That “almost” is quite a good joke.
It makes sense in their terms though, because their terms are:
No.
That’s all. It’s just No. The libertarian No, the tantrumming child No, the nihilist No. No you can’t put restrictions on us No you can’t make us get vaccinated No you can’t tell us this is a real virus No you can’t call this a pandemic No you can’t act to end the pandemic. No no no.
This is a very interesting thread.
But maybe they’re not right. A 4000 percent rise would seem to hint that they’re not, because how could there be such a steep rise in the absence of any cultural influence? Where were all these cases 20 years ago?
Possibly we should think carefully about it instead of just shouting slogans.
The Heritage Foundation says it’s all lies lies lies about the Georgia voter bill.
Myth 2: The Georgia law eliminates voting opportunities in order to suppress African American votes.
The Truth: The law makes no distinctions based on race.
It doesn’t have to, does it. The vote suppressors have become more sophisticated about it. The goal is not so much to suppress African American votes specifically (although that’s for sure a bonus) but to suppress non-Republican votes. The goal is to make it impossible for Democrats to win, and the path to that result is to make voting logistically far more difficult. It looks neutral on its face, unless you think about it for 5 seconds, and it avoids the embarrassing spelling out of things like “poor” and “working class” and “not-white.”
In a country with better provisions for people who don’t have much money – better public transportation, better income support, national health insurance for all, better child care facilities – the Make Voting More Difficult ploy wouldn’t work so well. People without much money would nevertheless be able to get to a voting place, leave the kids in reliable care, take a couple of hours off work. In this country though it works a treat: any logistical hurdle at all will eliminate the votes of a lot of people at the bottom of the ladder, with their nasty unclean Democratic voting habits.
Global deaths from the pandemic:
The number of people who have died worldwide in the Covid-19 pandemic has surpassed three million, according to Johns Hopkins University.
The milestone comes the day after the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) warned the world was “approaching the highest rate of infection” so far.
India – experiencing a second wave – recorded more than 230,000 new cases on Saturday alone.
Almost 140 million cases have been recorded since the pandemic began.
WHO chief Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned on Friday that “cases and deaths are continuing to increase at worrying rates”. He added that “globally, the number of new cases per week has nearly doubled over the past two months”.
Not good.
Rape suspects are able to self-identify as female, it was revealed after a freedom of information request by a feminist policy think-tank.
Police Scotland said that if a rape or attempted rape was perpetrated by a “male who self-identifies as a woman . . . the male who self-identifies as a woman would be expected to be recorded as a female on relevant police systems.”
Campaigners claim that the position could lead to a “distortion” in society’s understanding of crime and the measures needed to tackle it.
“Campaigners claim” – of course it would lead to a distortion. If you falsify the stats so that it looks as if some (or many or all) rapes are perpetrated by women when actually it’s men who call themselves women (perhaps for this purpose alone) then obviously that’s a distortion.
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland on Friday revoked a series of Trump administration orders that promoted fossil fuel development on public lands and waters, and issued a separate directive that prioritizes climate change in agency decisions.
…
The new orders revoke Trump-era directives that boosted coal, oil and gas leasing on federal lands and promoted what Trump called “energy dominance” in the United States.
Haaland also rescinded a Trump administration order intended to increase oil drilling in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve.
Haaland called the orders by her predecessors, Ryan Zinke and David Bernhardt, “inconsistent with the department’s commitment to protect public health; conserve land, water, and wildlife; and elevate science.”
In fact to do anything other than throw fresh meat to people determined to trash everything for $$$.
More than 25% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions originate on public lands, and Interior has “unrivaled opportunities to restore natural carbon sinks, responsibly deploy clean energy and reduce existing emissions,” said Collin O’Mara, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation.
“Rescinding the previous administration’s orders that encouraged unfettered drilling in ecologically and culturally sensitive areas and establishing a climate task force will help ensure wise management of our natural resources for people and wildlife alike,” O’Mara said.
Better than just tearing it all up without regard for consequences, if you ask me.
To his supporters, he is a “hero” for having taken a public stand against his transgender child’s decision to pursue gender-affirming treatment, even if that stand meant breaching court orders.
