Lindsay Crouse of the New York Times “produced the Emmy nominated Opinion Video series “Equal Play,” which brought widespread reform to women’s sports.”

Now, however…

This year, lawmakers in more than 20 states have introduced legislation to ban transgender kids from girls’ sports, under the guise of protecting women and girls. Bills have already passed in Mississippi and Idaho.

Not “transgender kids” but boys. The issue, as I’m sure she knows, is boys playing on girls’ teams.

The cause is catching on: One recent Politico poll found that 46 percent of women support a ban on transgender athletes (as do 43 percent of young adults born since 1997).

Again: not a ban on transgender athletes, a ban on male athletes competing against female athletes.

It’s telling how consistently the defenders of boys competing against girls obscure what they’re actually defending.

This is disappointing. We might look to champions like Megan Rapinoe, Billie Jean King and Candace Parker, who have been outspoken supporters of inclusion, as well as trans athletes who are shouldering the brunt of this fight. Exclusion elevates nobody.

But inclusion of what, exclusion of what?

If girls and women can’t have their own sports then they can’t ever win anything. This is Crouse’s subject yet she gets it completely wrong.

She goes on for many more paragraphs saying much the same thing – why worry about trans kids when women’s sports are already devalued? – without making any more sense, let alone addressing the actual issue.

Shocker: the fact that women are held in contempt probably has something to do with why they are paid less.

Workplaces, homes and institutions continue to hold attitudes towards women that “devalues and discriminates against” them, exacerbating a gender pay gap that is unlikely to close for another 26 years, according to an author of a report on workplace equality published on Friday.

…

The report found that while some organisations have embraced change, in others there was “gender apathy”. “This ‘gender apathy’ has acted to slow the overall pace of change,” the report said.

Along with “gender excitement” over trans women. Women, yawn; pretend women, thrilling!

Cultural change was essential to change this apathy, Cassells said.

“There is an attitude that runs through our workplaces, our homes and our institutions that devalues and discriminates against women. These attitudes and poor culture lead directly to discriminatory practices against women.” Cassells said. “But they can be changed when they are challenged, when there is zero acceptance within a workplace or an institution, and when leaders decide that they will be changed.”

Which we’ve been trying to make happen for at least the last half century, but maybe we’ll get there some day! But by then the planet will be hot and dry and empty…

Perhaps it’s all been a misunderstanding?

Does discrimination against women happen on the basis of actual sex, or is it just on the basis of who is wearing a skirt?

It’s all a matter of perception.

Won’t somebody please think of the boys facing Female Genital Mutilation.

Sometimes there’s such a thing as too big.

Dredgers, tugboats and even a backhoe failed to free a giant cargo ship wedged in Egypt’s Suez Canal on Thursday as the number of stacked-up vessels unable to pass through the vital waterway climbed to 150 and losses to global shipping mounted.

The skyscraper-sized Ever Given, carrying cargo between Asia and Europe, ran aground Tuesday in the narrow, man-made canal dividing continental Africa from the Sinai Peninsula. Even with the aid of high tides, authorities have been unable to push the Panama-flagged container vessel aside, and they are looking for new ideas to free it.

If a container ship is extra big then you can put more containers on it and the ship becomes extra heavy. Really really really heavy.

As efforts to free it resumed at daylight Thursday, an Egyptian canal authority official said workers hoped to avoid offloading containers from the vessel as it would take days to do so and extend the closure.

So for now the ship goes on being veryveryvery heavy.

So far, dredgers have tried to clear silt around the massive ship. Tug boats nudged the vessel alongside it, trying to gain momentum. From the shore, at least one backhoe dug into the canal’s sandy banks, suggesting the bow of the ship had plowed into it. However, satellite photos taken Thursday by Planet Labs Inc. and analyzed by The Associated Press showed the vessel still stuck in the same location.

I can see container ships heading south toward Elliott Bay and north away from Elliott Bay from here. (Not at this moment. There’s one small tug dashing south, and that’s all.)

The Suez Canal Authority said one idea the team discussed was scraping the bottom of the canal around the ship.

Boskalis chairman Peter Berdowski on Wednesday described the ship as “a very heavy whale on the beach.”

“The ship, with the weight it now has, can’t really be pulled free. You can forget it,” he told the Dutch current affairs program “Nieuwsuur.”

Too big.

One bit of cheerful news:

“They” being the College of Charleston.

You’re welcome. We’re absolutely excited to see you gtfo.

Whatever. Bye.

He’s not really a world champion athlete. He cheated.

