Originally a comment by Athel Cornish-Bowen on Standpoint epistemology.

DTjr is seeking mineral rights interests in Greenland, so as to keep himself stocked up with cocaine for the rest of this life

Probably that’s right. A question that never seems to get asked by journalists and politicians is where the money comes from that drives the international drug trade. The answer is perfectly obvious, but as people don’t like the answer they don’t ask the question. The money comes from the pockets of the people, mainly in North America and Western Europe, who buy the stuff. No demand, no supply. The chaps in Colombia who grow cocaine wouldn’t bother if chaps like DTjr didn’t buy it. Here in Marseilles, very much a centre of drug traficking, the police are beginning to show an interest in the people in the more comfortable parts (where I live) who buy drugs, but they’re being far too timid about it. Probably the local equivalents of DTjr’s father don’t want their sons to be hauled off to prison. It’s much easier to blame everything on illegal immigrants from Algeria.

At the turn of the century I was very much involved in metabolic regulation, and found that the law of supply and demand works almost perfectly in healthy organisms. When you have as much glucose 6-phosphate as you need for your immediate purposes you don’t make any more, because the supply is inhibited when the demand is low. [If you can bear it, see Hofmeyr and Cornish-Bowden (2000) “Regulating the cellular economy of supply and demand” FEBS Letters 476, 47–51]. Put simply, regulation according to demand works; regulation according to supply doesn’t, but politicians refuse to believe that.

The Guardian’s defence and security editor tells us more about Greenland and the Nato crisis.

The idea that one Nato country could attack another – a US invasion of Greenland – is so alien that the most famous article in Nato’s founding treaty does not distinguish clearly what would happen if two of its members were at war.

Article 5, the cornerstone of mutual protection, dictates that “an armed attack against one or more” in Europe or North America shall be considered “an attack against them all”. Simple enough if the military threat comes from Russia, but more complicated when it comes from easily the alliance’s most powerful member.

A whole lot more complicated, I’m guessing.

“If the US chooses to attack another Nato country, everything will stop,” Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Fredriksen, said on Monday. The military alliance may well continue to exist but its effectiveness will be called into fundamental question; the obvious beneficiary, an already aggressive Moscow.

Notice “may” and “will” as opposed to “might” and “would”.

If the diplomatic dance and the noises were not clear enough, then the re-emergence of the territorial lust for Greenland in the aftermath of the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro has finally brought Nato itself sharply into focus, with the US explicitly challenging the historical sovereignty of Denmark, a fellow ally.

Nobody would realistically expect any of Nato’s 31 other members to defend Greenland militarily if the US sought to seize it, a point emphasised by Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller overnight. The real world, he added, was “governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power” – not treaties or mutual support.

Nor would they have any hope of doing so. The US has 1.3 million active military personnel, across all its services; Denmark 13,100. Nato figures show the US was expected to spend $845bn on defence in 2025, the other 31 allies a combined $559bn. The ease with which the US was able to capture Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is a demonstration of the scale of sheer American power.

Another bad moon.

Trump’s Chief Goon says the US gets to tell all the other countries what to do. It’s the Playground Bully school of foreign policy.

Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Trump, asserted on Monday that Greenland rightfully belonged to the United States and that the Trump administration could seize the semiautonomous Danish territory if it wanted.

In what sense does Greenland “rightfully” belong to the US? Please explain. Note: “Because Trump wants to” is not an explanation. Trump’s wants are not foreign policy or international law.

If Greenland belongs to the US then Trump’s Manhattan penthouse belongs to me. Hand it over, Steve.

“We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” he said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

Ohhhh, that kind of “rightfully”. I see. Nothing to do with rightful at all: he’s just saying we can grab it. He’s the teenager taking a 5-year-old’s chocolate bar and then yanking on her ponytail by way of farewell.

“The United States of America is running Venezuela,” Mr. Miller said, dismissing international treaties enshrining a nation’s right to independence and sovereignty as “international niceties.”

Next up: China starts running the US, as Miller applauds. He would applaud, right?

“We set the terms and conditions,” Mr. Miller said. “We have a complete embargo on all of their oil and their ability to do commerce. So for them to do commerce, they need our permission. For them to be able to run an economy, they need our permission. So the United States is in charge. The United States is running the country.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, denounced Mr. Miller’s remarks soon afterward, saying on CNN that “Mr. Miller gave a very good definition of imperialism.”