On Friday, the one-time crusader sat in a B.C. courtroom, slumped forward in red-coloured jail attire, his head bowed down, as a judge lashed him for “blatantly, wilfully and repeatedly” defying publication bans and said a “strong denunciatory sentence” was required.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen ordered the father, who had pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court earlier in the week, to a six-month jail term — far exceeding what the Crown had recommended — and to make a $30,000 charitable donation.
What an absolute trainwreck.
Facing the possibility of additional jail time, a B.C. father who repeatedly flouted court orders in order to wage a public campaign against his transgender child’s gender-affirming treatment told a judge Wednesday he may have got caught up in the publicity and put his trust in people with ulterior motives.
The court also heard this week from the teenager, who said in a statement his father’s defiance of publication bans left him feeling anxious and terrified he would be outed.
“Over and over private stuff about me was published online because of my dad. I have lost my faith that the courts can protect me. That makes me feel really vulnerable,” he wrote in a victim-impact statement submitted to the court, a copy of which was obtained by the Star.
Ugh god what a nightmare. It’s awful for the kid and awful for the father.
The father, who cannot be identified due to a publication ban, pleaded guilty Tuesday to criminal contempt of court, avoiding a trial. The Crown recommended a sentence of 45 days in jail, plus 18 months probation, with credit for the time he had already served.
But B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen said Wednesday he was leaning toward a heftier sentence based on the father’s conduct.
Well at least he didn’t sentence the father to a firing squad.
The contempt-of-court case comes at a time when the debate over parental rights and medical decisions involving transgender children appears to be ratcheting up.
Yes, because deciding that children are “transgender” and need amputations and/or cross-sex hormones and/or puberty blockers is not like deciding they need to floss their teeth.
The B.C. case started in 2018 as a family dispute when the father went to court in a bid to block a decision by his then 14-year-old — who was assigned female at birth but identifies as male and has the support of his mother — to pursue gender-affirming testosterone hormone therapy.
But what if “gender-affirming” is meaningless jargon? What if the issue here is letting 14-year-olds get irreversible changes to their bodies that they could well come to regret when they get older and develop better judgement? What then?
The case made it to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which reaffirmed in January 2020 the right of the child to make his own health decisions under the B.C. Infants Act, noting that a medical team had assessed him to be “sufficiently mature” and that “no further consent” from his parents was required.
While acknowledging the right of the father to express his views to his child, the appeal court also found that the father’s refusal to accept his child’s chosen gender and identity was “disrespectful” and “hurtful” and the manner in which he aired his concerns in online forums was “irresponsible.”
Now, if the child had claimed to be a shark or a grasshopper or a cruise ship, the court perhaps would have seen the father’s point, but since we’re talking about Sacred Gender, skepticism and disbelief are not allowed.
The father testified that when he reviewed the medical consent form signed by his child, he became concerned by all the potential effects the hormone therapy could have on his child’s body.
“I’m saying wait until you’re 18 … so your body can handle these medical procedures,” he said.
“I’ve never seen this — honestly — as a transgender issue. It has always been about the medical implications of what would be the result of my child doing this at a young age.”
Which is something a parent ought to be doing, you would think.
H/t Screechy Monkey
Originally a comment by latsot on That’s sense?
This is what I was trying to say in a recent thread. We’ve lost the ability to stick to the argument. The trans ‘movement’ is incredibly distracting and it’s almost impossible to get through a rebuttal of a single argument without being deflected by a new articulated lorryload of insanity hitting you amidships.
Far be it for me to tell people how to activist. I tried that in the olden gnu atheist times and look how that worked out. I can’t even get through a single paragraph without mixing a metaphor, nobody should be listening to me. I mean, “amidships”? Where the fuck did that come from?
But having said all that, what we all need to do is focus a lot more on what we cannot concede. Unapologetically. Irreverently. Rudely. Belligerently. Like a bellicose giant, to steal a phrase from Dawkins. Like people, what is more, who will not take any shit.
I know all of us around here are brilliantly cross and argumentative already, it’s what I love about this place. And the message here could not be clearer: men are not women, women are not men, what the fuck is this non-binary bullshit anyway? But we’re all in danger of losing focus when we argue because of the distracting gew-gaws of fuckbuggery I mentioned before. This is why I miss the brilliant Helen Staniland on Twitter. She was absolutely focused on one particular issue, usually phrased as the question you’ll all be familiar with. No matter what nonsense came her way, she found an entertaining route back to that question. Very effective, that’s why She Had To Go. Me, I’m all over the fucking place, but I learned a lot from Helen. Focus like a laser on your bottom line, on the thing you’re not willing to concede, and your enemies will scamper about it like cats.
