Julia Beck on that ratbag who got her kicked off a city commission and has now “detransitioned.”

Four years ago I was ousted from a city commission, all because I said “sex” is important. Now I hear the man who took my place, the man who then called himself a lesbian and led the charge against me, has since detransitioned. I welcome every person’s decision to detransition or desist, and at the same time abusers must be held accountable for their actions. Sure, finding yourself in life is a process, but it never requires traumatizing women, or pretending to be one.

I wouldn’t even mind the pretending to be one all that much if it were called that. I would mind it some, because men’s idea of what it is to be a woman can often be quite irritating, but I wouldn’t mind it nearly as much as I mind the “we are women every bit as much as you are and we do it better” nonsense.

In 2018 I was living in Baltimore, Maryland. To defend lesbian rights, I joined the city’s LGBTQ Commission and then was elected to a leadership position on the Law and Policy Committee. It’s a fact that lesbians, despite beginning the alphabet acronym, are erased left and right. There are very few lesbians in positions of power or influence these days. So, as an out lesbian, I was glad for the opportunity to represent women like me. It wasn’t long before my feminist politics came out, too; my committee was asked to review a list of proposals from the police department which I criticized for replacing “sex” with “gender identity.” I argued that policies which use this ideology are easily manipulated by male perpetrators, like male rapists in women’s prisons.

And bam, along came an I Identify As A Woman to punish her for knowing what a woman is.

[H]e accused me of committing “violence” against the “transgender community” and called for a vote to kick me out. This man personally identified as transgender and apparently empathized with the male perpetrators of Baltimore City. At the time, he called himself a “transbutch” and abruptly claimed my position. Did he truly intend to dominate the only lesbian on the committee? Or was his entire political scheme merely a ruse for narcissistic validation? In any case, he was celebrated in the local press for being a pride-month hero, while I became “the most hated lesbian in Baltimore.”

Who knew that men make better lesbians than women do?

It sure takes a lot of balls to call yourself a lesbian, run an actual lesbian out of her elected position in city government, and then years later boast about your enlightenment from living for a few years in girl mode. I wonder how many women were harmed in the making of his ego.

Too many, we know that much.

The crook and his crook kids have to testify.

Donald Trump and two of his children have been ordered by a New York judge to appear for a deposition within the next three weeks, as part of the billowing investigation over alleged fraud in the valuation of assets belonging to his family business.

The ruling by Judge Arthur Engoron to force Trump and his two eldest children – Donald Jr and Ivanka – to comply with subpoenas amounts to a sharp escalation of the legal perils that are rapidly tightening around the former president.

I know, I know, he keeps getting away with it, but you know, you can play with fire 153 times and not get burned and that still doesn’t mean you won’t get burned the next time. He’s gotten away with it before (though not entirely) but it doesn’t follow that he’ll inevitably get away with it forever. Jeffrey Epstein got away with it until he didn’t.

Following a two-hour hearing on Thursday, Engoron delivered a blunt rebuttal to arguments put forward by Trump lawyers that the former president should not be subjected to questioning in the civil case because the information could be used against him in criminal proceedings that are running in parallel. The judge went so far as to say that had James not subpoenaed them, it would have been “a blatant dereliction of duty”.

Responding to the news, [NY Attorney General Letitia] James said that it showed that “no one will be permitted to stand in the way of the pursuit of justice, no matter how powerful they are”.

And Trump isn’t all that powerful now. He’s not president any more.

He can plead the Fifth Amendment but that has its own problems.

In legal arguments before Engoron delivered his decision, lawyers for Trump argued that he could not feasibly plead the fifth without hurting his potential criminal defense.

“If he goes in and follows my advice, which will be you cannot answer these questions without … immunity because that’s what the law provides, and take the fifth amendment, that’ll be on every front page in the newspaper in the world. And how can I possibly pick a jury in that case?” said Ronald Fischetti, Trump’s criminal defense lawyer.

Politically, the deposition is also likely to be awkward. In the past, Trump has poured scorn on those who remain silent under questioning. During his 2016 presidential election campaign, he ridiculed the practice, saying “the mob takes the fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the fifth amendment?”

Oops.