Also quite a good reenactment of Might Makes Right. Fun times.

David Frum writes:

Because the anti-Trump side cares about fairness, many of its most prominent figures hesitate to accuse Trump of corrupt motives until sufficient evidence emerges to support the accusation. That Trump has ordered the military to seize an alleged drug-trafficking Latin American head of state barely a month after he pardoned and released a convicted drug-trafficking Latin American head of state is suspicious, to say the least. But until and unless there’s something to back those suspicions, and perhaps recalling the readiness of Trump’s regulatory agencies to retaliate against Trump-critical speech, many on the anti-Trump side deem it unwise to voice them. The possibility that U.S. armed forces could have been deployed because Trump insiders bought into a shady scheme to grab Venezuelan oil seems far-fetched—yet it may be much more grounded in reality than any learned article concocting a Trump grand strategy.

What I wonder is why Trump doesn’t pause to think about someone doing this to him. The US isn’t the only country that has a military.

Trump thrives on the ineffectiveness of his opponents. The military operation in Venezuela is a warning that Trump’s imperial ambitions are growing. He’s building himself a triumphal arch in Washington. He craves gaudy acts to justify his monument to himself. He announced his operation first on his own wacky social-media platform, then on a phone call to Fox—as if his fan base were the only part of the nation to whom the president owed an explanation for his actions. Trump’s ego poses clear and present dangers to American democracy and American world leadership. An ineffective anti-Trump movement is an indulgence that American democracy cannot afford or accept.

So let’s not be ineffective, or ineffectual either.

Fox News hack declares war on Senator/military veteran.

Defense secretary Pete Hegseth said on Monday that he had issued a formal censure to Democratic senator Mark Kelly and initiated proceedings that could strip the Arizona lawmaker of his retired military rank and cut his pension, escalating a dispute that began when Kelly urged service members to resist unlawful orders.

Polite reminder: service members are required to resist unlawful orders. This is asking a lot, because service members are also required to obey orders from superiors, and unlawful orders are generally not labeled unlawful. All the same, that is the rule.

Meanwhile Pete Hegseth is a blob of cough-phlegm on everyone’s shoe.

Just days after a covert mission to capture Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and strike the capital city, Hegseth announced that Kelly faces retirement grade determination proceedings, a rare administrative action that could see the former astronaut and navy captain demoted in his retired rank. Hegseth accused Kelly of making “seditious statements” that undermined military discipline.

Pete Hegseth is a tv personality. That’s it, that’s all he is.

In November, Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers, all military or intelligence veterans, released a 90-second video speaking directly to service members about the consideration of the national guard being deployed across the country, calling on troops to uphold the constitution and defy what they characterized as illegal commands.

“Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline,” Hegseth said in a statement posted on X, adding that Kelly “is still accountable to military justice” as a retired officer receiving military pay.

Unlawful orders, Punk.

After learning of the censure, Kelly called Hegseth “the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country’s history” and vowed to “fight this with everything I’ve got”.

“Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired servicemember that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn’t like, they will come after them the same way,” Kelly said in a statement. “It’s outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.”

“If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country’s history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn’t get it.”

Hegseth’s statement claims Kelly’s conduct between June and December 2025 violated articles 133 and 134 of the uniform code of military justice, which the senator remains subject to as a retired officer drawing pension payments. The defense secretary argues Kelly “characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders”.

But the accusation on its face has been contested for months. Military law already requires that troops refuse unlawful orders, which is what Kelly and other members of Congress were echoing. And federal judges have ruled Donald Trump’s military deployments in Los Angeles and other cities violated the Posse Comitatus Act, suggesting the orders Kelly warned about may have actually been illegal.

But under a dictatorship the law no longer counts.

Bahahahaha Willz is enraged because the BBC reports on the prosecution of people who claimed that Brigitte Macron is a man and how awful it was for her, YET THEY DON’T DO THE SAME FOR MEN LIKE WILLZ!!!

Also, he consistently mispronounces her name. It’s not MACKronn, it’s MacRON.

