So the Lee statue is down and cut in half.

A crowd erupted in cheers and song Wednesday as work crews hoisted an enormous statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee off the pedestal where it has towered over Virginia’s capital city for more than a century.

One of America’s largest monuments to the Confederacy, the equestrian statue was lowered to the ground just before 9 a.m., after a construction worker who strapped harnesses around Lee and his horse lifted his arms in the air and counted, “Three, two, one!” to jubilant shouts from a crowd of hundreds. A work crew then began cutting it into pieces.

Two pieces, that is: it was too tall for transport so they sliced it.

“Any remnant like this that glorifies the Lost Cause of the Civil War, it needs to come down, said Gov. Ralph Northam, who called it “hopefully a new day, a new era in Virginia.” The Democrat said it represents “more than 400 years of history that we should not be proud of.”

Exactly so. Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind are not the best sources for understanding that history.

The decisions by the governor and Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney to remove the Confederate tributes marked a major victory for civil rights activists, whose previous calls to remove the statues had been steadfastly rebuked by city and state officials alike.

An item from the Journal of Medical Ethics:

In this article, we analyse the novel case of Phoenix, a non-binary adult requesting ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) to permanently prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics, as a way of affirming their gender identity. We argue that (1) the aim of OPS is consistent with the proper goals of medicine to promote well-being, and therefore could ethically be offered to non-binary adults in principle; (2) there are additional equity-based reasons to offer OPS to non-binary adults as a group; and (3) the ethical defensibility of facilitating individual requests for OPS from non-binary adults also depends on other relevant considerations, including the balance of potential benefits over harms for that specific patient, and whether the patient’s request is substantially autonomous.

It’s interesting that a technical paper of this kind treats the term “non-binary” as transparent and “medical” – i.e. a straightforward descriptor useful to medical professionals and ethicists.

It later turns out that Phoenix is hypothetical, which reduced my tension a good deal. Having said that…

Phoenix, 18, was assigned female at birth but has identified as gender non-binary (not entirely/exclusively male or female) since age 5.

Wait. Children of 5 don’t know from “identifying as.” When I was 5 I identified as all kinds of people (and probably animals) I saw on tv. This is all adult ideology being insinuated onto children who don’t know wtf the growns are talking about.

Anyway Phoenix hated puberty, especially the start of breasts. I hated that too – I think it’s pretty ordinary and humdrum to hate it. It’s weird. Children of 14 or 12 don’t necessarily love weird things happening to their bodies. But anyway Phoenix hated it so puberty blockers, and then Phoenix wanted to stay on them forever.

Given Phoenix’s severe distress, Phoenix’s paediatrician agreed puberty blockers should be given, but informed Phoenix and their parents he was not prepared to prescribe long-term puberty suppression, as this is riskier than short-term suppression. The paediatrician stated that, when Phoenix turned 16 and had a better sense of their gender identity, they would meet to discuss whether Phoenix wished to discontinue the puberty blockers and (1) revert to their endogenous (female) sex hormones or (2) commence testosterone.

When Phoenix turned 16, they informed their paediatrician that they did not want option (1) or (2). Rather, Phoenix was confident they would identify as non-binary for the rest of their life and wanted to stay on puberty blockers ‘forever’ to ensure their body remained in a ‘genderless’ state. Reluctantly, the paediatrician agreed to extend Phoenix’s time on blockers for another 2 years.

People of 16 are confident about a lot of things that they change their minds about later. More urgently, puberty blockers don’t just make the non-binary person bulge-free in the body, they also block brain development. They make the non-binary person childish, immature, stuck at an early stage.

Phoenix’s doctor refers Phoenix to a psychologist, who confirms that Phoenix continues to have significant distress about their body, similar in degree to that experienced by binary trans patients that the psychologist has seen. Phoenix has regular counselling with the psychologist, who judges that Phoenix’s distress is significant and enduring, and is not a symptom of an underlying psychopathology. The psychologist also reports that she does not see any signs that indicate Phoenix has a fear of growing up.