You see? Even I can do metaphors when I really try.
In other words, framing (sorry) is important. This is not an argument about rights. Nobody’s rights are in danger. This is because trans people have all the rights the rest of us have anyway and we are absolutely unwilling and unable to compromise on the existing rights of women and homosexuals. We won’t do it. It won’t happen. That’s not the argument and it never has been and never could be, but it’s horrifyingly easy to be sidetracked into arguments about rights anyway.
The argument has to be about what we can concede, and it turns out it’s loads of stuff. We can stop judging the gender non-conforming (come on, even we who consider ourselves more enlightened do it a bit, we can admit it and we can try to stop doing it). We can fight more for acceptance of the gender non-conforming: upset at events where drag queens read to children because of the grotesque and harmful caricature of ‘femininity’ and non-conformance on display? I am, I’m fucking furious about it. But what I do is complain about it instead of setting up more positive events about gender non-conformity.
What I’m saying is that’s the kind of concession we need to make; to be as open to doing things that help people who are lost as we are resolute in not giving up rights and language and free speech. I think we are, but we are easily sidetracked into debates about rights because we are somewhat logical beings who care a great deal about truth. And because we are emotional beings who care a great deal about injustice. We’re easy – in other words – to manipulate.
As I’ve said before, negotiation is about creating options, not about giving away things we don’t want to give away in exchange for not being beaten with a pink baseball bat. Come at me with the bat, trans activists. Come at me. It will not work out well for you and I will not budge one inch. But I will happily work with you and your many, many other enemies to help de-marginalise the non-conforming. I’ll move heaven and fucking earth for that.
Now…. why won’t you work with me to do that, trans activists? It’s a question worthy of Helen.
To do voter suppression effectively you have to be a little bit subtle.
Georgia has a long history of racial inequity at the ballot box. Voters wait an average of just six minutes in line after 7pm in precincts where 90% of residents are white. But when 90% of voters are Black? The wait soars to 51 minutes.
And if you think that’s just happenstance, I have a Greenland to sell you.
Between 2012 and 2018, Georgia shuttered 8% of all precincts statewide, and moved 40% of them. According to a study by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the combination of fewer precincts and longer commutes could have kept as many as 85,000 people from casting a ballot in 2018. This disproportionately burdened Black voters, who were 20% less likely to make it to the polls as a result.
Because that’s the whole point. If you tinker with the voting system in such a way that voting is more difficult and less convenient, who is going to be more burdened? People with lots of resources (aka the rich) or people with fewer (aka the poor)? Who is more likely to be rich in Georgia and who is more likely to be poor?
Now Georgia’s GOP legislature has enacted another 92 pages of voting restrictions and regulations that will make voting much more complicated and burdensome. It’s harder to register to vote. It’s more difficult to get a ballot. And it will be tougher to cast it.
Now this will mean that some white people will also be burdened, and that some black people won’t – but overall it’s pretty solidly racist, so booya Georgia’s Republicans, clever wheeze.
The supporters of these provisions suggest that they are necessary because of widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election – a baseless assertion for which they are unable to provide any evidence. Or they suggest that they’re needed to restore faith, especially among Republicans, in the legitimacy of our elections. This is especially convoluted, since nothing has done more to damage that sense than month after month of these unfounded “fraud” allegations.
It’s another genius wheeze. Spend months screaming lies about voter fraud, and then impose a lot of restrictions on voting to address this fictional “voter fraud.” The Duke and the Dauphin are running everything.
Those who want to keep people from voting can’t rely on fire hoses or crude Jim Crow tactics like poll taxes and literacy tests any longer. They need to modernize Jim Crow, so that he becomes Dr James Crow, a specialist in statistics, expert at layering traps for Black voters while pretending they’re race neutral. Then they raise the barriers for Black voters and other communities of color by demanding the particular forms of ID lawmakers know they’re least likely to have, or assign more voters and fewer machines to some precincts, generating lines just a little bit longer, perhaps carefully positioning other voting centers a few miles away, maybe just too far for convenient public transportation. The intent and the effect are the same: creating restrictions that keep Black voters away from the polls.