Needing something is not automatically a right to have that something. That applies to everyone, not just everyone except Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has again proposed annexing Greenland, after Denmark’s leader urged him to “stop the threats” over the island.

Speaking to reporters, the US president said “we need Greenland from the standpoint of national security”.

We need a lot of things from the standpoint of a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean we get to have them, nor does it mean we get to take them by force.

Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen had said “the US has no right to annex any of the three nations in the Danish kingdom”.

Frederiksen added that Denmark “and thus Greenland” was a Nato member and covered by the alliance’s security guarantee, and said a defence agreement granting the US access to the island was already in place.

The Danish prime minister released her statement after Katie Miller – the wife of one of Trump’s senior aides, Stephen Miller – posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag alongside the word “SOON”.

The Danish ambassador to the US responded to the post by Miller – a right-wing podcaster and former aide to Trump during his first term – with a “friendly reminder” that the two countries were allies and saying Denmark expected respect for its territorial integrity.

But right-wing podcasters know best. We are mere tenants in their world.

The Trump administration’s recent move to appoint a special envoy to Greenland prompted anger in Denmark.

Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands.

While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.

Trump does not care.

Circling the wagons.

Keir Starmer has publicly backed the Danish prime minister over Donald Trump after she demanded that the US stop its threats to forcibly take over Greenland.

Speaking after Mike Tapp, the migration minister, repeatedly dodged questions about threats by Trump and his allies to seize Greenland, Starmer told broadcasters that he supported Mette Frederiksen after she criticised US rhetoric.

“Well, I stand with her, and she’s right about the future of Greenland,” Starmer told Sky News.

We don’t know that it was just “rhetoric” that Frederiksen criticized. From here it looks more like threats or promises. Trump is threatening and promising to annex Greenland. He’s not just talking; that’s been made shockingly clear.

Speaking on Sunday, Frederiksen said: “It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US needing to take over Greenland. The US has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom.” The third part of the kingdom is the Faroe Islands.

Shhhhh, don’t mention the Faroes, Trump will be wanting to grab them too.

So we’re going to war with Denmark now. That seems very sensible and useful.

Denmark is in “full crisis mode” after U.S. President Donald Trump once again set his sights on Greenland, following the strike on Venezuela.

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you,” Trump said Sunday on Air Force One, echoing similar remarks made separately to The Atlantic magazine.

It has raised alarm in Denmark, which is responsible for the defense of Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory.

“I have to say this very directly to the United States: It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the need for the United States to take over Greenland,” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Sunday in a Facebook post.

“The Kingdom of Denmark – and thus Greenland – is part of NATO and is therefore covered by the alliance’s security guarantee. We already have a defense agreement between the Kingdom and the United States today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” Frederiksen said.

“I would therefore strongly urge the United States to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale,” she added.

Has anybody sat Trump down and explained to him that Denmark is an ally not an enemy? That going to war against allies is a rooky error? That everyone will laugh at him?

The U.S. president, who has previously refused to rule out the use of military or economic force to take Greenland, named Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry as special envoy to Greenland last month.

The appointment was condemned by both Denmark and Greenland. Landry has publicly endorsed Trump’s push to bring Greenland under U.S. control.

That’ll be why he got the job.

The Genghis Khan de nos jours, but minus the charm.

In a telephone interview this morning, President Donald Trump issued a not-so-veiled threat against the new Venezuelan leader, Delcy Rodríguez, saying that “if she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” referring to Nicolás Maduro, now residing in a New York City jail cell. Trump made clear that he would not stand for Rodríguez’s defiant rejection of the armed U.S. intervention that resulted in Maduro’s capture.

As if she were a toddler making too much noise while Daddy is reading the paper. As if he had any right whatsoever to make any head of government do what he orders. We know he has the guns and bombs to do it, but that is not by any stretch of the imagination the right to do it. If a pack of freedom fighters grabbed Trump and ran off with him, he wouldn’t conclude they had the right to tell him what to do.

During our call, Trump, who had just arrived at his golf club in West Palm Beach, was in evident good spirits, and reaffirmed to me that Venezuela may not be the last country subject to American intervention. “We do need Greenland, absolutely,” he said, describing the island—a part of Denmark, a NATO ally—as “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships.” 