Phoenix tells the psychologist that they highly value having a body that matches their gender identity. Alternative options, including low-dose testosterone, menstrual suppression and future ‘top’ surgery, are unacceptable to Phoenix because they do not believe these alternatives would accurately reflect their non-binary gender identity.

But what is a “gender identity”? It’s contested that such a thing even exists, that the words even name something real as opposed to a fantasy about the self akin to other fantasies about the self that don’t get adopted into the medical lexicon.

It’s just strange, the mix of formal academic language and assumptions about the reality of “gender identity” and “non-binary identity.” The University of Twitter Philosophy Department.

No trespassing:

HOLYROOD is changing its legal status to make it easier for the police to remove protesters.

Scottish Parliament bosses have asked the Home Office to designate the building and its grounds as a “protected site” in the interests of national security.

Of course protests and protesters aren’t a threat to national security. Insurrectionists are, as we’ve recently seen all too vividly, but protesters, no.

Legislation has now been laid in Westminster under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 which is due to come into force on October 1.

At present, the police have limited powers to intervene if there is no substantive offence taking place, such as protesters making a prolonged noise outside the entrances.

Yes well that’s freedom of speech and assembly, isn’t it. Arguably the police shouldn’t have powers to intervene in non-violent protests.

But from next month it will be a criminal offence to remain on the parliamentary estate “without lawful authority” punishable by a £5000 fine or a year in jail after a conviction. 

I wonder what “remain” means. Are people allowed to walk through at a fast clip to admire the grounds? Are they allowed to loiter for a minute or two to take some snaps? Are they allowed to linger for 10-15 minutes to drink in the atmosphere?

Public gatherings are are an almost daily part of Holyrood life, with groups gathering to protest against Government policy, demand change or support a particular cause.

In the last week alone, hundreds of people have held demos in support of women’s rights and against vaccine passports.

It’s the women’s rights wot done it. We can’t have demos in support of women’s rights – the monstrous regiment of women needs to stay home and out of sight.

On the other hand, the powers say this move is just to deal with protests that get too disruptive and that in practice it doesn’t eliminate protesting.

“The SPCB [the MSP-led Scottish Parliamentary Management Body] does not foresee invoking this power frequently, and only in cases where visitors are in breach of the terms and conditions for use of the parliamentary estate.

“At present, the police have limited ability to intervene if there is no substantive criminal offence taking place, and disruptive protests can become especially prolonged.” 

…

“Both the UK Parliament and Welsh Senedd are already designated as protected sites. 

“We were reassured to learn from their experience that having the designation as a protected site has not limited protest – far from – but has encouraged those engaging with the institutions to keep activities in line with their policies.”

One to keep an eye on.

DoJ gonna sue.

The Justice Department plans to file a lawsuit against Texas over its restrictive anti-abortion law that critics say is unconstitutional and has brought a halt to women’s reproductive rights in the state, according to a person familiar with the matter. 

…

Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement Monday the department was urgently exploring all options to challenge the Texas law. The department will use powers under the so-called FACE Act to provide support from federal law enforcement when an abortion clinic or reproductive health center is under attack, Garland said.

Note that Bloomberg News said “women’s reproductive rights,” something which is apparently out of reach of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

AND another:

Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has struck back after critics mocked her for using the phrase “menstruating person.”

In a CNN interview regarding Texas’ new anti-abortion law, Ms Ocasio-Cortez had carefully used the phrase to include trans men, non-binary Americans, and others who menstruate in addition to women. Some conservatives ridiculed her choice of words, but AOC fiercely defended it.

She “used the phrase” in talking to Anderson Cooper, and what she said is that she thinks Texas Governor Abbot “doesn’t understand a menstruating person’s body.” This isn’t a matter for ridicule but for outrage. Governor Abbot is ruining the lives of women; he’s waging war on women; he’s using state power to grind women into the dirt. It matters who is doing what to whom. The people harmed by Texas’s vile law are women, and everyone needs to be able to say that. Ocasio-Cortez is betraying women by not doing that.