The James investigation, combined with its criminal Manhattan equivalent, are now top of the league of a plethora of legal troubles facing the former occupant of the White House. A Guardian tally this month found that Trump was facing a total of 19 legal challenges, six of which involve alleged financial irregularities.

Well at least he won’t get bored.

The one with Andy Lewis and Aaron Rabinowitz.

I’ve watched only a clip so far, in which Helen asks Aaron if he thinks Lia Thomas has a right to be in the women’s changing room and Aaron says yes.

One way of looking at it is that critics of trans ideology are obsessed with the subject [and by implication kind of weird and crazy for being so obsessed].

Maybe, but on the other hand, maybe they have interests at stake, aka genuine concerns, and thus know more about it than you do, and thus just possibly are right while you – knowing less about it – are wrong. It may be that they think more about it than you do and care more about it than you do, and thus just possibly get it mostly right while you get it mostly wrong. Or not. Caring can of course distort too, but I don’t think Aaron should just ignore the knowing more=getting it right possibility.

Originally a comment by James Garnett on Triple threat.

I’m not a climate scientist, but my professional work is in control theoretic modeling of real, nonlinear systems. It’s difficult to underscore just how frightening a positive feedback runaway can be; the results are catastrophic for the system in question, even for small things. For example, induction motors form the basis of modern processing engineering, so their function and use are taught in most electrical engineering programs. One aspect of these motors is that when they are running, if one opens the field circuit while the driving circuit is still energized, the torque of the rotor becomes infinite (in theory), because the field acts as a negative feedback control mechanism.

Some years ago I witnessed what this really means when a student did exactly this to a half-ton induction motor bolted to the floor of a lab with one-inch bolts: in a matter of seconds it tore itself free of its anchors and proceeded to fly around the room, wreaking devastation to every inch of it; it was only by sheer luck that nobody was hurt or killed.

Now scale that scene in your mind up to the entire planetary climate: that’s what we’re facing. This is why climate scientists often seem to use such hyperbolic language, but what is frustrating is that due to the nonlinear nature of the overall system they cannot make accurate predictions of when this will happen. All we can really say about such systems is that when the bad stuff truly gets going, it’s going to get really bad, really fast.

More on permafrost:

Thawing Arctic permafrost laden with billions of tons of greenhouse gases [threatens not only] the region’s critical infrastructure but life across the planet, according [to] a comprehensive scientific review.

Nearly 70% of the roads, pipelines, cities and industry — mostly in Russia — built on the region’s softening ground are highly vulnerable to acute damage by mid-century, according to one of half-a-dozen studies on permafrost published this week by Nature.

Another study warns that methane and CO2 escaping from long-frozen soil could accelerate warming and overwhelm global efforts to cap the rise in Earth’s temperature at livable levels.

Exposure of highly combustible organic matter no longer locked away by ice is also fueling unprecedented wildfires, making permafrost a triple threat, the studies report.

The second item is the scariest – it means the whole thing could race off out of control and…well, don’t look up, I guess.

The feedback loops are looping.

Rising temperatures are not the only driver of accelerated melting.

Arctic wildfires rapidly expand the layer of permafrost subject to thawing, the researchers point out.

As the climate warms, these remote, uncontrolled blazes are projected to increase 130% to 350% by mid-century, releasing more and more permafrost carbon.

Indeed, thawing renders buried organic carbon more flammable, giving rise to “zombie fires” that smolder throughout frigid winters before igniting again in Spring and Summer.

We’ve cooked it.

Still pretending it’s not just Jo and his ego.

Seriously, who is this “we”? Why does he keep pretending when there is no “we” in evidence? If it’s a “we” why does no one else ever speak up as part of the “we”? Why is not a single name other than Jolyon’s ever mentioned? How is he getting away with this absurd charade?

If it were true that other people are involved, wouldn’t it be his obligation when boasting of the project’s accomplishments to hand out credit to the other people involved? By name? Instead of hogging 100% of the limelight himself? Why do grownup news organizations take this Harvey seriously?

It’s bizarre. It’s bizarre the same way the trans ideology is bizarre – the spectacle of people just rolling over for an obvious fraud and imposition. Bizarre like the emp’s new duds.

But what are trans rights?

