Ah yes, that’s the way to get around environmental laws and restrictions: define harm very narrowly.

The Trump administration is proposing to significantly limit the Endangered Species Act’s power to preserve crucial habitats by changing the definition of one word: harm.

On Wednesday, the administration proposed a rule change that would essentially prohibit only actions that directly hurt or kill actual animals, not the habitats they rely on. If finalized, the change could make it easier to log, mine and build on lands that endangered species need to thrive.

And the species would disappear. They would all be gone, you see, so nobody would be harmed.

Under the Endangered Species Act, it’s illegal to “take” an endangered species. By law, “take” is defined to mean actions that harass, harm, or kill species. For decades, federal agencies have interpreted “harm” broadly, to include actions that modify or degrade habitats in ways that impair endangered species’ ability to feed, breed or find shelter.

That interpretation has been a crucial part of how the Endangered Species Act has protected over 1,700 species since its passage in 1973, said Hartl. It’s helped preserve spawning grounds for Atlantic sturgeon, allowing them to mate and sustain the population. It has protected old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest that house northern spotted owls, saving them from extinction.

In the 1990s, timber companies that wanted to harvest those old-growth forests challenged the government’s broad interpretation of harm. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld that interpretation in a 6-3 decision.

But this is not the 1990s and this Supreme Court is not that Supreme Court. Bye bye endangered species – we’ll keep plenty of photos of you.

Willoughby is busy demonstrating what a healthy, fair-minded, generous ideology Trans Dogma really is.

Remember when he objected with the same energy to trans women in the police body-searching women? No, neither do I.

Oh dear, trans ideology chalks up another loss, how sad, never mind.

A trans woman who complained to police about social media posts made by a “gender critical” man has lost a High Court challenge of the force’s decision to take no further action against him.

Lynsay Watson complained to Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in February 2023, about more than 15 posts made on X by Stuart Campbell related to the murder of teenager Brianna Ghey, who was also transgender, that month.

Mr Campbell, who was described by his lawyers as “gender critical” or a “biological realist”, said Brianna was a “trans-identifying boy”, adding: “Human beings can’t change sex. Being murdered doesn’t alter that.”

Imagine complaining to the police about that.

The judge said: “(GMP) was entitled, and correct, to conclude that posts did not cross the threshold to be considered objectively ‘grossly offensive’.” She continued: “The defendant’s conclusion properly reflected society’s fundamental values of free speech, including the need for tolerance of statements and opinions that some might find offensive or upsetting.” She added: “(GMP) was justified, and right, in concluding that to proceed further with the investigation was not appropriate.”

Especially when the statements and opinions at issue were not being shouted into Lynsay Watson’s face in a threatening bullying manner – they were just sentences on social media.

Kathleen Stock credits For Women Scotland:

Thanks to the tenacity of grassroots organisation For Women Scotland in fighting several cases through the courts, judges at the highest level have now clarified that a man — with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) — does not belong in any woman-only prison, hospital ward, dormitory, rape crisis service, or changing room. If trans-identified, he is rightly shielded from discrimination and harassment under the protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” but not those of “female” or “lesbian”. This classification also means that, if he’s a medical professional, he is not allowed to provide intimate care to unwilling women on the spurious grounds that he, too, is female. As a police or prison officer, he may not carry out strip searches of his “fellow women” either. His presence in the upper echelons of a workplace does not count towards feminist empowerment there. His athletic personal bests can no longer break female records, nor his football and rugby tackles break female bones.

And he doesn’t get to crash lesbian groups either.

…another big problem for transactivist campaigners was the restricted arsenal of argumentative weapons at their disposal. They couldn’t rely on reason or evidence as these concepts are commonly understood, because no good arguments for transubstantiation by means of lip gloss existed. This left only three options: intellectual misdirection, emotional blackmail, and aggressively shaming opponents into silence.

Ah yes. The ideology and the “activism” are so aggressive and obnoxious because aggression and rudeness are the only tools they have.

Equally, as time passed, it became increasingly difficult to maintain heartrending fictions about the unique vulnerability of the trans-identified cohort as a whole. Over and over again, men claiming womanhood kept featuring as perpetrators in court reports. So that left only the tactic of terrifying critics into silence. We on the gender-critical and sex-realist side were called harpies, transphobes, bigots, Christian nationalists, National Socialists, and white supremacists; and that was just by Guardian writers.

When you don’t have the arguments, bullying and abuse are all that’s left.

