The National Zoo in DC tweets:

Tian Tian woke up this morning to a lot of snow, and he was pretty excited about it. #blizzard2016

 

Tom McTague at the Independent joins the popular chorus of contempt for feminists.

When the Women and Equalities Committee published a report calling for a sea-change in attitudes to transgender people, Maria Miller, the chair of the committee, might have expected to be attacked by right-wingers within her own party.

But, while they were largely silent on the issue, the former Culture secretary said she was taken aback by the “extraordinary” hostility from a minority of women “purporting to be feminists”.

Speaking to The Independent on Sunday from her office in Westminster, Ms Miller insisted that the “overwhelming” reaction to her report has been positive. Despite controversial calls for “gender neutral” passports and for 16-year-olds to be given the legal right to change their sex, there was barely a peep from her more traditional colleagues on the Tory back benches.

Why might that be, do you suppose? Could it be because conservatives are perfectly happy with an ideology that relies on essentialist ideas of “gender identity”? Could it be because conservatives are perfectly happy to see men who are “too girly” solve the problem by identifying as women?

A glance at Ms Miller’s Twitter page shows that the backlash is real. She is accused of exposing women to “violent men hiding behind the mask of transgender”. In another message, she is told trans women are “not real women” and are often “violent offenders or sex offenders” and that she was failing in her duty to protect women.

It follows on from Germaine Greer’s remark that transgender women “can’t be women”, adding: “Just because you lop off your penis … it doesn’t make you a woman.”

No, it doesn’t. Couldn’t the Independent have found someone who knows something about the subject to report on it? It’s got nothing to do with Germaine Greer.

But Ms Miller, wading into the dangerous territory of radical feminist politics, insisted that they are wrong. She pointed to research by the Fawcett Society, a think-tank campaigning for women’s rights, which found that two-thirds of feminists believe gender to be fluid. “Of course, that would cut across what Germaine Greer is saying,” she said.

Sigh. No it wouldn’t. Saying gender is fluid is not the same thing as saying some people assigned male are “really” women and some assigned female are “really” men. It’s pretty much the opposite of that; if not the opposite it’s at least in strong tension with it. If gender is fluid, then males can just be as “feminine” as they like, and females can be as “masculine” as they like. The need to transition melts away.

But that would ruin the fun of attacking feminists, so forget it.

The X-Files is back for a short run. Guess which star was offered half of what the other star was getting.

Hahaha just kidding, nobody can “guess” that because it’s stone-cold obvious. Carolyn Cox at The Mary Sue reports:

When I first saw this story last night, I assumed it had to be fake. Gillian Anderson was already notoriously offered far less than David Duchovny when the X-Files first premiered in 1993, and Anderson has rightfully not been shy about calling Fox out for that wage gap, and for some of the early requirements they had for her character, Dana Scully (that she constantly stand a few feet behind Mulder, for instance).

Oh really? She was supposed to stand back? Because what, the audience would think he’d been castrated if she took up as much space as he did? Because the audience would freak out and die if the woman were not visibly subordinated and made smaller and less important in every shot? Because women have to be seen as smaller and less important at all times no matter what?

But it happened again. Over two decades later. The Daily Beast writes,

The work Anderson put into securing equal pay back in the ’90s seemingly came undone when it came time to negotiate pay for this year’s event series. Once again, Anderson was being offered “half” of what they would pay Duchovny.

Anderson herself explained in an interview with The Daily Beast:

I’m surprised that more [interviewers] haven’t brought that up because it’s the truth. Especially in this climate of women talking about the reality of [unequal pay] in this business, I think it’s important that it gets heard and voiced. It was shocking to me, given all the work that I had done in the past to get us to be paid fairly. I worked really hard toward that and finally got somewhere with it.

Well that’s how it is. Women get somewhere and then the next year it’s all grabbed back again.

More news from the Malheur invasion:

On Friday, Ammon Bundy met briefly with a federal agent as authorities attempt to resolve the three-week old standoff over federal land policies, but Bundy left because the agent wouldn’t talk with him in front of the media.

The short meeting occurred as Oregon officials are putting increased pressure on federal authorities to take action against Bundy’s group.

On Thursday, Bundy went to the airport in Burns, where the FBI has set up a staging area, and spoke to an FBI negotiator over the phone. They agreed to speak again Friday, but Bundy left the airport shortly after he arrived because the FBI agent he spoke with said federal authorities wanted any conversation to be private.

