Author: Ophelia Benson

Originally a comment by Artymorty at Miscellany Room.

The Trump appeals court reprieve really bothers me. Here’s a take by David Graham in The Atlantic, which argues that, even though Trump routinely exploits legal procedures to get out of justice, it’s right of the appeals court to lower his bond and grant him yet more extensions. It would be “unjust” for Trump to lose his ill-gotten assets if he succeeds in getting this case dismissed:

But then imagine that a few weeks from now, Trump won his appeal, convincing the court that Engoron’s finding was incorrect, or that the calculated amount of the penalty was unfair. Trump would have no way to recover the assets he’d been forced to unload at fire-sale prices. It doesn’t take any affection for Trump to see why a court would want to avoid such an outcome, and why—even if Trump would still be filthy rich—this would be unjust punishment

In other words, in the face of Trump’s brazen abuse of legal procedures to get out of justice, if we lean into offering him more legal leniency, the very kind which he keeps using to his advantage, it will in the end prove that the legal system works just as it’s supposed to. The idea is, give him every possible chance we can, so we can show the world that when he eventually loses, there can be no question that he lost fair and square.

The problem is, we’re not trying to use Trump as an example to demonstrate how noble the legal system is. That’s a foolish idea. Right now we need to use the legal system to urgently stop a dangerous man from destroying democracy. Trump and his followers don’t care about fair-and-square; they won’t ever be reasonable. The judgment against him is plainly reasonable and the odds of a successful appeal are minimal. That’s grounds to take hard action, now. He will rage about procedure no matter what you do moving forward, so stop trying to appease him. There’s no fucking point in saying please and thank you to an angry bull. It won’t stop him from charging.

This is exactly the kind of cowardice we saw when the Germans were puzzling over how to stop Hitler’s brazen power grab in 1932. In the face of someone recklessly trampling over the institutions that uphold a democratic society, the instinct to lean harder into process, procedure, decorum and restraint is perhaps understandable, but it’s all wrong. That logic ignores the asymmetry at play when you’re dealing with a corrupt narcissist.

Democratic systems keep failing at dealing with raging bulls because too many individuals within “the system” are cowards. What people like the appeals court panel who granted Trump reprieve today and the SEC who greenlit his blatantly illegal stock scam are doing is passing the buck: they’re preemptively ceding to Trump the benefit of the procedural doubt because they’re scared to do their jobs, to uphold the rules, when it’s their turn to step into the ring and face the bullhorns. They tell themselves that the system will eventually work and justice will prevail, because viewing “the system” as an abstract force for good is easier than facing the fact that “the system” is only ever as just as they, the tangible, fallible individuals it’s made of, are willing to act under duress.

Trump has lately taken to comparing himself to Al Capone. That’s an apt comparison. It took Eliot Ness and his Untouchables to bring down Capone. Ness recognized right away that playing strictly by the book was no use after corruption had reached the threshold where it was threatening the survival of the system of law and justice itself. Extreme circumstances sometimes call for extreme measures.

And Trump has shown very clearly that today, more than the justice system is broken — the entire democractic system is ill-equipped to defend against this kind of tyrant.

But don’t worry, says David Graham. There’s plenty of time to play nicey-nice; it’ll all get sorted out down the road:

As for Trump, he may just be delaying that outcome—but that’s another problem for him to try to wriggle, cat-like, out of on another day.

No, David. We don’t have the luxury of time. There may not be any legal system left by the time the credulously pedantic legal idealists are done extending Donald’s rope. The time for passing the buck is over. This is a tyrant and if there are opportunities within the legal system to stop him, we must grab them now while we still can.

We should have brought the Untouchables in to clean this up years ago.

More from the women in sport front:

All this energy – conferences! more conferences! yet more conferences! – expended on getting more men into women’s sports. Why? Trans rights could be a thing without that, after all. Why is there such an obsession with ruining sports for women? If you pause and step back and look at it, it seems just spiteful. Just done for the sake of ruining things for women. Just because that many men really hate women and want to expend a lot of money and energy just to trash their sports.

It’s not a pleasant thought.

Bahahahahaha

Remember – from a few hours ago – the lanyard doctor? Who said “My work lanyard gets a lot of comments, and people spotting something on it and asking about it has started a lot of conversations over the years.”? Well, sometimes Twitter people step up.

SERIOUSLY??????

A New York appeals court on Monday paused for 10 days a massive civil business fraud judgment against Donald Trump — and sharply reduced to $175 million the bond amount he will have to post to obtain a longer stay of that award.