Sure and I need Trump’s money and his penthouse overlooking Central Park, but that doesn’t mean I get to have them.

The prospect of Maduro’s government continuing to resist the U.S. raised the risk of a protracted fight for control of Venezuela that would require increased U.S.-military involvement and even occupation. Trump yesterday signaled his willingness to order a second wave of military actions in Venezuela, should he deem it necessary.

“Rebuilding is not a bad thing in Venezuela’s case,” he said. “The country’s gone to hell. It’s a failed country. It’s a totally failed country. It’s a country that’s a disaster in every way.”

In a speech in December 2016, Trump declared as president-elect that the U.S. will “stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about.” He had campaigned that year in opposition to “nation building,” arguing that the country needs to focus on rebuilding at home instead of in nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well sure but Venezuela is completely different. 100%.

When I asked this morning why nation building and regime change in Venezuela would be different from similar efforts he previously opposed in Iraq, Trump suggested posing the question to former President George W. Bush.

“I didn’t do Iraq. That was Bush. You’ll have to ask Bush that question, because we should have never gone into Iraq. That started the Middle East disaster,” Trump said.

Really? What a colossally stupid thing to say. We’re not talking about Iraq, we’re talking about Venezuela. We don’t have to ask Bush anything, because he’s not president and he didn’t invade Venezuela and kidnap Maduro yesterday.

Originally a comment by maddog on It’s just common sense.

As to common sense, I laughed out loud when I was reading Rene Descartes’ “Discourse on the Method,” and ran across his assessment of common sense. He wrote something to the effect of, “Common sense must be the most abundant thing in the world, because nobody ever wants more of it than they already have.”

Also reminds me of my favorite Rene Descartes joke: Rene Descartes is drinking in a bar. Eventually, the barman calls for closing time. Barman: “Would you like one more for the road?” Descartes: [hesitates] “I think not.” And =POOF!= he disappears.

The Sinn Fein leader criticised a ­“limited but loud” group in society that had sought to “divide, to demonise and ­marginalise” others . . . .

Golly, who does that sound like? T and their allies are a small, very vocal group, who have done nothing but divide society and demonize women and anyone who supports women’s rights, and have done their damnedest to marginalize anyone and everyone who dared to dissent from the trans religion. Heretics are to be excommunicated from society.

. . . rhetoric which she said sparked a growing sense of fear within Ireland’s LGBTQ+ community.

Wait a minute . . . WHAT “LGBTQ+community”? Forced teaming strikes again. There is no community of interest between LGB and T+++. T+++ are antagonist, downright hostile to LGB. And T+++ deserves to feel a little fear. After the campaign of terror they have conducted against the whole of society, for over a decade, they should be concerned. It’s the fear that bullies feel when their victims fight back.

“Any policy-making has to be cognisant of the legal and of the medical advice, the advice from a chief medical officer. You have to be because you’re dealing with children,” McDonald said, highlighting concerns about the drugs’ effect on bone density and cognitive and reproductive function as central to policy development.

Well, duh. By all means, think of the children. Think of the medical expertise that has called into question the trans medicalization of children, and the drugs’ deleterious effects on kids’ bone density, cognitive development, and sexual function. Be cognizant of legal advice, too, such as the UK Supreme Court decision, that sex means sex. Make policy based on those things.

On contentious topics such as trans people’s access to single-sex bathrooms or appropriate placement in prisons, McDonald advocated a case-by-case approach focused on safety: “The first concern has to be the safety of the person and the people who are being detained by the state. I think if you come through that prism on a case-by-case basis, that’s how you get that right,” she said.

Take your own advice. Focus on safety. Check. Take a case-by-case approach: okay, let’s do that. Here’s a “trans person” who wants to access single-sex bathrooms or prisons. Case-by-case — in this case, which sex is the “trans person”? Is the trans person of the male sex? Ok, in this case he should use the men’s room or be sent to the men’s prison. If there’s an issue of safety, (1) have the man (“transgender woman”) call upon allies for support if he fears being attacked in the men’s room, or (2) have the department of corrections make a separate unit for trans-identified male prisoners, just as they put child molesters or former law enforcement prisoners in protected units. Presto! Case-by-case determination. Is the “trans person” of the female sex? Okay, in this case, the “trans person” should use the women’s bathroom or be incarcerated in the women’s prison. There you go: case-by-case decisions, with safety as the main consideration. Job done.