Bundy wants face-to-face conversations in front of reporters. “I really don’t think, at this point, even having another phone conversation here without him would be beneficial,” Bundy said before leaving Friday.

Best thing ever.

H/t Josh Spokes

Have some Bach for a Friday afternoon.

Outsports has a scoop on the transgender guidelines the International Olympic Committee is expected to adopt before the Summer Olympics later this year.

The guidelines stem from an unpublicized “Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism” the IOC held last November. The guidelines have not yet been distributed by the IOC, but Outsports received the new policy via a trusted source.

The guidelines leave no restriction for a trans man, like triathlete Chris Mosier, to compete against men. Mosier’s participation in the World Duathlon Championships, for which he has qualified, has been in doubt.

…

In addition to opening the door wide for trans men, the new policy removes the need for women to undergo gender-reassignment surgery to compete.

“The waiting period for trans women goes from two years after surgery to one year after the start of HRT,” Harper said. “This matches up with the NCAA rules and is as good as anything. The waiting period was perhaps the most contentious item among our group and one year is a reasonable compromise.”

So what do the guidelines say?

[T]he IOC Consensus Meeting agreed the following guidelines to be
taken into account by sports organisations when determining eligibility to compete in male and female competition:

1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the male category without restriction.

2.   Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the female category under the following conditions:

Wait, that’s interesting. No restrictions for FTM, restrictions for MTF. Why’s that, do you suppose? Well, because males, on average, have a large physical advantage once they go through puberty. They have more muscle mass and larger bones. Females thus have a physical disadvantage. So the guidelines compensate for that how?

2.2.  The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12 months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in women’s competition).

But there’s nothing about the physical advantage. There’s nothing about puberty. There’s nothing about when in her life the athlete lowered her testosterone level.

Once again, the disadvantage to this will fall entirely on girls and women. Trans men won’t be any threat to male sports, but the other way around?

A Kansas state senator issues some Rules for Sluts.

A dress code imposed by a Kansas Senate committee chairman that prohibits women testifying on bills from wearing low-cut necklines and miniskirts is drawing bipartisan ridicule from female legislators.

Sen. Mitch Holmes’ 11-point code of conduct does not include any restrictions on men, who he said needed no instruction on how to look professional, The Topeka Capital-Journal reported.

Sounds kind of like that imam in Cologne, doesn’t he. No half-naked women testifying on bills! Wear an abaya or stay home!

I hope some men show up in bikini underpants and neckties.

Holmes said he considered requiring men to wear suits and ties during testimony but decided males didn’t need any guidance. He expects lobbyists to understand the rules when interacting with his committee, although he acknowledged infrequent visitors to the Statehouse might be unaware.

Males never do need any guidance, do they. It’s only bubblehead women who need to be told how to put their pants on.

Deutsche Welle reports:

A Salafist imam in Cologne has said victims of the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults were partly responsible for the attacks…

In an interview with Russian television channel REN TV, the Cologne imam said the attacks must be discussed “openly.”

“We mustn’t attack each other,” he said, warning that this would only “add fuel to the fire.”

Sami Abu-Yusuf also said one of the reasons why the men raped or assaulted the women was “due to the way they dressed.”

“If they’re half-naked and wearing perfume, it’s not surprising that such things would happen,” Abu-Yusuf said.

Oh I see. It’s as if they were drenched in pepper, and people around them burst into sneezes. It’s not something people can help doing. Exactly the same way, if women go out in public not wearing abayas, it’s not surprising that gangs of men would hold them captive and assault them. It’s the women’s fault, actually.

In a follow-up interview with local Cologne paper “Express,” the 42-year-old imam said his comments about the attacks had been “taken out of context.”

“There were scantily clad women who were wearing perfume as they walked through the drunken crowd. For some North Africans, this was reason to grope the women,” Abu-Yusuf told “Express.”

Yes, we get it. Women who go outside not wearing an abaya have to expect gangs of men to trap them and assault them. The whores.

Canada has declined to give Raif Badawi Canadian citizenship (and the Canadian passport it would make possible).

The Trudeau government says it won’t grant imprisoned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi Canadian citizenship, arguing this would not help the case of a man sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail for blasphemy.

Mr. Badawi’s spouse and their three children were granted sanctuary in Canada last year and now live in Sherbrooke, Que. Ensaf Haidar, speaking to The Globe and Mail last week, said Canada must do more to help her husband and said “the first thing” it could do now is give Mr. Badawi a Canadian passport.

She argued Canadian citizenship would give Ottawa more standing to push for his release.

Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion disagrees. Speaking after a cabinet retreat in southwestern New Brunswick Tuesday, he said he doesn’t believe Canadian citizenship would improve Mr. Badawi’s situation.

Why not do it anyway, because it might?

Granting Ms. Haidar’s request could complicate Canada’s relations with Saudi Arabia and jeopardize a $15-billion deal to sell weaponized armoured vehicles to Riyadh over 14 years.

Oh. That’s why not. Because they would rather sell weaponized armoured vehicles to that horrible blot of a government.

Canadian citizenship could give Canada more leverage to keep tabs on Mr. Badawi.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper used to say that Canada’s influence in Mr. Badawi’s case was limited because the writer was not a Canadian citizen.

…

Alex Neve, secretary-general of Amnesty International Canada, has said a Canadian passport could help.

“Amnesty International continues to urge the Canadian government to explore all possible strategies for securing Mr. Badawi’s release, allowing him to reunite with his family in Canada. A grant of citizenship, further to his wife Ensaf Haidar’s request, could boost the effectiveness of Canada’s pleas on his behalf.”

And say goodbye to $15 billion? Don’t be silly.

Mr. Trudeau is being advised in briefing books to strengthen economic ties with Saudi Arabia because it would be good for business and Riyadh is an influential regional power.

So just never mind its disgusting human rights record, its way of abusing foreign domestic workers, its unrelenting hatred of women, its passion for beheading people, its efforts to silence critics…

This is unsurprising, but it makes me sick. An example of women being deliberately deleted from a cultural product on the grounds that boys hate girls.

According to an industry insider, the dearth of Rey merchandise for The Force Awakens was no accident — it was an intentional decision.

The inside source shared their story with Michael Boehm at Sweatpants and Coffee, speaking on the condition of anonymity…

The source alleges that, during toy pitches held last January for executives, “initial versions of many of the products presented to Lucasfilm featured Rey prominently.” But under the direction of the executives, Rey’s presence was deliberately minimized in the planned merchandise.

“One or more individuals raised concerns about the presence of female characters in the Star Wars products,” Boehm reports. “Eventually, the product vendors were specifically directed to exclude the Rey character from all Star Wars-related merchandise.”

Allegedly, the industry insider was told, “No boy wants to be given a product with a female character on it.”

It’s not at all new or unusual, but it infuriates me. We need to fix this loathing of all things female, not encourage it and defer to it and empty the world of women because of it. Boys hate girl cooties because of all this constant relentless endless teaching, and so we get more and more movies with five or ten men doing something and women nowhere to be seen.

“Diminishing of girl characters is common in the industry,” the anonymous source relates. “Power Rangers asked us to do it. Paw Patrol, too.” Allegedly, this philosophy has developed into a solid mandate in the toy industry to “maintain the sharp boy/girl product division” and “marginalize girl characters in items not specifically marketed as girl-oriented.”

But the extreme cultural impact of Star Wars, coupled with Rey’s inarguable prominence in The Force Awakens, has thrust the question of “Where’s Rey?” (and its corresponding hashtag) into the spotlight. Most notably, Hasbro was recently compelled to reassure fans that the movie’s main character would be included in an upcoming Monopoly set.

Much as they wish they could omit her.

For far too long, fans searching for merchandise of their favorite female characters have been told that the onus is on their wallets. “Buy the toys that are out there,” the message has echoed, even as fans scour the unyielding shelves for a green-skinned assassin, a black-clad Avenger — and now a fearless young woman who hums with the power of the Force.

It is time to reverse the conversation. Toy and merchandise companies muststop taking a character’s gender into consideration when including them in products. Put Gamora with the rest of the Guardians. Leave Black Widow on her motorcycle. And when Star Wars: Episode VIII finally arrives, don’t make us ask “Where’s Rey?”

This isn’t Saudi Arabia, after all. Wake up.

CFI sent out a press release today:

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science to Merge with Center for Inquiry

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science and the Center for Inquiry, two of the world’s most respected freethought institutions, have announced their intent to merge. The new organization, which will be the largest secularist organization in the United States, will bear the name of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science (RDFRS) becoming a division of CFI.

Robyn Blumner, currently president & CEO of RDFRS, will become CEO of the combined entity on January 25. Ronald A. Lindsay, currently president & CEO of CFI, will retain the title of president until the merger is complete, and will work closely with Blumner during the transition period. Previous to leading RDFRS, Blumner was a syndicated columnist for the Tampa Bay Times and led two statewide affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Richard Dawkins, founder and chair of RDFRS, will become a member of the CFI board of directors along with the other directors of RDFRS once the merger is complete.