So, while the other side most definitely had all the gender identities, our side had more tangible assets in the shape of brains, guts, and heart. Given the damage done by Sturgeon to the cause of women and girls north of the border, it is fitting that the biggest victory in the gender wars should belong to members of that esteemed company, the women who wouldn’t wheesht. In the former First Minister, we are given a perfect encapsulation of the tongue-clucking, eye-rolling, mostly performative feminist attitude favoured by women in the progressive establishment. But thanks to For Women Scotland and their many grassroots allies, we have been given the real thing.

Indeed – THANKS TO FOR WOMEN SCOTLAND. MASSIVE EXUBERANT THANKS.

Jolyon Maugham pretends trans ideology is like Freedom Summer. And what? India Willoughby is another James Chaney?

Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on Return of pearls and handbags.

I’m a man myself, and if I were a woman, I wouldn’t feel safe around men either. If the election of the pussygrabber, the rise of the manosphere, the sheer magnitude of the inherently misogynistic porn industry etc. should have taught us any lessons, it’s that male predatory attitudes, as well as general hate and contempt towards women, are not ”fringe”.

One of the mixed “blessings” of growing up male is that – unless you’re going to spend your life in a sealed box – you can hardly avoid being exposed to vast amounts of misogynistic “locker-room” talk from other “boy-men” who seem to take for granted that you’re going to find their “banter” totally awesome. Why do they think that? Probably because their behavior has resulted in far more social reward than pushback from their male peers.

The heroes of the action movies that were popular when I grew up were almost without exception misogynists, and many of them were predators. And remember, these were the guys we were supposed to find totally cool And, as I have previously mentioned, the lyrics of much of the rock music I grew up listening to might as well have been written by a serial rapist, and as a matter of fact many of them probably were. It didn’t stop fans by the hundreds of thousands from cheering as if it were the coolest thing ever. From what I have gathered things are not much better in the hiphop and rap scenes.

I can only conclude that women have to have nerves of steel to ever risk the company of any man, knowing that such a large proportion of them are fully on board with all this crap. Feminists (the real kind, not the “for men” kind) are often accused of misandry, so let me set this straight right away. They’re not misandrists. And I should know: I’m a misandrist, and the feminists all disagree with me.

Aaaaand the retrofitting begins.

Just one bit of added context…

CNN nervously reports:

The United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that the legal definition of “woman” excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality laws are applied.

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in equality legislation refers to “a biological woman and biological sex,” sparking celebrations outside court among gender-critical campaigners but warnings it was a “worrying” development for transgender people.

The case centered on whether trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) – which offers legal recognition of someone’s female sex – are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation’s Equality Act 2010.

It still, after all this time, seems absurd that we have to argue over the idea that a certificate should have the ability to override physical sex. There are some things that certificates can’t change. Quite a lot of things, actually.

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” a summary of the ruling said, which added that transgender women could be excluded from same-sex facilities such as changing rooms if “proportionate.”

Would and does and has for years been cutting across the definitions of woman and man. Cutting across them and making an incoherent mess of them.

The justice insisted that the court’s interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 “does not remove protection from trans people,” with or without a GRC document. A trans woman could claim discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, and because “she is perceived to be a woman,” added Hodge.

So a trans woman gets to count twice, eh? So trans women still get extras. How ridiculous.

Britain’s government “has always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex,” a spokesperson said, following the ruling.

Has it? Really? Then what’s the Sandie Peggie-“Beth” Upton case all about? Why is Sandie Peggie being brutally persecuted for wanting “Beth” Upton to get out of the women’s changing room? Why hasn’t the government protected single spaces there?

Trans activists across the globe warn that the fierce public debate over their private lives has chipped away at protection for the marginalized and regularly vilified community in recent years.

But it’s not over their private lives. That’s exactly what it’s not. We don’t give a good god damn about their private lives; we object to their intrusions on our lives.

Helen Webberley is astounding.

And if that’s not enough –

Official.

Colin Montgomerie is confused.

Same with “equality”. Being labeled or recognized or endorsed as something you’re not has nothing to do with equality.

Also there’s his dimwitted question about an appeal. Onlookers are wondering if he grasps the meaning of “Supreme” in “Supreme Court”.

Thoughts and prayers, Joly.

Oh my – I’m seeing headlines.

NYT: UK Supreme Court Says Legal Definition of Women Does Not Include Trans Women

BBC: Supreme Court backs ‘biological definition’ of woman

The Independent: Trans women are not legally women under the Equality Act, Supreme Court rules

CNN: UK Supreme Court says legal definition of ‘woman’ excludes trans women, in landmark ruling

!!!!!!!!!!