So…yeah.

Sigh.

People need to cop on over trans issue, urges Mary Lou McDonald

Mary Lou McDonald has urged “calm, cop-on and common sense” on transgender policy, warning against division as Sinn Fein prepares to revise its gender identity stance.

The Sinn Fein leader criticised a ­“limited but loud” group in society that had sought to “divide, to demonise and ­marginalise” others — rhetoric which she said sparked a growing sense of fear within Ireland’s LGBTQ+ community.

Ah, ok, that kind of calm, cop-on and common sense – the kind that says men are women if they say they are, and women have to shut up and welcome them as sisters. I don’t really consider it common sense to think that men can be women, but whatever. (If it’s really common sense why hasn’t everyone always known it?)

“Any policy-making has to be cognisant of the legal and of the medical advice, the advice from a chief medical officer. You have to be because you’re dealing with children,” McDonald said, highlighting concerns about the drugs’ effect on bone density and cognitive and reproductive function as central to policy development.

Well which is it? Common sense, or being up to speed with the legal and medical advice? They’re hardly the same thing.

On contentious topics such as trans people’s access to single-sex bathrooms or appropriate placement in prisons, McDonald advocated a case-by-case approach focused on safety: “The first concern has to be the safety of the person and the people who are being detained by the state. I think if you come through that prism on a case-by-case basis, that’s how you get that right,” she said.

Wtf does that mean? Why would letting some men be in women’s prisons be the straight and narrow path to getting that right? How about no?

McDonald said her leadership style was to avoid rushing decisions. “I’m extremely assertive, I can take things on. I’m no shrinking violet at all, but I’m also a very thoughtful person, I reflect on things, and I assess things, and in my long political experience, I would say that, for the most part, the most essential ingredient in getting to the right position is actually around taking a bit of time and coming at things calmly.”

You bet. As the man’s hands tighten on your throat you must take a bit of time and come at things calmly. You must also be very smug about your own getting to the right position skills.

Amnesty International still intent on destroying women’s rights.

Trans people should have the same human rights as everyone else has. There are no special rights for trans people. Nobody has a right to be constantly affirmed as a planet or a porcupine or trapped in the wrong body. Men who pretend to be women are a threat to women’s rights in too many ways to list.

It’s interesting how careful Amnesty is not to spell out these purported rights that have been dealt a blow. What rights? There is no right for men to use women’s spaces or take jobs reserved for women or accept prizes for women or force people to call them women.

Trump on the one hand, Amnesty on the other. Bad times today.

From the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago:

Journal of Medical Ethics article defends female genital mutilation

The British Medical Journal Group has published an article defending female genital mutilation (FGM).

Researchers from 25 different global institutions claim the widespread condemnation of the practice is based on “misleading, often racialised, stereotypes” and “Western sensationalism”.

FGM involves the partial or total removal of a female’s external genitalia, or other cutting of the organs, for non-medical reasons.

Like the “Because Mohammed said so” reasons.

More than 230 million girls and women around the world have had their genitalia mutilated, mostly commonly in Africa, but also in parts of Asia and the Middle East, usually on historic religious or cultural grounds.

But they look like Barbie dolls between the legs, so it’s fine.

However, writing in the BMJ Group’s Journal of Medical Ethics, researchers from around the world, including the UK, have defended FGM and “rejected” the use of the word “mutilation”. Instead, they label it “female genital practices” so they can “refer inclusively and descriptively to a diverse set of practices without prejudging their ethical, medical or cultural status”.

Not all that “inclusively”. Not inclusive of girls and women who struggled and screamed, for example.

“Most affected women themselves rarely use the word ‘trauma’ to describe their experiences of the practices. If they describe the experiences in negative terms, they may use words such as ‘difficult’ or ‘painful’,” the authors write.

“Even if women report unwanted upsetting memories, heightened vigilance, sleep disturbance, recurrent memories or flashbacks during medical consultations, a prior genital procedure may not be the primary cause for their distress,” they add.

Stop right there. It’s not a “procedure”. It’s not medical. It’s an intrusion, a removal, a stitching up, a scraping – a mutilation. There is no medical reason to tamper with girls’ genitalia. There is no “procedure”.