The ruling came the same day that New York Attorney General Letitia James would have been allowed to start seizing the former president’s real estate assets and bank accounts to satisfy the $454 million-and-rising judgment after he failed to obtain an appeal bond.

James is prevented from doing so — for now — due to the order from the five-judge panel in Manhattan Supreme Court’s appellate division.

…

In its order Monday, the appeals court stayed trial Judge Arthur Engoron’s decision that had barred Trump from serving as an officer or director of a New York company for three years, and that had barred him and the corporate defendants from applying for loans from New York lenders for the same period. The order also stayed Engoron’s judge’s ruling that had barred Trump’s sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, from serving as officers and directors of New York companies for two years.

But the appeals court panel rejected a request to block enforcement of Engoron’s order extending and enhancing the role of a financial watchdog the judge had installed to monitor the Trump Organization’s finances.

We’re doomed.

H/t Artymorty

What was that we were just saying about using honest language to talk about women and sports and men invading women’s sports?

THAT.

I’m so tired of being pushed hard to understand why trans women must come first. I’m so enraged at being constantly told that men who claim to be trans are the Most Vulnerable, most persecuted, most tragic, most fragile, most in danger.

BBC Sport tells us, with a puzzled frown, that female athletes are not always entirely ecstatic to lose prizes to men who pretend to be women.

More than 100 elite British sportswomen have told the BBC they would be uncomfortable with transgender women competing in female categories in their sport.

Or to put it in ordinary language, more than 100 elite British sportswomen have told the BBC they don’t want men competing in their sport. Well duh: of course they don’t. Women’s sport is for women.

Over the past couple of years, a raft of sports have banned transgender women from competing in elite women’s sport because of concerns.

Because they are men. They have the male physical advantage, and they are a danger to women.

Among the concerns from athletes was that having transgender women in female categories was like “going back in time and putting women at the bottom of the pile again”, and that it created an “unfair playing field” and could be “harmful”.

All of which is blindingly obvious.

In a statement to BBC Sport, sports minister Stuart Andrew said: “When it comes to the participation of transgender athletes in competitive sport, I firmly believe that fairness has to be the primary consideration.

“I continue to work closely with sport governing bodies to ensure clear direction is in place that shows compassion to all athletes, whilst protecting the integrity of women’s sport.”

Why is there any need for “compassion” for men who are trying to invade women’s sport? How about saving the compash for women being cheated? The men cheating don’t deserve any compassion.

Oooooooooh an all-female film festival!

Sheffield’s first all female film festival

Ok then! Mark your calendars: it’s November 24 at the Showroom Cinema.

Highlighting the work of women and women’s achievements in all incarnations of cinema. Inspired by events showcasing films made by women (such as Scotland’s Femspectives), we want to recentre the focus of film history and the future of the industry on projects creatively led by women. Sheffield has a rich cultural history and we hope to further develop the city’s reputation as a hub for excellence supporting diversity in film in the North of England.

The aim of FFStival is to provide an intersectional platform highlighting the work of women, female presenting and non binary people’s achievements in all incarnations of cinema.

Oh. Thud. So it’s not an all female film festival. It’s that other thing: the sneering taunting smirking claim to be all-female while in fact including men. It’s not an all female festival but rather a calculated insult to women. How cute. How “intersectional.”

Aims:

In line with other similarly inclusive events, we aim to:

• Provide a platform for films made by female-identifying and non-binary people, accessible to everyone. 
• Provide a safe space for discussion that recognizes differences in experience, outlooks, privilege and barriers. 
• Create a place for honest and open discussion, learning and debate while acknowledging similarities and the need for solidarity.
• Highlight marginalized and underprivileged voices. 

So it turns out it’s not just not all-female, it’s all-not-female. It’s not about women, it’s about men who pretend to be women and think they’re “marginalized” and “underprivileged” because we know they’re men.

Primum non nocere: First do no harm.

That plus the frenzied messaging. I would feel extremely uneasy with all that hectoring from a doctor. I think I would feel that way whether I agreed with the content or not, because it’s so…all about Dr Opinions instead of about what Dr Opinions is supposed to be doing.

Here is the lovely man talking lovingly about himself.

Me me me all about me – just what one wants in a doctor.

Even worse:

“#VisibleAllyship” she says – well yes, it is very visible, and is that really what medical staff are there for?

But also…

So the question becomes why are they allowed to wear them?

Oh yay, another dude wins a women’s race, how heartwarming.

Congratulations Kylie Not All That Small!

Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Seen using a loud hailer.