And they’re doing it in broad daylight.
Well it would do something to make women safer so…nah.
The government is facing growing anger after voting against putting serial stalkers and domestic abusers on a national register, despite briefing they were likely to support the measures following the death of Sarah Everard.
Liberty. Liberty liberty liberty liberty.
Next item?
Conservative MPs voted against amendments to the domestic abuse bill on Thursday that would have placed serial domestic abusers and stalkers on the current Violent and Sex Offender Register (Visor).
…
Domestic abuse and stalking survivors and campaigners were disappointed and frustrated, said Sophie Francis-Cansfield, the senior campaigns and policy officer at Women’s Aid.
“Domestic abuse remains underreported and only a small proportion of survivors see criminal sanctions against their perpetrator – a register could have been a useful tool,” she said. “We have to find ways to proactively hold perpetrators to account and prioritise survivors’ safety.”
But it’s only women. Were you forgetting that part? It’s only women. We can’t go to all that trouble and do all that rudeness to liberty when it’s only women.
The decision to exclude migrant women from protections offered under the new bill was “deeply troubling”, said Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters, which is taking part in a government pilot project to support migrant women and address an “evidence gap” around the need for support. “Copious evidence already exists,” she said. “The pilot is no substitute to the need for meaningful, long-term measures of protection for some of the most vulnerable women in our society. We will not be celebrating the bill when it becomes law because it is not a bill for all women.”
That’s the real kind of “most vulnerable.” (No coincidence that it’s also the real kind of women.)
The government’s decision to vote down a requirement for all family court judges to have training on domestic abuse and sexual violence was “unbelievable”, said Dr Charlotte Proudman, an expert on gender-based violence and family law.
“I’m devastated,” she said. “The government’s harm report and three domestic abuse appeals show that the family courts are failing women and children leaving them in situations of harm.”
Well they’re just women and children. They’re not adult rich important powerful men. You see the problem.
Right? Right?? Why would such a being even care? Do we want ants to “believe in” us? Much less go to a building every week to say things about us?
The moderate position has been found!
I don’t think that’s especially moderate though.
I really don’t think it’s “moderate” to say that people have a right to be treated as something they’re not. I think it’s pretty much the opposite – I think we all have a right to trust our senses and background knowledge about people, and act accordingly. It may be the case sometimes that a particular woman won’t mind playing along with a man’s claim to be a woman, but that should be up to her. Otherwise – it’s our choice. It’s not the pretender’s choice, it’s ours. It’s our right not to pretend, not their right to make us pretend.
And then the fact claim is highly dubious too. I get it that “trans-women are socially women” is “moderate” compared to “trans women are women,” but it’s still stupid. No, men are not “socially women,” even if they think of themselves that way. Men are playing a game of pretend, and that’s quite far away from “being” something socially.
It may sound easy at first, this treating as such, but if you think about it it isn’t. Social life isn’t like that, interaction isn’t like that, our awareness of other people isn’t like that. We will still know he’s a man. We’ll still know that he didn’t grow up experiencing life as a girl, even if he thinks he did. I just can’t see any way he has a genuine “right” to be treated “as such,” i.e. as socially a woman. He isn’t a woman even socially, because it’s just not that simple.
And Sebastian H. may think it’s rarely important who is physically female and who isn’t, but that’s a luxury men have, isn’t it. I say it damn well is important, and he can take a hike.
Uh oh, someone’s on the naughty step. (Ku Bar is a well-known London gay bar.)
The reason this grovel was necessary was Grand Inquisitor David Paisley.
I kind of hope they all get fleas.
What the world needs right now is a damn good explainer on bespoke pronouns, and by god the Good Men Project has provided one. How good they must be. The author is named Jane Sofia Struthers.
I just added a signature to my email. It says: “Jane Struthers (pronouns: she/her/hers)”.
But, you’ll probably ask, since that’s exactly what most people would expect, WHY include them? I was going to call you “she” anyway!
There’s a simple answer. Including your pronouns in your email and social media, even if you ARE gender-binary, is a recognition that the gender binary doesn’t apply to everyone. Even if it DOES apply to me (and it does!) there’s no way, simply by looking at me, that you’d know this. (Yes, despite me wearing a lot of pink and “femme” clothes, I could still be non-binary. Contrary to popular opinion, non-binary people don’t HAVE to dress androgynously!)
