several of those people. One was Jonathan Ichikawa. He replied.

To repeat:

Speaking for myself, I agree that:
1) I’ve argued that your rhetoric is doing great harm.
2) I’m not interested in the details of your arguments.

In other words, “I’ve accused you of doing great harm, I can’t be bothered to find out what you’ve actually argued.”

As I say: breathtaking.

Trump’s porkies

Jun 2nd, 2019 10:20 am | By

“I never said that. It’s all lies.”

“But sir, it’s on the tape.”

“Lies. It’s all lies.”

“But…the tape…”


Our Don is at it again.

[I]n a series of early morning tweets on Sunday, the US president said he “never called Meghan Markle nasty” and that the “Fake News Media” had invented his remarks.

He said it was “Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will CNN, NY Times and others apologize? Doubt it!”

The Sun posted a recording of the original interview to prove that its reporting was accurate.

Never you mind about the recording! Just never mind! It’s all lies!!

On the same page

Jun 2nd, 2019 9:34 am | By

Kim Jong Un may or may not have executed one of the negotiators of the whatever that is between the US and North Korea.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday that the US is looking into reports that North Korea executed a top official after President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un’s summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, earlier this year.

South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported that Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea’s special envoy to the US, was executed after Kim Jong Un and Trump were unable to reach an agreement at their second summit in February.

CNN also tried to verify the reports and was unable to.

The [South Korean] paper — quoting unnamed North Korean sources — said Kim Hyok Chol was executed in March at the Mirim airport in Pyongyang on charges of “being recruited by US imperialists and betraying the supreme leader.”

Kim Hyok Chol, North Korea’s State Affairs Commission special representative, led negotiations with the US special representative to North Korea, Stephen Biegun, at the Hanoi summit and was in charge of the working-level talks with American counterparts.

He’s definitely out of sight, but sometimes North Koreans who go out of sight later reappear, having been *cough* re-educated. Four legs good, two legs bad.

“There’s certainly plenty of evidence — both in Kim’s recent past, and North Korean history — of purging officials when things don’t work out the way that the leader needs, or when there are potentially concerns about different factions within the government and the elite,” according to Lindsey Ford of the Asia Society Policy Institute, who is also a former Pentagon adviser for Asian and Pacific Security.

“Trump can talk about how he and Kim are on the same page … because they are buds, but (Kim) is a dictator who, in the past, has executed people close to him: his brother, his uncle — and he’s not afraid to do it again,” Ford added.

Let’s be real: that’s why Trump likes him. Trump probably envies him the ability to execute anyone he takes a dislike to, including relatives.

Trump’s Navy

Jun 1st, 2019 6:04 pm | By

Jim Wright was disgusted.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in preparation for Trump’s visit to Japan, the White House wanted to ensure USS John McCain would not be visible to the so-called Commander-in-Chief during his visit to USS Wasp.

The McCain is undergoing repairs following its collision last year, a collision caused by gross incompetence of the ships officers and which killed seven Sailors. The White House was afraid Trump would be upset if he saw the ship’s name, because he hated John McCain, but since the ship is damaged and can’t be moved they had to come up with a way to make sure that didn’t happen. So, the Navy ordered a tarp hung over the ship’s transom to hide its designation. And the ship’s crew were ordered to remove any coverings from the ship that bore its name. Then they were given the day off, so they wouldn’t be around for Trump’s visit.

This is hands down, one of the most despicable and dishonorable acts I’ve ever witnessed from US Navy leadership, and I’ve seen some pretty shitty things from the senior ranks. Hell, I was on active duty during Tailhook and the USS Iowa Investigations and I wouldn’t have believed anything could be more dishonorable than those events.

I don’t know how any Sailor assigned to McCain could ever again set foot on her — knowing that their Commander-in-Chief despises them and their Admiral is so ashamed of them that he would hide them from the president’s visit. I can’t imagine how any commander could ever expect morale to be anything but a disaster and the ship to be anything but the bastard of the fleet. If I was her crew, I’d have to wonder if maybe the best thing that could have happened was she went down after the collision, buried at sea. I can’t imagine the command environment onboard that poor ship.

Any real Navy officer would have told the White House to go fuck itself. The admirals should have handed the phone to a Chief Warrant Officer if they didn’t have the balls to do it themselves.

Every flag officer who was involved in compliance with this cowardly decision should be stripped of rank and cashiered. They are unfit for command.

This isn’t my Navy.

I don’t know who these cowards are.

But we’ll always have Fox.

Enough about you

Jun 1st, 2019 4:39 pm | By

What happened here?

What caused The University of Iowa’s Women’s Studies Program to become the Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies Program?

They narrate the history, briefly, but they don’t explain the reason.

The Women’s Studies Program was established at The University of Iowa in 1974 and is one of the first programs in the United States. Our initial strength in joint appointments in the social sciences made the program unique within an interdisciplinary field most often drawn from the humanities. Our recent appointments give us strength in both social sciences and the humanities and enable us to continue to develop the breadth of interdisciplinary strength we believe to be the cornerstone of a strong gender, women’s and sexuality studies program. Certainly, the interdisciplinary nature of the program evokes strong support from faculty and students who consider themselves part of the Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies community even though their ties are informal and their rewards intrinsic.