We’ll be happy too!

Good. Good good good. Bye now.

From Slate’s Dear Prudence advice column:

Q. Quietly listening: Against my social circle’s better judgment, I’ve taken a liking to a controversial writer/podcaster. There are many accusations lobbed against him, but never any receipts, and his viewpoints are often mischaracterized. As a trans woman, I disagree with him about some things but I’ve never heard him say anything wildly unreasonable.

I’m torn. I understand if people don’t want to support him, but does that mean I have to stop? After reading the accusations against him, I personally find a lot of the backlash against him overblown. I enjoy his podcast, and I feel a little guilty pleasure when I listen to it. I won’t support all his endeavors—he is a bit much—but is it that terrible if I review the charges against him and continue to keep up with him quietly?

I’m at a loss to understand what is the point of this question. Does the fact that some people disapprove of writer X mean I or you or we have to stop reading writer X? Is that a trick question? How could it possibly even on a good day and with a helping wind mean that? No, Confused in Tulsa or whatever your name is, of course it doesn’t mean that. There is nothing on the planet that isn’t disapproved of by someone, and we can’t decide what we want to read on the basis of “some of my friends think ew.”

My bit of Twitter is saying X is Jesse Singal, but it’s probably one of Katie Herzog’s jokes.

Shaming but not at all surprising.

The US has fallen to a new low in a global ranking of political rights and civil liberties, a drop fueled by unequal treatment of minority groups, damaging influence of money in politics, and increased polarization, according to a new report by Freedom House, a democracy watchdog group.

Nothing about all the voter suppression bills?

The US earned 83 out of 100 possible points this year in Freedom House’s annual rankings of freedoms around the world, an 11-point drop from its ranking of 94 a decade ago. The US’s new ranking places it on par with countries like Panama, Romania and Croatia and behind countries such as Argentina and Mongolia. It lagged far behind countries like the United Kingdom (93), Chile (93), Costa Rica (91) and Slovakia (90).

…

The report details the inequities that minority groups, especially Black people and Native Americans face when it comes to the criminal justice system and voting. It also illustrates that public trust in government has been damaged by the way rich Americans can use their money to exert outsize influence on American politics.

Also? By the fact that a malevolent ignorant crook can get elected to the top job in government.

The report offers three recommendations for improving American democracy: removing barriers to voting, limiting the influence of money in politics, and establishing independent redistricting commissions. Democrats in Washington are pushing all three of those reforms as part of a sweeping voting package currently under consideration in the US Senate.

Fingers crossed.

Voting rights shmoting rights.

Seizing on Donald Trump’s lies about fraud in the 2020 election, Republicans have launched a brazen attack on voting, part of an effort to entrench control over a rapidly changing electorate by changing the rules of democracy. As of mid-February, 253 bills were pending to restrict voting in 43 states. Many of those restrictions take direct aim at mail-in and early voting, the very policies that led to November’s record turnout.

The filthy little truth behind all this is that Republicans can’t win in a fair fight, because there are only so many billionaires to go around.

Republicans have openly talked about their intentions. “Everybody shouldn’t be voting,” John Kavanagh, a Republican in the Arizona state legislature, told CNN earlier this month. “Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.”

He means “not everybody should be voting.” Saying “everybody shouldn’t be voting” is a tad extreme even for Republicans. That aside, it’s still a remarkable claim. The quality of votes? Like what, the size of the bank account, the pallor of the skin, the content of the underpants?

Trump dismissed proposals to make it easier to vote last year by saying: “You’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” And this month, Michael Carvin, a lawyer representing the Arizona Republican party, said something similar when Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked him what interest the party had in defending two Arizona voting restrictions. Lifting those restrictions, Carvin said, “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game.”

Helpfully explicit. “We put those restrictions there so that we would win.”

Later this year, Republicans in many states will redraw electoral districts for both congressional and state legislative offices across the country, something the constitution mandates once per decade. This will give Republicans an opportunity to pack GOP-friendly voters into certain districts while spreading Democratic voters thin across others, further distorting democracy and ensuring their re-election.

And all of this comes at a moment when the US supreme court appears wholly uninterested in protecting voting rights. The increasingly conservative supreme court has signaled in recent years that it is not going to stand in the way of lawmakers who make it harder to vote, issuing significant decisions that gutted the Voting Rights Act while also giving the green light to aggressive voter purging and extreme partisan redistricting.

Which is not so much non-interest in voting rights as active interest in gutting voting rights.