Mother Jones is way into trans ideology.

Three months into President Donald Trump’s second administration, anti-trans hatred has become inescapable for families like Kai’s, even in more liberal states like Connecticut. Parents—many of whom have spent years learning, advocating, and finding ways for their trans or nonbinary child to thrive—say their lives have been upended by a series of executive orders and actions targeting their children’s health care and support at school.

The actions from just the first week of April, gives an idea of the flurry of attacks. On April 4th, the pro-wrestling-executive turned-Education Secretary Linda McMahon launched a Special Investigations Team focused on keeping transgender girls out of girls’ school bathrooms and off of girls’ sports teams.

So…it’s bad to keep boys out of girls’ school bathrooms and off girls’ sports teams?

Are we sure about that? Could we maybe pause for just a minute to think about it? Could we not possibly help kids who are unhappy about being male or female without harming girls? Could we not manage to remember for a single second that letting boys play against girls is in fact not fair to the girls?

And in a proclamation recognizing April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, Trump declared that “gender ideology”—an empty signifier for anything related to trans people—was “one of the most prevalent forms of child abuse facing our country today.”

Stop right there, assholes. Much as I loathe Trump, “gender ideology” is far from an empty signifier. You buffoons are purveying it right here in this pathetic reporting. It is indeed an ideology to think and teach that unhappiness with one’s sex equals being the other sex. It does require an ideological bridge to leap from “My kid hates being a boy” to “my kid gets to play on the girls’ teams, thus ruining the girls’ sports.” It does take an ideology to be that coldly indifferent to the wants and needs of the female half of the population.

“Lily” Contino – the guy who makes videos of himself in restaurants picking fights with wait staff who fail to tell him what a pretty girl he is – thinks the fact that a large croissant is a croissant=a man is a woman. Yes really: that’s his argument.

Also, he pronounces it wrong. Completely utterly wrong. Just call it a pastry if you can’t manage the French “croiss” sound or even the French “ant” sound.

Or to put it another way –

Amnesty intensifies its campaign against women.

AMNESTY International has warned against “dangerous misinformation” ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. 

The court is due to issue its judgement next week on how a woman should be defined in law. It is part of a court challenge brought by For Women Scotland (FWS) against the Scottish Government. 

FWS say sex-based protections should not apply to transgender people with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), while the Scottish Government argues they should be included.

As always, the reporting carefully hides the fact that the issue is men with a GRC, not “people” with a GRC. As always, the reporting goes to absurd lengths to muddy the waters, making their own story incomprehensible.

Amnesty International has intervened ahead of the expected ruling being handed down in London on April 16. 

In a statement, Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive at Amnesty International UK, said: “Amnesty wishes to highlight the amount of dangerous misinformation that remains around this case, as an eye-watering amount of time is spent by commentators berating trans people – who make up just 1% of the population.”

Sacha Deshmukh also hides the real issue, also pretends the issue is trans “people” when it’s men who claim to be women. It’s not trans people in general, it’s not trans people as such, it’s men. She knows that of course, but she carefully hides it.

Why would they hide it?

Because they know it’s anti-women, and they want to do it anyway.

Originally a comment by Holms on Speaking of “dangerous misinformation”.

…an eye-watering amount of time is spent by commentators berating trans people – who make up just 1% of the population.

Here’s another of the routine mistakes, or lies by framing. The reason there is so much attention on trans people is not because we recently became afflicted with hatred or fear of them, it is because trans people, or more importantly their political cause, gained a large amount of political traction in the last ten years or so. Consider the political state things in the 90’s – barely any attention was spent on the cause of trans people because it had no real visibility. The thing that changed was not a sudden surge in animosity against that population, but a sudden surge in the success of that political movement.

And the reason we oppose said movement should be obvious: it poses a real and imminent threat to the rights of women and their progress towards parity with men. Granting people a legal instrument by which they can ‘change sex’ – in addition to being an obvious absurdity – undermines demographic data collection and hence the ability to check for trends. Encouraging the idea that woman- or manhood is opt-in directly opposes efforts to fight sex-based crime and oppression. Every trans woman granted a position, award, shortlist position, promotion etc. that was reserved for women has bumped off an actual woman and so undermines efforts to reach parity… and so on.

Our opposition to the trans / gender identity movement seems out of proportion if and only if we are considering in terms of the number of trans people. When we bear in mind the movement attacks the rights and safety of a full 50% of the population, societal opposition is far below where it should be. It should never have seen the light of day, but now that it has, it needs to be quashed.

Obama went to Harvard. Trump did not.