What trans rights are women more supportive of?

He probably means some leading question version, as in “Do you support trans rights?”, as opposed to an actual specific spelled-out claimed right such as “the right for men to be treated as women in all settings and circumstances because that’s how they identify.” I think when people hear leading questions like “Do you support trans rights?” they answer yes because who wants to say “I don’t believe in X rights”? But most people don’t realize that what’s meant by the question is pretty much “Do you think trans people should change everything to suit themselves with no one else having any right to say ‘But that doesn’t suit us’?”

We can’t even have a conversation about this because they just won’t do it.

I’m beginning to think Our Jolyon isn’t as widely or intensely admired as he would have us believe.

Who is “our”? Jolyon & his invisible friend?

The editor-in-chief of Swimming World doesn’t mince words:

Must give credit to the Ivy League. It didn’t hide its position. From the early days of the Lia Thomas debate, the conference made it clear that it would wholly support one swimmer over hundreds of athletes. It made it clear that Thomas was a priority. It made it clear that its female athletes – specifically its swimmers – were inconsequential.

One male swimmer over hundreds of female athletes. It could be thousands or billions, it would make no difference. The man and his idenniny must have priority.

The Ivy League Women’s Swimming and Diving Championships begin Wednesday at Harvard University and Penn’s Thomas – according to the psych sheets – will see action in a quartet of individual events. She is the overwhelming top seed in three events (200 freestyle, 500 free, 1650 free) and the No. 2 seed in the 100 freestyle. She is also expected to see duty as a member of Penn’s relay teams.

…

While the NCAA storyline still has chapters to be written, the Ivy League and Penn have been in Thomas’ corner throughout the winter. Despite her obvious advantages over biological females, the conference and school have been all about Lia Thomas and not given a damn about the other swimmers in the pool.

“The Ivy League reaffirms its unwavering commitment to providing an inclusive environment for all student-athletes while condemning transphobia and discrimination in any form,” said an Ivy League statement release in January.

But of course that environment is not inclusive for the female athletes. By being inclusive of one male they exclude all the women from the top spot.

Then there’s the Ivy League’s condemnation of transphobia and discrimination. Yes, such acts should be denounced, but the Lia Thomas situation is not about transphobia. It is a sad and misguided state that any argument against Thomas’ participation is immediately deemed to be an indication of transphobia. No, the arguments against Thomas are about fairness, and for the Ivy League to play the transphobia card is arrogant, ignorant, and insulting. Really, it is a sign of the conference taking a bully approach and using such a strong term to intimidate and deter those willing to speak out.

The bully approach is the only approach.

A Hooters in Liverpool – Julie Bindel is not impressed.

The all-female waiting staff are required to wear extremely skimpy shorts, tight, low-cut T-shirts, and tights. When a birthday or stag crowd are in, which is most nights, coins are tossed for which of the waitresses take part in the odd wet T-shirt competition, to keep the crowds entertained. The restaurant is, of course, aimed at large groups of heavy-drinking men and, on occasion, customers will be offered half-price entry into the nearest lap-dancing club for afters.

Kind of like beach volleyball without the volleyball.

In 2008, I visited the first UK branch in Nottingham. It was hideous and more than one of the waitresses told me, in the full knowledge that I was writing a piece for a national newspaper from a critical standpoint, that they hated their jobs and hated the customers even more.

…

Before starting work, Hooters girls in the US have to sign a contract that reads: ‘I hereby acknowledge and affirm that the Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and that the work environment is one in which joking and innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace.’ It continues: ‘I also expressly acknowledge and affirm I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements or work environment to be intimidating, hostile or unwelcome.’

So they have to sign a contract that says they don’t find their job hostile before they’ve started doing the job. Seems fair.

In granting this licence, Liverpool Council has shown itself to not give a hoot about the objectification of women. Providing alcohol in an atmosphere riddled with sexism is never a good idea. I expect to see a massive feminist protest against this monstrosity opening in the city, or anywhere else in the UK.

Scantily clad waitresses are certainly nothing new, but I would have hoped that after more than half a century of feminism, women being served up to rowdy male customers would be off the menu. 