Oh that silly popular opinion! Imagine thinking that non-binary people have to dress androgynously – you might as well think frogs have to speak rollerskate.
Ok so there’s no way you would know by looking at Struthers that the gender binary DOES apply to her. She says. I bet there is though. I bet there’s the usual stuff, that’s so automatic we don’t think about it. Almost always we just know, because we always have, from infancy. And if you met Struthers and you didn’t know, what good would including your pronouns in your email and social media do? What, you’re going to say to this mysterious person holding out her his their hand on meeting “Excuse me a minute I have to look you up on social media to find out whether the gender binary applies to you or not”?
So that’s not really what it’s for at all. It can’t very well be, because it makes no sense. So what is it for? Silly question. The usual display of rectitude, of course. “Get me I am genderically enlightened and perfected.”
Including your pronouns is one way for gender-binary people to overcome the hurdles that our gender-binary ancestors have nailed into society. Sure, my pronouns are what a layperson expects. But having them there — simply the act of having them — causes the reader to do a double-take. And ask themself, Why did she include this information? Hopefully, they’ll realize that my pronouns might have been anything.
Naw, chum, they’ll realize you’re a posturing condescending fool, and they’ll find someone better to interact with in email and on social media.
A programme on Today FM in which a contributor referred to author JK Rowling as a “transphobic bigot” breached rules regarding fairness, objectivity and impartiality, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has ruled.
A complaint was submitted in relation to a segment of the Last Word with Matt Cooper on September 18th.
It stated that during the weekly panel discussion, one of the contributors stated that Ms Rowling was transphobic, without providing any evidence to back this up.
So you mean there’s not a blanket rule that if you don’t agree that people can literally become the other sex, everybody is allowed to call you a transphobic bigot?
The broadcaster cited UNESCO as defining transphobia as “the irrational aversion, anxiety, discomfort or hatred of people because they are or are perceived to be transgender”.
Do we have words for all examples of irrational aversion, anxiety, discomfort or hatred of people because they are or are perceived to be [insert list of all possible items here]? Are anxiety and discomfort really something UNESCO needs to be calling an evil kind of phobia?
Also, what is the relevance of the UNESCO definition?
It said the panellist in question was of the opinion that JK Rowling exhibits some of the characteristics of transphobia, such as anxiety and discomfort.
Ah I see what they’re doing. They’re pretending that disputing the truth claims of trans ideology is the same thing as anxiety and discomfort about a set of people. Cheap shot. They’re not the same. If your best friend tells you she’s a horse, you’re allowed to think she’s wrong.
Originally a comment by Acolyte of Sagan on And then communicate it clearly and accurately.
The progress of science has helped us better understand who we are as trans people.
Maybe it has, but science isn’t any closer to showing that trans are the sex they claim than it was a century ago. Explaining why trans people might have their beliefs about their sex is not the same as confirming those beliefs as facts. Further, taking scientific findings about conditions such as intersex or atypical chromosone combinations out of context to back up transgender claims is not science, it’s exploitation of people with conditions only tangentially related to transgender.
I was thinking about that latter part earlier after reading PZ’s hit-piece on Jerry Coyne for his lack of belief in sex as a spectrum, a piece in which PZ once again pulls out the intersex and chromosome argument to ‘prove’ that science supports the core belief of transgender religion, and the conclusion I reached was this:
By use of visual examinations, blood tests, testing chromosone combinations, and without requiring any input from the person being examined, doctors can diagnose whether a person is intersex, standard xx-female or xy-male, chromosonally atypical, and so-on. There is no scientific test that can detect whether a person is transgender: there is no way of diagnosing transgender independently of having that information supplied by the transgender person, ie. self-reporting/self-diagnosis. So, science clearly does not support claims that transgender people are the sex they claim for themselves. True, neuroscience and psychology can confirm that people can and do believe themselves to be the wrong gender for their bodies, but confirming that they believe something is not confirming any physical reality behind the beliefs.
Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities.
The part I’ve bolded there is transgender heresy. I have seen so many TRAs insist that being transgender is something one is from birth, not something that can or is caused by anything that may have been experienced since birth. Of course they have to make that argument because to admit that being transgender can be influenced by life experiences would negate that core belief that they are born with a discrepancy between their bodies and their ‘actual’ sex.