“The coordinated onslaught of voter suppression bills is not the norm,” Stacey Abrams, the former Georgia gubernatorial candidate widely credited with helping flip the state, told the Guardian. “What is so notable about this moment, and so disconcerting, is that they are not hiding. There is no attempt to pretend that the intention is not to restrict votes.”

They no longer need to pretend.

Separation of church and state? Whaaaaaaaat?

Look here, look at this dollar bill, it says right here “in god we trust” – and it says it on all the other bills too, the five n the ten n the twenty n the million, all of them. It’s always been that way! Well, since 1956, which might as well be always, because who cares about before that.

Also, by the way, Shabbos is Saturday and the one for Muslims is Friday and don’t Buddhists have it on Monday and Hindus on Tuesday and Jains on Wednesday and Sikhs on Thursday? So, there you go, sorry, no voting possible.

Unbelievable.

Aimee Challenor! Of all people.

Uh huh, and the Washington Post would say the same if a boy of 15 said his “identity” was a tiger or a can of garbanzo beans or a daffodil or Peru or Mars.

Knowing what “sex” means doesn’t require knowing everyone who has one. Knowing that sex isn’t changeable the way a shirt or a name or a religion is doesn’t require knowing everyone who has one. Knowing which sex pushes out babies and which sex does not doesn’t require knowing everyone who has one or the other.

Uh…

It’s true, the page exists.

How interesting, another example of “No reasonable person would believe this/don’t take what we say seriously” from people committing public crimes against the public.

A senior Saudi official issued what was perceived to be a death threat against the independent United Nations investigator, Agnès Callamard, after her investigation into the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

In an interview with the Guardian, the outgoing special rapporteur for extrajudicial killings said that a UN colleague alerted her in January 2020 that a senior Saudi official had twice threatened in a meeting with other senior UN officials in Geneva that month to have Callamard “taken care of” if she was not reined in by the UN.

…

The Guardian independently corroborated Callamard’s account of the January 2020 episode.

The alleged threats were made, she said, at a “high-level” meeting between Geneva-based Saudi diplomats, visiting Saudi officials and UN officials in Geneva. During the exchange, Callamard was told, they criticised her work on the Khashoggi murder, registering their anger about her investigation and her conclusions. The Saudi officials also raised baseless allegations that she had received money from Qatar – a frequent refrain against critics of the Saudi government.

Callamard said one of the visiting senior Saudi officials is then alleged to have said that he had received phone calls from individuals who were prepared to “take care of her”.

When UN officials expressed alarm, other Saudis who were present sought to reassure them that the comment ought not to be taken seriously. The Saudi group then left the room but, Callamard was told, the visiting senior Saudi official stayed behind, and repeated the alleged threat to the remaining UN officials in the room.

But don’t take it seriously.

Ah so that’s how they’re going to play it – the “nobody could be stupid enough to believe the lies we told” defense. Bold move.

A key member of the legal team that sought to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump is defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact.

What were they statements of then? Not fact but…? Fill in the blank [______].

In a motion to dismiss a complaint by the large US-based voting machine company Dominion, lawyers for Sidney Powell argued that elaborate conspiracies she laid out on television and radio last November while simultaneously suing to overturn election results in four states constituted legally protected first amendment speech.

“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” argued lawyers for Powell, a former federal prosecutor from Texas who caught Trump’s attention through her involvement in the defense of former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Ok, so they were not truly statements of fact, so they were lies. She’s telling us she tried to help Trump steal the election by telling lies about the voting machines.

But wait, the audience murmurs, they could be mistakes rather than lies. Mere honest mistakes; anyone can make a mistake; mistakes aren’t lies.

True enough, but, there are times and situations and contexts where people are expected to take very good care not to make mistakes of that kind, and indeed there are situations where people have no right to make mistakes of that kind. The situation in which Sidney Powell said these things that no reasonable person would consider true was very much that kind of situation – it’s hard to think of a situation that would be more so. She said the things in order to overturn an election. The stakes don’t get a whole lot higher than that.

Also, if no reasonable person would believe the claims, then Sidney Powell must have not believed them herself. She’s not claiming to be a not-reasonable person, I assume? Could be wrong, but that’s my guess, what with being a lawyer and all. If they’re beyond belief to reasonable people, then they were beyond belief to her, so they weren’t mistakes, they were lies. Lies in pursuit of stealing an election.

Powell falsely stated on television and in legal briefs that Dominion machines ran on technology that could switch votes away from Trump, technology she said had been invented in Venezuela to help steal elections for the late Hugo Chávez.