Well this is third wave feminism, sex-positive feminism, woke feminism, trans women are the first priority feminism. Half a century of the real thing was just too fucking boring.

Nova has an interesting (and alarming) episode on melting permafrost in Siberia and Alaska that’s releasing methane–>more warming–>more melting and on it goes.

As the Arctic warms, methane that has been locked in permafrost for thousands of years escapes and can explode. Released methane that finds its way to the surface contributes to the greenhouse effect of climate change with even more heat retention capacity than carbon dioxide. Even igniting it doesn’t solve the problem, since that produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct.

It’s a tipping point, and it’s already tipped.

In Alaska they find a large lake bubbling with methane. On Siberia’s Yamal Peninsula, residents have reported large holes in the frozen tundra, including one more than 80 feet wide and 150 feet deep.

And it’s only going to get worse. There is no fix.

The royal we doesn’t help his project.

There’s a lot of What’s Wrong With Jolyon packed into that one. Making a public announcement of that kind. Starting with “style themselves progressive,” which is an insult. Much worse, that “but” – “You consider yourself progressive but you hate me, this must be underlined and explained.” I can consider myself progressive and find Jolyon Maugham vain and self-promoting and a bully – I can even be progressive and find JM all that. I can and so can anyone. He may consider himself progressive, he may even be progressive in some sense, but he’s also a flaming egomaniac and a sexist bully.

Then there’s “(generally because of @GoodLawProject’s defence of trans rights)” – as if there were no other reasons. There are other reasons. The vanity, the self-promotion, the bullying, the disdain for women who disagree with him, the intolerance of any disagreement at all, the complete indifference to feminist explanations of how purported “trans rights” impinge on our rights…and did I mention the vanity? And, to cap it all, there’s the utterly typical invocation of “trans rights” without explaining what they are. It’s just dishonest to keep framing it that way. We don’t oppose human rights for trans people, we oppose new invented “rights” that aren’t really rights and that cancel our rights.

Then “cheer the dishonest attacks” – look in the mirror.

Then the warning, which rests on the absurd assumption that without him there will be disaster. Him personally, which he tries to disguise as the Good Law Project in his usual way, but the attempt is laughable since he’s talking about his own precious self throughout.

Jolyon is blocking all the lawyers now.

Plus it makes him look so good.

The wrong word was used in a magic ceremony so the magic ceremony is invalid. You might think this is a small matter that can easily be rectified by re-doing the ceremony using the correct word this time – but unfortunately, perhaps tragically, it wasn’t just the one, it was many. Many many many. And not valid means…eternal torture*. Oops.

A Catholic priest in Arizona has resigned after he was found to have performed baptisms incorrectly throughout his career, rendering the rite invalid for thousands of people.

Thousands of people doomed to eternal torture*! You’d think it would be dominating the news cycle.

The Catholic Diocese of Phoenix announced on its website that it determined after careful study that the Rev. Andres Arango had used the wrong wording in baptisms performed up until June 17, 2021. He had been off by a single word.

During baptisms in both English and Spanish, Arango used the phrase “we baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” He should have said “I baptize,” the diocese explained.

Ok, but it’s a fine point, and in a way “we” is sweeter, it suggests embrace by everyone, so can’t they just

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Of course they can’t.

They can molest children for years on end, they can protect the molesters for years on end, but they can’t turn a blind eye to a “we” that must be an “I.”

“It is not the community that baptizes a person and incorporates them into the Church of Christ; rather, it is Christ, and Christ alone, who presides at all sacraments; therefore, it is Christ who baptizes,” it said. “If you were baptized using the wrong words, that means your baptism is invalid, and you are not baptized.”

Sorrrrreeeeeeeeeeee – you’ve been running around unbaptized all this time. Our bad.

The diocese said that while the situation may seem legalistic, the words, materials and actions are crucial aspects of every sacrament — and changing any of them makes them invalid.

“For example, if a priest uses milk instead of wine during the Consecration of the Eucharist, the sacrament is not valid,” it said. “The milk would not become the Blood of Jesus Christ.”

Yeah it doesn’t do that whether it’s milk, wine, or horse piss.

Updating to add: It doesn’t lead straight to hell, so I asterisked those bits.

Well…maybe, but then again maybe not.