CFI and RDFRS plan to begin unified operations immediately, although the merger will not become final until later this spring, after necessary legal filings and regulatory approval.

The merged organization will be the largest in the United States with a mission of promoting secularism and science, with an annual budget in excess of $6 million and a staff of about 45 employees.

I knew about the merger, but I didn’t know Blumner would be the CEO and I didn’t know Dawkins would be on the board.

I’m seeing a lot of hostile responses to the news on Facebook, and not many friendly ones.

I think the merger is unfortunate. Five years ago I wouldn’t have, but now I do. In the interim Dawkins discovered Twitter, and the result has been unpleasant. I think CFI is better than that, and it makes me sad that now CFI is linked to Dawkins and his daily outbursts on Twitter.

“I am very pleased that my foundation is about to join forces with the Center for Inquiry,” said Richard Dawkins. “CFI is the biggest player in the secular / non-religious / skeptical world, and I like to hope that RDFRS will have something to add to its already flourishing enterprise. In turn, among our projects which will benefit from a larger team of professionals are Openly Secular and the Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science (TIES). I look forward to adding my voice to CFI’s focus on promoting secular humanism and fighting the proliferation of pseudoscience. I am also especially delighted that Robyn Blumner, the present CEO of RDFRS, is to become the President and CEO of the whole organisation. Ron Lindsay is truly (forgive the cliché) a hard act to follow. If anyone can do it, Robyn can.”

I don’t look forward to Dawkins’s adding his voice to CFI’s focus on promoting secular humanism, because I think he’s seriously and damagingly bad at the humanist part. To be specific, I think he’s way too quick to display his contempt for people who get things wrong, and all too often for people who simply say things he dislikes – especially feminists. I think that’s a bad look for CFI.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it will work out well. But I’m not optimistic.

A pretty story from Inside Higher Ed:

Is there a backlash to the backlash against sexual harassment in astronomy? A group calling itself the Astronomy Underground sent an open letter to leaders of the American Astronomical Society on Tuesday alleging inappropriate, vigilante-style attempts to root out harassers in the discipline.

“We ask [the American Astronomical Society] Council and the [society’s Astronomy Education Board] to publicly explain how these actions have been allowed to occur for so long, and with what license [the society] has acted to investigate its members, damaging their careers, their personal lives and the health of the society in the process,” reads the letter.

The Astronomy Underground alleges that the society is somehow involved in such inquiries, and demands that it publicly explain how it intends to “1) repair the damage done to those who have been ‘investigated’ under the [society’s] name, 2) redirect the astronomy experience for our youngest members who have now spent their entire careers focused on these matters rather than on the science and 3) repair the reputation of astronomy on the national landscape, for the purposes of future recruitment and funding.”

Repair the reputation of astronomy by continuing to ignore sexual harassment? Brilliant plan, highly ethical, can’t possibly go wrong.

The letter follows several recent high-profile cases in which known harassers have been named and shamed by their peers and, in one case, by a U.S. congresswoman. In October, Geoff Marcy stepped down from his professorship in astronomy at the University of California at Berkeley after a series of news reports revealed that he’d been harassing women for years on multiple campuses. Many criticized Berkeley’s response to its own investigation — to warn Marcy not to repeat the behavior, or risk dismissal, rather than move to fire him immediately — and called the public pressure campaign leading up to his resignation a success.

A success if you want sexual harassment to stop. If you want it to continue, well then obviously it’s a disaster.

In further news from Pakistan…

After a Pakistani boy cut off his own hand following a public accusation of blasphemy, BBC Urdu’s Iram Abbasi travelled to his village in Punjab province to find out what happened. She is the first international broadcaster to speak to him. Some readers may find the details that follow disturbing.

“Why should I feel any pain or trouble in cutting off the hand that was raised against the Holy Prophet?”

Those are the words of 15-year-old Qaiser (not his real name) who chopped off his right hand just a few days ago believing he had committed blasphemy.

Why? Because he was at a birthday party for the prophet at his local mosque, and a few hours into the party the cleric called for a show of hands from followers of Mo. The expected result was achieved. Then he asked for a show of hands from scoundrels who don’t believe Mo’s teachings. Qaiser misheard what the cleric said, and raised his hand. The cleric of course accused him of blasphemy. Naturally Qaiser went home and cut his hand off.

The Beeb has a picture of him with his bandaged stump.

He’s happy about it, or at least says he is.