To be fair, events like the one “Dr.” Ikharia* was protesting do indeed represent a threat; a threat to her credibility and livelihood. Not that anyone claiming to be “trans, nonbinary” should have much credibility left to defend, let alone a “doctor.” But she is right to see this conference as a direct rebuke of what she’s doing. If the tide is indeed turning, then “gender affirming” clinicians are at risk of being left high and dry, without the institutional support to which they have grown accustomed.

Dr Ronx, 40, presents alongside twin doctors Chris and Xand van Tulleken on the popular children’s health show Operation Ouch!

Last night, Stephanie Davies-Arai, of campaign group Transgender Trend, said: ‘A CBBC presenter should not be involved in protests against evidence-based medical care for children. That Dr Ronx led a protest that prevented attendees from accessing the conference is a serious public order infraction.’

Back up a moment; what’s a “trans, non-binary ‘doctor’” doing on a show dealing with children’s health care in the first place? She has invested herself in a delusional ideology that causes harm to children. There are thousands of doctors you could have chosen instead; why is she being given this platform at all? Would they put an anti-vaxxer on the air as a host? How about a homeopath? Would they allow an anorexic person who is not undergoing treatment to present to children? What about a cutter? If you’ve got a show aimed at children designed to get them interested in health and medicine, it would behoove you to make sure that your on-air personalities are not going to undermine your putative core mission of children’s health.

But then again, being the BBC, it’s possible the rot is deeper than one presenter. If the execitives in charge of the show believe in the efficacy of and need for “gender affirming care,” then there’s clearly more than one person needing to be sacked.

Interlude

Imagine a world where, very recently, influential lobbyists have made back room deals wherein arson was made legal. It wasn’t called “arson” of course. It was called “pyro-renewal,” “incendiary remodeling,” or amongst the trendy, a “hot makeover.” Surprisingly, many fire departments and fire-fighters jumped on this burning bandwagon, offering their services to torch people’s homes. Soon there was lots of media coverage about “hot makeovers” and how they were revoltionizing urban life. Movies and television series had storylines devoted to it; advertisers used burning buildings in more and more of their pitches, with happy, cheering crowds gathered around the blazes, dancing in the firelight.

Not everyone saw the benefits of this move, and some even protested against it, but those who had brokered the arrangement, and those who benefitted from it, were able to paint these critics as unenlightened fossils who lived in the past, who were holding back development, and were doomed to be on the wrong side of history. Many who doubted the wisdom of these new developments, who had always thought that this strange mixture of fire and architecture was not a good idea, were nonetheless cowed into silence. Those who never wavered in their vocal opposition found themselves threatened, bullied, and dismissed from their jobs.

Reports would crop up now and then that threatened the happy, burning narrative; people whose homes had been burned down by mistake; others who had been pressured into it, still more who now regretted the decision to burn it all down. Some who had been silenced by fear found their voices again, and joined with those who, though silenced and sidetracked, had never remained silent. More began to question what they’d been told, having never thought about the issue before they themselves were affected by it. Studies were undertaken, inquiries launched. Pointed questions were asked about the fire service’s involvement in burning buildings down when, traditionally, their role had been to promote fire prevention, and to put fires out, rather than start them for money.

The above is a fantasy, and a far-fetched one at that. But not as outlandish as it would seem on first reading. How many people twenty years ago would have predicted that we would have descended into a Swiftian and Kafkaesue nightmare, where the mutilation and sterilization of children “for their own good” was promoted and celebrated? Our society might not be eating its children, but it’s doing what amounts to the next best thing.

Dr Ronx said: ‘To see people who are ‘professionals’ tut, frown and take pictures of us as if we are the enemy whilst accessing the conference was not nice. The intellectualisation of trans bodies frames our existence as debatable.’

In the fable above, Ikharia would be an arsonist defending the value and honour of her profession at a time when both were being questioned. It’s natural that she should feel threatened by the sudden scrutiny of her practice in this world; on the other hand, it is right that she should be put out of business. It’s not about being “nice” to her, it’s about safeguarding. Is it too much to think that that uneasiness and discomfort might be a tint bit of guilt trying to be heard above the amplified bravado of your self-righteousness? As far as children’s health care goes, she is indeed an “enemy.” A pious, deluded enemy, but a danger to children regardless. To ther person tied to the stake, it makes no difference if the Inquisitor truly believes that they are saving their victim’s immortal soul; the fire still burns.