The essay also blames the “mainstream media coverage of female genital practices in Africa” for relying on “sources from within a well-organised opposition”.

Mmmyeah. How dare opponents of slashing female genitals be an organized opposition.

“In North America, Australia and European countries like the UK and Sweden, such coverage has frequently fallen short of journalistic standards of impartiality, often using stigmatising and denigrating language that fuels suspicion and surveillance of migrant communities,” the authors write.

They add that the press has “played a central role” in the “abolitionist narrative of ‘FGM’”, and call out the Guardian newspaper’s “Global Media Campaign to End FGM”, as well as the BBC and CNN’s “advocacy-driven coverage focused on eradication, often lacking cultural nuance”.

Some cultural nuance needs to be lacked.

With all its faults, twitterx is still a great place to find terrible people bluntly informing us on how terrible they are.

For Women Scotland are quoting Nicola Sturgeon:

Yes yes yes by all means protect women’s rights, that’s important, yes indeed, BUT – first you gotta protect trans people, and then if there’s any protect left over, you can give that to women. Clear?

It’s the women and equalities minister again.

Bridget Phillipson has warned her critics that transgender people must not be used as a “political punchbag” amid accusations that she is blocking guidance on single-sex spaces.

The women and equalities minister’s comments come in the face of criticism that she is delaying the publication of the draft guidance, which was submitted to the government by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in September.

She’s told you: she has to read it first. That obviously takes way more than a mere five months.

Phillipson told the Political Currency podcast this week that her own experiences of running a women’s refuge informed her view of “how important it is that women have spaces that are women-only”.

She continued: “Feminists and campaigners fought for a very, very long time to establish that principle and it is an important principle, but it’s there for a good reason because it’s about safety for women and about having the space and the time to really heal after trauma.

“But I don’t see that as being in conflict with making sure you can treat trans people with dignity and respect as well. We have had the Supreme Court ruling, which I welcome.”

But it’s gone way beyond dignity and respect. It’s more like worship and submission.

“I’ve now received the code of practice from the EHRC. We’ve got to go through that properly and thoroughly.

“But in recent times trans people have been used as a political punchbag in order to make an argument. We’ve got to take a step back from this and do it responsibly.”

In order to make what argument?

It’s a good deal more the other way around: trans people use women as a punchbag, political and otherwise.

Phillipson said the “majority” of the public accepted the need for female-only provision, and that there were valid questions of “fairness” on issues including women’s sport.

She added: “I think that’s where the majority of people are but at the same time we’re a compassionate nation, commonsense in their approach. We don’t abuse or target trans people because of who they are, that’s not … in keeping with what people would believe.”

No, we don’t abuse or target trans people, but they abuse and target us. Check out India Willoughby and Sophie Molly and Sarah Jane Baker to name just a few.

“But you do need to make sure you’ve got fairness in areas like sport and good access for services for women.”

She says, grudgingly. Ok ok those stupid women want fairness in sports and “good access for services” – whatever that means – so they can have it, but then they need to sit down and shut up. Trans people are much more important, and, dare I say it, more interesting.

Originally a comment by Artymorty on New York New York.

Israel is a political entity, a nation, one that is currently led by a far-right political apparatus that is unabashedly racist, and which is actively opposed by a large number of the citizenry under its present leadership.

Anti-semitism is a worldview, an ideology, that is held in deep disrepute — rightly — because it generalizes a heterogeneous group of people — those who identify as Jewish — as universally subhuman or evil. Antisemitism is almost superstitious in that it attributes negative forces to a group of people based on nothing but the almost-arbitrary line between who counts as Jewish and who doesn’t. The fact that the defining line between a Jew and a gentile is virtually impossible to police is just the beginning of a long chain of logical absurdities behind that reasoning.

But ironically, the Israeli state, as it’s seen by its current far-right leaders, actually works to empower antisemitism because it actively works to harden the fuzzy line between Jewishness and non-Jewishness, and, so it believes, between Israeli-ness and non-Israeli-ness.