Knowing, we’re now told, that she was lying. How interesting.

Interesting.

The lesbian share is tiny now in both charts.

2015 is the year I gave up trying to be quiet.

Seth Abramson says enough with the low-rank insurrectionists, what about the people with real power?

Thus far, over 320 Trumpists have been arrested for their actions on January 6, 2021, and the DOJ says that more than 100 additional arrests are coming. But what many of us are most anxiously awaiting is not more arrests of lower-middle-class and middle-class Donald Trump supporters—though the massive video archive published by ProPublica confirms that many of these richly deserve indictment and incarceration—but rather the as-yet unaccountable elites who orchestrated the events of January 6.

For instance, we’ve yet to see what sort of accountability, legal or professional, awaits politicians like Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC), or Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), all of whom helped strategize and/or incite the events of January 6.

He names more people who should be answering questions, including Roger Stone and Alex Jones. (Roger Stone has a pardon, but maybe that doesn’t mean he can’t be interviewed? I should know, but I don’t.)

And of course America still waits eagerly for the first signs of justice for the Trumps themselves, along with their closest allies and advisers, a list of insurrection-adjacent figures that includes Trump himself, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Lara Trump, Ivanka Trump, Trump Jr. girlfriend and Trump adviser Kimberly Guilfoyle, Katrina Pierson, Corey Lewandowski, Peter Navarro, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Lindell, Sidney Powell, and Michael Flynn. We know, by and large, what these men and women did on and before January 6; what we don’t know is why the FBI has apparently yet to speak with any of them or seize and search their electronic devices. We don’t know why we are told to cheer the arrests of Trumpist peons even as the powerful, wealthy, and/or influential people who guided their conduct are ignored by federal law enforcement.

I bet we can have a pretty good guess though.

It’s always always always about…not-you-but-me. Always about yes yes you have needs too, of course I get that, but

me me me me me me me me

Man tells woman “Yeah sad about your miscarriage but you still have to let me join you in the toilets.”

GLAAD has a list of the damned, which it laughably calls its “Accountability Project.”

The GLAAD Accountability Project catalogs anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and discriminatory actions of politicians, commentators, organization heads, religious leaders, and legal figures who have used their platforms, influence and power to spread misinformation and harm LGBTQ people.

The Project reveals these individuals’ own words and actions, to help all Americans evaluate whether to vote for them, or quote them, or support their point of view. As journalists, newsrooms and platforms write stories or book guests for interviews and segments, they can check the record, add context to stories, or help decide whether a person with this history should continue to be given unchallenged air time or ink. See the complete list of profiles in the dropdown menu to the right.

The complete list is looooooong.

Let’s see some examples. JK Rowling for instance; part of item 3 of the indictment:

—Doubled down on remarks and support for anti-trans researchers, during Pride month 2020 and as the world endured the historic pandemic, and the U.S. a national reckoning on racial injustice and police violence, in lengthy essay of inaccuracies about transgender people and identity, claiming that as “an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity” she has “deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.”

It’s not even literate, let alone thoughtful or reasonable. Are they letting the kids do all the writing?

On a less inflammatory subject – drone flies all but into an erupting volcano.

The ACLU yet again.

But at least some of that legislation, and perhaps all, is not “anti-trans” or criminalization, it’s just codification of the formerly well understood principle that boys can’t play on girls’ athletic teams.

The problem is built in: the special favors being demanded by trans “activists” are so damaging to female people that it wouldn’t work to state them clearly, so the ACLU has to screen them with layer upon layer of inaccurate description. It’s a pretty disgusting practice for what used to be a respected civil rights organization.

The link takes us to an appeal from last month full of the usual obfuscation:

Transgender athletes want to participate in school sports for the same reason as anybody else: to find a sense of belonging and social engagement, to be a part of a team, and to challenge themselves.

And for the potential monetary reward via a scholarship. It’s extremely dishonest for the ACLU to conceal that part. The ACLU naturally doesn’t want to come right out and say it’s campaigning for boys to be able to “win” scholarships intended for girls – but it does want to do exactly that.

But states and schools across the country are trying to exclude trans people from enjoying the benefits of sports on equal terms with their cisgender peers. Not only do these proposed laws discriminate against trans youth in ways that compromise their health, social and emotional development, and safety, they also raise a host of privacy concerns.

Look at how evasive that is. People who haven’t been following the issue are going to think this is about banning trans people from sport altogether, but of course it’s nothing of the kind.

Is there such a thing as Civil Liars?