The ACLU is still at it.

Trans and nonbinary people won’t simply be used as pawns.

Politicians who want to come for our rights, you’ll have to get through ALL OF US.https://t.co/2Xq59fbTq2

— ACLU (@ACLU) February 18, 2020

The image doesn’t really help them make their case – it comes across as a threat rather than a brave expression of solidarity. Miller and Yearwood are both conspicuously much bigger than the girls on the girls’ team, so the image just looks as if they’re going to run over us.… Read the rest

The purification continues.

My support for trans rights has never been conditional. That’s why I signed the pledges despite opposing bureaucratic solutions to deeper problems.

My position is consistent: unrepentant transphobes/misogynists/antisemites etc. should be expelled where education does not work.

— Nadia Whittome MP (@NadiaWhittomeMP) February 18, 2020

And what are transphobes? Whatever the loudest trans activist says they are, of course.

Yes, as I’ve said above, unrepentant transphobes/racists/misogynists etc. should be expelled.

The Labour Party should educate those who are ignorant rather than ideological. And if they don’t respond to education, they should also be expelled.

— Nadia Whittome MP (@NadiaWhittomeMP) February 18, 2020

So feminist women who are “ideological” in the sense of continuing to think that women … Read the rest

It gets so wearying, watching political figures – people who directly affect our lives in many ways, or who aspire to – mouthing the nonsense as if it were just ordinary fact-based language. The weariness washed over me reading about Rebecca Long-Bailey’s “clarification” in the New Statesman:

Rebecca Long-Bailey’s team has clarified the Labour leadership contender’s position on same-sex spaces and the Equality Act 2010 to the New Statesman following her interview with Andrew Marr yesterday.

Long-Bailey supports reform of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA) to allow for trans people to self-identify as their preferred gender, as do all the candidates for the Labour leadership. Her team has clarified, however, that she would not reform the 2010 Equality

Jo Bartosch writes:

The markers of masculinity and femininity are not ‘inside us’, as internal essences which we express, and then demand that the outside world recognise as our true selves. Rather, gender identities surround us, in the messages, images and expectations we are born and then socialised into, as social animals. We may be born male or female, but we become feminine or masculine.

That. It’s one reason it’s so annoying when people drone on about their inner sense of being the sex they’re not – this clueless, childish lack of awareness of socialization. How can anybody possibly know that her/his “feeling” about something external and factual is 100% internal as opposed to being a product of many … Read the rest

Hopeless.

That’s Julia Long asking the question.

Lisa Nandy says firmly “I believe fundamentally in people’s right to self-ID.”

She doesn’t though. She doesn’t believe in people’s right to self-identify as Lisa Nandy for instance (apart from the few people who really are named Lisa Nandy). She doesn’t believe in people’s right to self-identify as the rightful occupants of her house. She doesn’t believe in people’s right to self-identify as the owners of her car. She doesn’t believe in people’s right to self-identify as the MP for her constituency. She doesn’t believe in people’s right to self-identify as the prime minister, the mayor of London, her doctor, the director general of the UN, her cousins, the head of the … Read the rest

Snerk.

Andrew Sabiski is out.

Andrew Sabisky, who was brought into Downing Street by Johnson’s senior aide Dominic Cummings as part of his appeal for “misfits and weirdos”, became the subject of intense media scrutiny after details emerged of his views on subjects ranging from black people’s IQs to whether benefits claimants should be encouraged to have fewer children.

But amid mounting criticism within the Conservative party after No 10 stood by the appointment, Sabisky said that he would be stepping down as a “contractor” to No 10.

He tweeted: “The media hysteria about my old stuff online is mad but I wanted to help [the government] not be a distraction. Accordingly I’ve decided to resign as a

I guess we’ll have to start paying attention to this Andrew Sabisky fella.

Downing Street has refused to condemn controversial past remarks on pregnancies, eugenics and race reportedly made by a new adviser.

This appears to be why Dawkins was musing aloud about eugenics yesterday, with such stimulating results.

Labour said Andrew Sabisky should be sacked for suggesting black people had lower average IQs than white people and compulsory contraception could prevent “creating a permanent underclass”.

Compulsory contraception for…whom? The parents of the future permanent underclass? How would he know which those were, exactly? Cue Dawkins explaining that it would totally work and we shouldn’t confuse that fact with whether it’s a good idea or not.