When my son Connor first told me he was transgender and was not, in fact, the daughter I thought he was for the first 12 years of his life, I could have handled it a lot better.

It’s not that I kicked and screamed. I didn’t throw him out or call him vile names. I wasn’t even disappointed. It almost feels worse than all that: I didn’t believe him.

What if she’d said she was a llama, or a hummingbird, or Chomolungma? Would you now think you should have believed her?

A girl remains a girl even if she has picked up the novel cultural belief that her body is irrelevant to what sex she is.

What is blindingly obvious to me now, five years later – and probably to you as you’re reading this – is that Connor’s struggles with mental health were intrinsically linked to feeling that how he felt on the inside did not fit with his body and gender identity. Like he was trapped in a lie. But at the time, I couldn’t see it.

She hadn’t been saved yet.

What I realise now is that I should have just believed him and created an environment of acceptance, and I wish I’d done it immediately. I was so consumed with all the “what ifs”.

What if he changes his mind? What if people give him a hard time? What if his younger siblings are confused? What if I feel weird or uncomfortable?

The answer those all of those questions, of course, is “who cares?”

Uh, no, and there’s no “of course” about it. Who cares if she changes her mind?! You’d think she was talking about a tatoo.

Five years later, Connor is in his final year of high school, and is the happiest I’ve seen him since he was a child. We were lucky enough to access a gender clinic in our city, where both he and I were both nurtured through the process of his transition. He has been getting testosterone shots for more than a year now, and recently had top surgery, which removes the breasts, leaving a masculine chest.

Maybe she’ll be happy that way for the rest of her life, but maybe she won’t. It’s not just obvious that trying to “change sex” is always a wonderful and healthy idea and the fix for an unhappy kid.

Sadly, the damn fool who wrote this is “a freelance health and parenting writer.” I hope she has very few readers.

Update: I corrected all the occurrences of “his” and “he” to “she” and “her” – having been lulled into getting it wrong by exactly the word magic that there’s so much argument about. Apologies for the CONFUSION.

Originally a Facebook post/Miscellany post by Bjarte Foshaug:

There is an expression in my mother tongue that translates as “Adam’s clothes” – or, alternatively, “Eve’s clothes” – and is commonly understood to denote the absence of any physical garments. This appears to be conclusive scientific* proof that the very first humans** were in fact trans-dressed and what they were wearing was widely accepted as a legitimate kind of clothing from the very beginning. The white, Western idea that wearing “clothes” – or being fully “dressed” – has anything to do with vulgar physical fabrics is a recent cultural invention and inextricably linked to cultural imperialism, Western hegemony and white supremacy, i.e. the stereotypical “dressed” person is not just imagined to be cis-dressed (i.e. covered in garments), but also white, Christian and middle-class. This whole weird fixation on physical fabrics is also kind of obscene, not to mention creepy as hell, to be honest.

It is disheartening to see such a stunning and brave performance by our first ever openly trans-dressed emperor be met by yet more bigotry, hatred, and literal violence against one of the most vulnerable and oppressed minorities in our society. There’s a direct path from denying the very existence of trans-dressed individuals through statements like “The emperor is naked!” to rounding them up by the millions and sending them to the gas chamber. Their blood is literally on this child’s hands, and we need to remind everyone of this ugly truth whenever the brat opens its mouth for the rest of its life.

* Pseudoscience is science! It’s in the name!

** Those who argue that Adam and Eve were not historical figures only provide further proof (as if any were needed!) of their cis-historical bigotry. Being an historical figure was never about crude, physical existence!

Oh was it indeed.

Barrister Steven Barrett at the Spectator tells us the court ruled the Good Law Project doesn’t have standing.

…there was some confusion that the Good Law Project had ‘won’. It had not. Every claim brought by the GLP failed. The court I suspect did not want anyone to be so confused, so it stated that expressly in paragraph 126. There is very little ambiguity in the words ‘the claim brought by Good Law Project fails in its entirety.’

…

This blow raises serious questions over whether or not it can even continue. The problem is contained in what can for some be odd legal language, the word ‘standing’.

The issue of standing often gets in the way of civil rights cases and the like in the US. I think I’ve written about it here at least once, but I don’t remember on what issue.