In 2000, Women’s Studies gained departmental status, and in 2010, the Iowa State Board of Regents approved our proposal to unite with the existing Sexuality Studies Program and become the new Department of Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies (GWSS).  We offer a major and minor in Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies, and a graduate certificate that can be combined with a disciplinary graduate degree.  Our department has grown dramatically in the last 15 years. Starting with only one half-time faculty member, the Department now has sixteen faculty with joint appointments.

Ok, but why did Women’s Studies decide to unite with the existing Sexuality Studies Program and become the new Department of Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies? Why can’t there just be departments and bookstore shelves and politics about women any more? Who decided women weren’t enough and had to be supplemented with “gender” and “sexuality studies”?

The latter is especially creepy because it seems to buy into that background idea that sex is about women and women are about sex, in other words, a male view of women and what women are for. In advertising men are there to look manly and strong and fond of fishing or driving or fixing the roof, while women are there to look fuck-ready. Why would universities mirror that kind of thinking?

The graduate program page may help us understand.

Historically, the fields of Women’s Studies and Sexuality Studies have consisted of scholars trained in one of the traditional disciplines who developed a specialization in the study of women, gender, or sexuality.  Our current faculty configuration reflects this history. In the last generation, however, Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies has matured as a discipline in its own right, with its own specialized graduate education, methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and “canon” of scholarly literature. The discipline now engages in deep study of intersectionality: that is, it takes as the center of its investigation the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, and class.

In other words, they have embraced the common mistake of thinking that intersectionality means women aren’t allowed to focus on women’s issues while being well aware that gender, sexuality, race, and class also matter; that instead women have to talk about gender, sexuality, race, and class at all times, because women qua women just aren’t really oppressed enough.

Or am I wrong? Does the African American Studies Department say the same kind of thing? Let’s look.

African American Studies examines the shared experiences of African-descended people throughout the diaspora. Drawing on a rich tradition of scholarship, teaching, and civic engagement, the faculty introduce students to the foundations of African American Studies (AAS) and collaborates with them to develop projects and analyze information that leads to new intellectual perspectives. The African American Studies major involves three core areas of study:  history, religion, and the diaspora; literature and performing arts; and media, politics, and social institutions.

This interdisciplinary unit draws on faculty from many academic departments, including American Studies, Communication Studies, English, History, Journalism & Mass Communication, Religious Studies, Rhetoric, Sociology, Theatre Arts, and Women’s Studies.

No. No it doesn’t. Not a word about intersectionality, nor has its name been changed or its subject matter expanded.

Women are just never enough. Sad.

We’re not going back to coat hangers

Jun 1st, 2019 3:52 pm | By

Illinois is taking care of business.

A bill that establishes a “fundamental right” for women to get an abortion in Illinois cleared the state Senate late Friday night, sending the sweeping measure to Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who already has signaled his support.

As the clock approached midnight Friday, the Senate voted 34-20 in favor of the abortion legislation, which comes amid an increased sense of urgency among advocates looking to protect abortion access as a series of states have passed laws essentially banning the practice.

Laws which the Supreme Court will uphold in part or in full, thus taking us back to the pre-Roe days when a few states allowed abortion but most did not. This is going to happen.

The bill establishes the “fundamental right” of a women to have an abortion and states that a “fertilized egg, embryo or fetus does not have independent rights.” It repeals the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, doing away with provisions for spousal consent, waiting periods, criminal penalties for physicians who perform abortions and other restrictions on facilities where abortions are performed.

“There is nothing more intrinsic to freedom than bodily autonomy,” said Democratic Sen. Toi Hutchinson of Olympia Fields.

Bush said she and other supporters of the measure have faced threats.

“We’re not going back,” Bush said. “We’re not going back to coat hangers, we’re not going back to dying. We’re not going back. And I am proud to say Illinois is a beacon. For women’s rights, for human rights.”

Other states not so much.


Jun 1st, 2019 12:53 pm | By

Play it.

It’s not subtext any more

Jun 1st, 2019 12:04 pm | By

Department of There Are Sick Fuckers Out There:

What is the “it” that leads to violence, medical mistreatment, and suicide? I guess it’s fanatical TERFitude that slows the progress of normalization of trans and nb people. So, women arguing that however marginalized trans people may be, it still doesn’t follow that men are literally in every sense women, and that women too are marginalized and abused and need to be able to continue to name that oppression – arguing that leads to violence, medical mistreatment, and suicide? Is that right? What is the chain of causation? Do the kind of people who are violent toward trans people spend a lot of time following feminist arguments? Is there any evidence that they do? Any at all?

But never mind, the hipster rebbe has bigger accusations to make.

So there it is spelled out, which is unusual. The hipster rebbe is saying that feminist women are “pursuing” trans people in order to kill them or do harm, and that therefore it is “permissible to stop them by any means necessary,” which of course includes murder. This hipster dude is saying it’s permissible to murder feminist women who argue that women need to be able to keep the word “women” to describe ourselves and the subordination we are subject to. He’s saying go ahead and kill us, because it’s “permissible.”