Mr Sabisky, appointed

Donald Ayer was a Deputy Attorney General under George Bush 1 and he sees how crooked Barr is. It’s pathetic that Trump’s army pretend they don’t.

Beginning in March with his public whitewashing of Robert Mueller’s report, which included powerful evidence of repeated obstruction of justice by the president, Barr has appeared to function much more as the president’s personal advocate than as an attorney general serving the people and government of the United States. Among the most widely reported and disturbing events have been Barr’s statements that a judicially authorized FBI investigation amounted to “spying” on the Trump campaign, and his public rejection in December of the inspector general’s considered conclusion that the Russia probe was properly initiated

No shit, Sherlock.

If you are angry or think it’s “unfair” for a trans girl to beat a cis girl in a sporting event then fundamentally you don’t think trans girls are “real” girls. It’s that simple.

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) February 17, 2020

That’s right, I don’t think trans girls are girls. I think they’re boys who think they “feel like” girls or feel better thinking of themselves as girls or various other explanations of that kind. I don’t think any of that is the same as literally being a girl. I also don’t think there’s anything surprising or weird in my view on the matter.

I also think there are some “trans girls” who are simply pretending in … Read the rest

Good grief.

The Washington Post suggests that Trump influences people:

Two kindergartners in Utah told a Latino boy that President Trump would send him back to Mexico, and teenagers in Maine sneered “Ban Muslims” at a classmate wearing a hijab. In Tennessee, a group of middle-schoolers linked arms, imitating the president’s proposed border wall as they refused to let nonwhite students pass. In Ohio, another group of middle-schoolers surrounded a mixed-race sixth-grader and, as she confided to her mother, told the girl: “This is Trump country.”

Since Trump’s rise to the nation’s highest office, his inflammatory language — often condemned as racist and xenophobic — has seeped into schools across America. Many bullies now target other children differently than they

Maybe they should just drug them, or lock them up?

News from New Zealand:

Girls who want to wear pants or shorts at a Southland high school have to see a guidance counsellor first.

James Hargest College in Invercargill is in the process of updating its uniform but in the meantime, girls who want to wear unisex pants or shorts must have it cleared by their parents. To do that, they are required to visit a counsellor.

But wearing trousers is just…wearing trousers. I do it every day without any counseling at all.

Principal Andy Wood said the talk with a guidance counsellor first was to make sure they had “thought through the possible reactions of other kids” if

Former DoJ officials issued a statement calling on William Barr to resign.

We, the undersigned, are alumni of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) who have collectively served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Each of us strongly condemns President Trump’s and Attorney General Barr’s interference in the fair administration of justice.

As former DOJ officials, we each proudly took an oath to support and defend our Constitution and faithfully execute the duties of our offices. The very first of these duties is to apply the law equally to all Americans. This obligation flows directly from the Constitution, and it is embedded in countless rules and laws governing the conduct of DOJ lawyers. The Justice Manual — the DOJ’s

If ideological, political, and moral considerations aren't part of how you define whether a social policy "works," you've already gone completely off the rails. https://t.co/kLJ5ZJnuVD

— Angus Johnston (@studentactivism) February 16, 2020

This eugenics crap is so dangerous. In the US it lead to forced sterilizations of women in the South — sometimes against their wills, often without their knowledge — that became so common that they came to be referred to as “Mississippi appendectomies.” https://t.co/TKFQGFc0dL

— Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) February 16, 2020

… Read the rest

Originally a comment by Claire on It would totally work.

The only way to do it is to emulate how we breed animals and plants for specific traits: you have to very carefully select for the traits you want and literally force them to breed. People wouldn’t have any choice on who to breed with or indeed whether to breed at all. And any inferior offspring would be killed. It’s even more dystopian than Brave New World.

Anyway, electing for high intelligence would probably be in contradiction to docility. In authoritarian regimes, killing off the intellectuals is fundamental for a reason. You can’t have a docile herd without it. And we are not naturally herd animals, whereas most domesticated … Read the rest

I saw that “Dawkins” was trending on Twitter so I had to look.

It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) February 16, 2020

But what is meant by “work” here? What is the “eu” in “eugenics”? What kind of “eu” are we talking about? What “facts” are we invoking?

He didn’t say. The tweet just stands alone, with nothing leading up to it and no elaboration following it. He did later respond to the fact that people … Read the rest