The argument against anti-semitism in today’s climate rests largely on the fact that Jewishness is NOT synonymous with political alignment with the far-right Netanhayhu regime. Naturally, the Jewish extremists have sought to associate opposition to their strain of Jewishness with antisemitism as a concept because in the confusion around boundaries in the present political situation, that’s the angle that gets them the most clout.

It’s the exact same playbook as the Islamists who plotted to position Muslim identity itself as synonymous with a legal right to segregate males and females and to discriminate against gays. We all saw the fallout when the Southern Poverty Law Centre took the position that liberal Muslims were the enemy: they framed moderate Muslims as active bigots for dissenting with, and therefore undermining, the hardline conservative Muslim movement. The uninspected assumption was that more hardline Muslims were more “oppressed” somehow. It was a strange chain of logic that they kinda sleepwalked into, which would not withstand serious scrutiny. (They paid millions in damages after facing lawsuits.)

Same shit with the activists who insist that far-right Israeli Netanyahu-ism is directly analagous to Jewish identity.

I now work in the Jewish neighbourhood in my city, and pretty much all of the Jews I interact with have nothing to do with the Netanyahu-ists. It seems so strange that in broader politics the far right have succeeded in co-opting my friends’ identities for their political goals. They don’t identify with that mess, and it appalls me that they should face any kind of splashback discrimination because of it. They’re innocent.

Day one.

Israel’s foreign ministry has accused the New York mayor, Zohran Mamdani, of pouring “antisemitic gasoline on an open fire” after he reversed a recent order by the outgoing mayor, Eric Adams.

“On his very first day as @NYCMayor, Mamdani shows his true face: he scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire,” the foreign ministry said in a post on X.

Mamdani revoked an Adams-era order that adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which the previous administration said included “demonizing Israel and holding it to double standards as forms of contemporary antisemitism”.

Israel is not the same thing as being Jewish, but that’s not to say that hatred of Israel has no connection at all to hatred of Jews.

From Mother Jones last September:

Colleagues call Gordon Guyatt the “godfather” of evidence-based medicine.

Guyatt, a distinguished professor of medicine at McMaster University in Canada, has had sweeping influence on medical research: GRADE, the framework he helped pioneer to assess the evidence behind clinical recommendations, is a standard at more than 100 medical organizations, including the WHO. Before Guyatt, medicine relied much more on the judgment calls of senior clinicians; today, standardized research is increasingly central.

Guyatt was also, until August, a reluctant icon of the movement against trans health care.

Hang on. Let’s be clear. What are we meaning by “trans health care”? Health care for people who idennify as trans? Or health care that cures the disease of being trans? Or “health care” that assists people who are trying to look like the other sex?

His was by far the biggest name associated with the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine (SEGM), a group known for casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of gender-affirming care by framing it as risky and supported only by “low-quality” evidence within the GRADE framework.

There, that’s clearer. Gender-affirming care is not the same thing as trans health care, which can mean just standard health care used by/for people who idennify as trans.

Speaking to me on a video call, the bespectacled doctor emphatically called it “an unconscionable use of our work to deny people gender-affirming care”—insisting that, until student activists at McMaster spoke out about the collaboration, he hadn’t been fully aware of SEGM’s involvement with the university’s research on transgender health care.

Good, that’s clear. Now all we have to wonder about is an adult doctor claiming there’s such a thing as “gender-affirming care.” Does lipstick count as gender-affirming care?

A key argument advanced by opponents of gender-affirming care is that its treatments are only supported by “weak” or “low-quality” evidence, as the SEGM–affiliated reviews and others have found.

The thing is, so are a lot of standard—and essential—medical interventions. Cancer drugs have a notoriously low-quality evidence base, including many FDA-approved treatments. Almost all nutritional guidelines are supported by what Guyatt’s system labels poor evidence. About five million youth have asthma in the United States—yet the evidence for medical guidelines for pediatric asthma care is regularly rated “poor” or “weak,” as are many of the treatments, which have indisputably saved countless lives. 

Ahhhh but there’s a crucial difference here. “Gender-affirming care” is not the same kind of thing as medical interventions. It’s an intervention, but not a medical one. It’s a thoughts intervention, a psychic intervention, an ideological intervention, an emotional intervention. It’s a fantasy-endorsing intervention, which is a pretty bizarre concept.

Mother Jones of course would not dream of admitting that.