If she can’t see the harm in her patient’s flattened breasts, displaced ribs, and breathing difficulties, then she has no business being a doctor. She herself has already intellectualized away the injury she is causing to the body in front of her in favour of the well-being of the “gender identity” it supposedly houses. It might be mind over matter, but it’s the body that suffers. That body is not a shell or a husk, she is her patient, whole and entire. She is not a project for Ikhaira to try to turn into something she is not, and never can be. She can’t stop her patient from being female any more than she can stop her from being a mammal. But she’s willing to burn that body down in order to “save” the imaginary “identity” she believes is trapped inside. Perhaps being “trans non-binary” herself, she finds it hard not to take the criticism personally. She might feel her own “identity,” ,and not just her practice, is being questioned. But Ikhaira’s critics are not debating her “existence”; they’re just asking her to put down the torch.

*Since Ikharia has put scare quotes around the “professionalism” of the conference attendees, I’ve extended the same courtesy by putting scare quotes around her “doctorhood.” Sauce, goose, gander.

Willoughby sees what isn’t there.

It would be funny if it weren’t so disgusting. A bunch of smiling women, and loony man who hates women sees “psycho coldness.”

The people behind yesterday’s conference:

The “show more” is just the source: (Dhejne 2011).

But wait.

…bother to investigate further.

WHAT?????

A 20-fold increase in suicides? And this has been kept secret all this time??

Hello, BBC, Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post – any comment?

Labour continues to be confused about what the word “woman” means.

And while a proud socialist, [Angela Rayner] is clear that first and foremost she’s a pragmatist. “Ideology never put food on my table,” is one of her top lines. Another: “We can’t fix everything overnight.” She has also said she is “hardline” on law and order, and pro-security (her brother served in Iraq). When I ask how Labour will handle the accusation from Tories that “Keir doesn’t know what a woman is”, she says, without acknowledging any shift, “Yeah, sure. We have biological women and we have trans women. And they’re both women: one is a biological woman through sex, and one is a trans woman who has transitioned. Most of the public can get that.”

Ok then, we have two kinds of Angela Rayner: one who is biological and one who has transitioned.

We have two kinds of everything: one that is real, and one that is just assertion.

Most of the public can repeat lies if they’re bullied hard enough, but that’s not quite the same as genuinely believing the lies.

The binder-promoting doctor (Dr Ronx Ikharia) was at the aggressive “protest” yesterday. The Daily Mail is the source:

A CBBC presenter has been accused of leading a transgender rights mob that yesterday set off smoke bombs and tried to storm a conference on gender issues.

Dr Ronx Ikharia, who presents Operation Ouch!, was seen using a loud hailer outside a meeting of doctors and academics at the Royal College of General Practitioners in London.

Police and security staff clashed with dozens of activists who set off smoke bombs and tried to get into the building, but no arrests were made.

Just imagine if the people inside had been holding a trans conference and the people outside had been gender skeptics. Do we think arrests would have been made?

Inside the venue, experts from the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (Can-SG) discussed issues such as the dangers of sex-change drugs for children.

Ouch!

In a speech outside the First Do No Harm conference, Dr Ronx said: ‘I am a doctor of 13 years, I am a trans, non-binary doctor and Can-SG is doing harm.’

What is “trans, non-binary”? Besides opposites?

Anyway, as for harm – how is Dr Ikharia (Ronx is her first name) not doing harm by encouraging confused teenage girls to wear binders?

Dr Ronx, 40, presents alongside twin doctors Chris and Xand van Tulleken on the popular children’s health show Operation Ouch! 

Last night, Stephanie Davies-Arai, of campaign group Transgender Trend, said: ‘A CBBC presenter should not be involved in protests against evidence-based medical care for children. That Dr Ronx led a protest that prevented attendees from accessing the conference is a serious public order infraction.’

In an Instagram post yesterday, Dr Ronx said: ‘To see people who are ‘professionals’ tut, frown and take pictures of us as if we are the enemy whilst accessing the conference was not nice. The intellectualisation of trans bodies frames our existence as debatable.’ 

Oh ffs. That “intellectualisation” is how medicine is made effective and safe as opposed to futile and dangerous. And the issue is not the “existence” of people who call themselves trans, the issue is the claims about magical changeable “gender.” At age 40 you should be all grown up.

Oh, your ribs are popping out and you can’t breathe? Well try this other binder.

The campaign to make everyone stupider continues.

The “disproportionate representation” of William Shakespeare in the theatre has propagated “white, able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender male narratives”, according to researchers in an £800,000 taxpayer-funded project.

Funny how they never mention class, isn’t it. Could that be because they are all, to a person, bourgeois as fuck?