Ms Ocasio-Cortez had used the phrase on Tuesday during an interview with Anderson Cooper, who asked her about some recent comments by Texas governor Greg Abbott. When a reporter accused the state’s new abortion restrictions of forcing rape victims to bear their rapist’s children, Mr Abbott said the law doesn’t do that.

“It doesn’t require that at all, because obviously it provides at least six weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion,” the governor said.

Where does he get that “at least”? There’s no “at least.” It’s six weeks, and after that it sucks to be you, bitch. And of course as thousands of people have pointed out, many women don’t even know they’re pregnant at six weeks. AOC made that point but she also obscured it, which is not a clever thing to do.

“I don’t know if he is familiar with a menstruating person’s body,” Ms Ocasio-Cortez said, referring to Mr Abbott. “In fact, I do know that he’s not familiar with a woman – with a female or menstruating person’s body, because if he did, he would know that you don’t have six weeks.”

She almost said “woman” the second time but she corrected herself.

Bad move.

You can’t fire us, we’re incompetent!

The White House confirmed on Wednesday that 11 Trump appointees to military service academy advisory boards, among them former press secretary Sean Spicer and adviser Kellyanne Conway, were asked to step down – or be fired.

Imagine putting Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway on any kind of advisory board, unless it’s for the Institute of Lying Hacks.

Conway released a letter in which she criticised Biden’s performance in office and said: “I’m not resigning, but you should.”

She tweeted it, too.

What’s the “Honorable” doing in front of her name? Is that a usual title bestowed on former press secretaries?

Anyway, they’re all fired now.

You could pay for quite a few school lunches with $160 billion.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans are responsible for more than $160bn of lost tax revenue each year, according to a new report from the US treasury.

And they’re the ones who need it least.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans are responsible for more than $160bn of lost tax revenue each year, according to a new report from the US treasury.

Aw, spoilsports. All those nice billionaires do so much for the country, inflating the price of housing and useful shit like that.

Republicans in Congress and lobbyists for business are united in opposition to the proposal to shore up tax enforcement.

Law and order? Fiscal responsibility? One law for all? Pffffffffffffff, shut up and makeamericagreatagain.

H/t Dave Ricks

They just can’t get it right.

On Tuesday, the Guardian published an interview with the American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler, which included a scathing critique of so-called “gender critical” transphobes and trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), who don’t believe trans women are women, and oppose the right of transgender people to exist in gendered spaces, such as a bathrooms.

We don’t oppose anyone’s right to exist anywhere. That’s a sly way of putting it that nudges people to think we want trans people dead. Trans people don’t have a “right” to be in women’s spaces if they are men. Men don’t have a “right” to intrude on women, no matter how they define their “gender.”

Then the Guardian removed that section of the interview, including Gleeson’s leading question.

According to Gleeson, who provided Motherboard with a written statement, the Guardian’s editorial team, and in particular its team based in the UK, “folded” under pressure from readers who took issue with the article and decided to “censor” Butler.

Gee, why would feminist women take issue with being called fascists? Women are so zany and irrational.

“Habitual bigots online are going to do their thing, and usually respond to pieces without even reading them,” Gleeson wrote in a statement sent to Motherboard. “What’s been more unexpected was how quickly the publication folded. I was expecting the Guardian US to stand by me as a writer, and while I have received apologies from their side, this has been a draining and consuming episode that I didn’t expect.”

Draining and consuming? Is it a plumbing issue or a grocery issue?

Gleeson told Motherboard that Judith Butler has also emailed the Guardian about its decision to remove that section of the interview, but has not heard back.

Gleeson said she last heard from the Guardian last night, and that her editor said “there’s not much I can do” because a decision has already been made. 

“I have not encountered anything like this,” Gleeson said of the Guardian’s decision. “A few people I’ve spoken to, including at the Guardian US, said this is unprecedented.” 

Maybe someone at the Guardian realizes that feminist women are not fascists? Just a thought.