“I didn’t feel any pain when I chopped it off so why would I feel any now? The hand that commits blasphemy should be chopped off,” he said, with a restrained smile.

His entire village is celebrating the act of expiation. The extreme nature of this “devotional” act has made Qaiser into a revered figure.

If he hadn’t done it? The village probably would have killed him.

That Qaiser punished himself so severely after being accused of blasphemy is unprecedented in Pakistan. But some say he may have been spared a worse fate in an increasingly conservative country, where people accused of blasphemy, or those who defend them, can end up victims of mob violence and lynching.

Allahu an evil piece of shit.

Gulalai Ismail on Facebook:

Looking at this young guy Sajjad Anjum who lost his life in today’s terrorist attack in Bacha Khan University, I wonder how come our media and state institutes were calling it “a successful operation” and “enemy couldn’t achieve its objectives”. 20 other such lives were lost today, and 20 isn’t just a figure. It’s 20 lives like him, it’s 20 families. They didn’t deserve to die at this young age.

Sajjad Anjum

The BBC:

Security forces have ended a gun and bomb attack on a university in north-west Pakistan in which 19 people were killed and 17 injured.

Four suspected attackers also died in a battle that lasted nearly three hours at Bacha Khan University in Charsadda.

One Pakistani Taliban commander said the group had carried out the assault, but its main spokesman denied this.

Someone should claim it. If people don’t know who did it, how can they submit to the demands?

One student told television reporters he was in class when he heard gunshots: “We saw three terrorists shouting, ‘God is great!’ and rushing towards the stairs of our department.

“One student jumped out of the classroom through the window. We never saw him get up.”

Reports say a chemistry lecturer, named by media as Syed Hamid Husain, shot back at the gunmen to allow his students to flee, before he was killed.

Well at least they shouted “Allahu akbar,” so I guess that’s enough of a demand to be going on with. Be more submissive to Allah would be the gist of it, so the targets can try that, pending further information.

The BBC’s M Ilyas Khan has some analysis at the end of the story.

There have been conflicting claims about who could be involved in the attack, a sign of the kaleidoscopic mix of militant networks evolving along the Pakistan-Afghan border region in the north.

The attack comes amid a sudden spike in militant violence in Pakistan, after a year of relative peace and quiet largely attributed to a 2014 military operation against militant sanctuaries in Waziristan. Questions are now being raised over whether that operation really destroyed the ability of militants to regroup and strike at will.

Well it’s like the Paris massacres, and the one in San Bernardino. Most targets are soft targets, and there’s no way to change that without an unimaginable and unaffordable level of militarization. It would be nice if people would just stop wanting to murder random others to make a point.

About 3,000 students are enrolled at Bacha Khan, but hundreds of visitors were also expected on Wednesday for a poetry event.

There is a symbolic value attached to Bacha Khan University as it is named after a Pashtun nationalist leader who believed in non-violent struggle, says BBC Urdu’s Asad Ali Chaudry.

The title of Wednesday’s poetry programme in his honour was “peace”, he adds.

So much for that idea.

…what??

Pink News:

A proposal to add mothers’ names to marriage certificates has been rejected for excluding gay couples.

The proposal had intended to include mothers’ names on marriage certificates, in a bid to “reflect modern Britain”.

The certificates currently only ask for the name of each spouse’s father. The new proposals are intended to include mothers on equal footing to fathers.

However the Home Office has rejected the plans, saying it could not agree to them as assuming that couples have opposite-sex parents is exclusionary.

So…it’s fine to name only fathers, but it’s impermissible to mention mothers. Well what if the parents are a lesbian couple?

Then you put the father’s name, just as it is now. Everybody has a father, duh, even if the father has had nothing to do with actually raising the child. Not everyone has a mother.

A Bill will be debated in Parliament next month would make changes to the Marriage Act 1949 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

It would “make provision for the recording of the name and occupation of the mother of each party to a marriage or civil partnership for registration purposes”.

Labour MP Christina Rees, who proposed the legislation, said: “It is safe to extrapolate that hundreds of thousands of marriages have taken place while the Government failed to act.

“That is hundreds of thousands of instances in which women have been accorded second-class status. In a developed country in the 21st century that beggars belief.”

Another MP who also supports the campaign to have the change made, said: “On behalf of ordinary, average, not brilliant, fantastic mothers everywhere, I want to say that sometimes our children love us too and might want us on their marriage certificates, along with their fathers.”

Stupid cishet cows. Nobody cares about mothers, ffs, it’s fathers who count. Those MPs are probably TERFs.