But that’s not the real issue. The real issue is that Shakespeare is not “disproportionately” represented. His representation is proportionate, because he was better than anyone else. He just was; sorry if that hurts the feelings of people who aren’t as good at their jobs as Shakespeare was at his.

The researchers want to challenge the “normative trend” in “classical theatre” arising from “the disproportionate representation of William Shakespeare in scholarship and performance”.

In response they are mounting a production of a comedy by Shakespeare’s contemporary John Lyly, Galatea, which features characters disguised as the opposite sex. The researchers say the play offers “an unparalleled affirmative and intersectional demographic, exploring feminist, queer, transgender and migrant lives”.

Um. Have these people even seen or read any Shakespeare? At all? He features characters disguised as the opposite sex in some of his plays. Hello, Twelfth Night? As You Like It? They’re all about characters disguised as the opposite sex.

They say the play “has almost no stage history since 1588”, adding that “Diverse Alarums”, the name of the project, “will transform this state of affairs with a unique combination of methods, ranging across early modern studies, practice-as-research, audience studies, qualitative research, trans, queer and disability studies”.

I wonder if it has ever crossed their minds that that could be because it’s not all that good? That if it had been all that good it probably would have had a stage history after 1588? That neglect is not always a mistake? That good things are better than bad ones?

It’s not some kind of weird put-up job or conspiracy of the bosses that Shakespeare can still find an audience. It’s because he was so damn good at his job. Ben Jonson discovered this to his own surprise when he read the First Folio. He had seen Shakespeare as a rival and as over-rated by the company (The Queen’s/King’s Men), but when the First Folio was published and he whipped through it he had to admit the guy had a talent.

Writing for the website Before Shakespeare, Andy Kesson, the project’s principal investigator, said that “masculinity and nationalism were crucial motivating factors in the rise of Shakespeare as the arbiter of literary greatness” and that “[w]e need to be much, much more suspicious of Shakespeare’s place in contemporary theatre”.

No, we really don’t. That would be a suspicion too many.

Oh really. Two women? Are you sure about that?

Nope they’re not women.

Not women.

Originally a comment by Nullius in Verba on We’re not confused or misinformed, we’re not believers.

I just listened to an old TEDx talk, and an observation stuck out: “When you start to humanize your enemy, you in turn may be dehumanized by your community.” When you start to treat the enemy (i.e., gender skeptics) as humans having potentially reasonable concerns and moral perspectives (i.e., as humans rather than transphobic demons), you lose status within your own group.

It’s the same phenomenon that leads to purity spirals, witch trials, and heretics’ exiles. It’s why apostasy is the gravest sin. To admit the possibility that the enemy is merely an opponent and not The Adversary signals to the group that your loyalty is not absolute. To have a member of the community exhibit dissent would signal that dissent doesn’t compromise humanity and dignity. As a form of memetic self-defense, the communal belief system cannot suffer the heretic, and so the heretic must be made an unperson.

I can’t get enough of the Trump Shouting He Does Too So Have 500 Million Dollars story.

After having reached out to several guarantors and 30 suretors for help posting his $464 million New York bank fraud bond, Donald Trump suddenly wants everyone to know he actually does have the cash.

In a bizarre rant on Friday morning, the man who was found to have defrauded banks and investors by overvaluing himself and the value of his properties claimed that he had accrued the wealth by way of “HARD WORK, TALENT, AND LUCK.”

AND TYPING IN ALL CAPS AT ALL TIMES.

The confession directly contradicts a filing from his legal team last month arguing that it would be “impossible” to secure a bond covering the full amount of the multimillion-dollar ruling.

Trump’s words will surely help out New York Attorney General Letitia James, who on Wednesday urged an appeals court to ignore Donald Trump’s latest effort to worm his way out of paying the $464 million disgorgement from his bank fraud trial.

No no no but see that money is supposed to be for his campaign. The New York AG can’t have it because he intends it for his campaign. Do you get it now?

Monday should be interesting.

The Telegraph:

Doctors at a gender-critical conference were ambushed by “aggressive” masked protesters who let off a smoke bomb and had to be held back by police. Dozens of officers were required to prevent the demonstrators gaining entrance to the first conference of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender conference held on Saturday in London.

Video footage showed the protesters, dressed mainly in black and waving flags, blocking the entrance and jostling with police.

Other video footage, which the Telegraph apparently hadn’t seen, showed the protesters doing their best to smash the glass doors at the entrance and very nearly forcing at least one door open.

Held at the headquarters of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), the conference brought together doctors, academics and parents “to discuss current controversies in the care of children and young people with gender-related distress…”

And a small but foul group of fanatics felt entitled to stop them.