Standing is what you need to bring a case. If you haven’t got it – you can’t sue. If you get run over by a tractor, I can’t sue the farmer – because I didn’t get hit, you did. That’s an easy question about standing.

And it’s why Jolyon was talking nonsense on Saturday when he threatened [by implication] to sue someone over a purported libel of a third party. He didn’t and doesn’t have standing, as several people pointed out.

A harder one is raised by organisations or groups. When can they have standing? Well, often by saying they have standing based on the issues that interest them – which is where things get tricky.

Beginning in paragraph 55 the court turned its full attention to what the Good Law Project is, and whether or not it has standing.

We have had hints of this as an issue before. But this is the first time I believe the court has addressed it. The court notes that the GLP tries to draw its objectives very widely, so as to try to have standing against any public body which makes an error of public law. But the court rejected this completely in paragraph 57:

What the court says is basically yeah no you can’t just declare that you have standing in all cases, that’s not how this works.

The problem is that this is an existential issue for the GLP. Its whole point is that it can sue anyone it chooses over any error of public law. But that has now been rejected by the court. Crucially it raises money on the basis it can sue over any error. That caused at least one well respected legal academic to ask whether it is time that those who donate are told?

That would be this tweet:

If the Good Law Project were the toy of someone else this could be bad news, but since it’s Jolyon’s toy…

More of the Pregnancy and Childbirth are for Everyone bullshit, this time from a charity that helps “birthing people.” The first thing you see on their website is

Support our work

Make a donation today to help us to provide pregnancy, birth and postnatal support for birthing people in Glasgow.  

The second thing you see, scrolling down, is

Who we help

We provide pregnancy, birth and postnatal support to birthing people facing barriers like poverty, isolation, or language.

On the about us page –

Amma Birth Companions is a registered Scottish charity that supports women and birthing people who are experiencing significant adversity on their journey to parenthood.

Wo, a mention of women at last! But birthing people are always there, nipping at their heels.

Our trained team of nurturing and compassionate birth and postnatal companions offers support on a voluntary basis to people facing pregnancy, birth, and early parenthood alone. 

​That actually seems like an excellent charity, because of course some women and girls do have to face it alone. But how cruel to combine that with the denial that it’s women and girls who have to do the job.

​

Andrew Windsor has settled the case.

Prince Andrew has settled a civil sexual assault case brought against him in the US by Virginia Giuffre, court documents show.

…

A statement in the letter to US judge Lewis A Kaplan said the duke would make a “substantial donation to Ms Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights”. It added that Prince Andrew had “never intended to malign Ms Giuffre’s character” and he recognised she had “suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks”.

The duke also pledged to “demonstrate his regret for his association” with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”. He also commended the “bravery of Ms Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others”.

Now about that Pizza Express in Woking…

Chris Cillizza says the walls are closing in on Trump.

The decision by Mazars further isolates Trump as he faces a series of legal problems. Consider that in addition to James’ investigation, Trump faces the following:

1) The new Manhattan district attorney told CNN in December that he plans to focus on the high-profile probe into Trump’s business practices and may expand the investigative team. As CNN’s Kara Scannell reported at the time: “The investigation, which has been underway for several years, appears to be coming to a head with prosecutors focusing on the accuracy of the Trump Organization’s financial statements when seeking financing, people familiar with the matter have told CNN.”

2) E. Jean Carroll is pursuing a defamation lawsuit in regards to her allegation that Trump raped her in the 1990s.

Three, Mary Trump’s suit is ongoing.

4) Several Democratic lawmakers and police officers are suing Trump for his alleged role in the insurrection of January 6, 2021. And a House select committee continues to look into Trump’s actions tied to that day.

5) In Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is looking into Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state. “This is a criminal investigation. We’re not here playing a game,” Willis told CNN recently. “I plan to use the power of the law. We are all citizens.”

It all starts to add up a bit. Six, the DoJ is looking into a scheme to seat fake electors; seven, Michael Cohen is suing; eight –

In addition to all this, there are the ongoing questions surrounding 15 boxes of White House materials that the National Archives had to take back from Trump who had transported the documents to Mar-a-Lago.

Person woman man camera tv.