Gleeson is nothing if not generous here.

“I’m not uncompromising here, I informed your editors that my question was flexible, but Judith’s answer was essential,” Gleeson said in an email to John Mulholland, editor of the Guardian US. “To me it seems perfectly clear that the ‘gender critics’ should not be beyond criticism, any more than the rest of the ‘anti-gender’ movement. And no discussion of the topic today can ignore them.”

Beyond criticism is one thing and calling people fascists is another.

“I’m loath to make an appeal to our identities at this point, but it seems a fine state of affairs when an intersex woman interviewing one of the few non-binary philosophy professors in the world is decried online as ‘misogyny,’” Gleeson said. “One last question for the editorial teams at The Guardian: why should ‘Gender Critics’ be beyond criticism?”

How does Gleeson know how few “non-binary philosophy professors” there are? Maybe there are billions!

All this while the planet is on fire. It’s so stupid.

Ok so I have to read the Nussbaum essay again, for the ___th time. I have to share some of the particular gems.

Many young feminists, whatever their concrete affiliations with this or that French thinker, have been influenced by the extremely French idea that the intellectual does politics by speaking seditiously, and that this is a significant type of political action.

See also: tweeting seditiously.

Trained as a philosopher, she is frequently seen (more by people in literature than by philosophers) as a major thinker about gender, power, and the body.

Much more. Much much much more. People in literature and people on Twitter.

It is difficult to come to grips with Butler’s ideas, because it is difficult to figure out what they are.

That one makes me laugh every single time.

Nussbaum goes on to discuss Butler’s habit of alluding to an array of “other theorists,” who are incompatible with each other, without ever explaining or giving enough context to let the reader understand the allusions. That’s not how philosophy is done, but it very much is how a certain kind of “Theory” is done.

Thus one is led to the conclusion that the allusiveness of the writing cannot be explained in the usual way, by positing an audience of specialists eager to debate the details of an esoteric academic position. The writing is simply too thin to satisfy any such audience. It is also obvious that Butler’s work is not directed at a non-academic audience eager to grapple with actual injustices. Such an audience would simply be baffled by the thick soup of Butler’s prose, by its air of in-group knowingness, by its extremely high ratio of names to explanations.

In other words it’s all showing off. It’s a lazy, empty, pointless exercise in showing off.

Why does Butler prefer to write in this teasing, exasperating way? The style is certainly not unprecedented. Some precincts of the continental philosophical tradition, though surely not all of them, have an unfortunate tendency to regard the philosopher as a star who fascinates, and frequently by obscurity, rather than as an arguer among equals. When ideas are stated clearly, after all, they may be detached from their author: one can take them away and pursue them on one’s own. When they remain mysterious (indeed, when they are not quite asserted), one remains dependent on the originating authority. The thinker is heeded only for his or her turgid charisma. 

Turgid charisma. Five stars.

In this way obscurity creates an aura of importance. It also serves another related purpose. It bullies the reader into granting that, since one cannot figure out what is going on, there must be something significant going on, some complexity of thought, where in reality there are often familiar or even shopworn notions, addressed too simply and too casually to add any new dimension of understanding.

I hate that about it. Really hate it. I hate the fakery, I hate the conceit, I hate the imposition on the innocent readers, I hate the fraud, I hate the power-tripping – I despise it. And she gets away with it to this day.

When Butler’s notions are stated clearly and succinctly, one sees that, without a lot more distinctions and arguments, they don’t go far, and they are not especially new. Thus obscurity fills the void left by an absence of a real complexity of thought and argument.

Obscurity plus name-dropping. It wouldn’t work without the name-dropping.

No, LP, anyone who is paying attention doesn’t know that, and neither do you.

Mind you “feed directly back” is confusing in itself – does she mean gender critical feminist talking points nourish right-wing extremist discourse, or does she mean they draw strength from them? Are we supposed to be aiding and abetting right-wing extremist discourse or is it supposed to be aiding and abetting us? Or both?

Or neither? Probably what she means is just that there is some overlap – but that doesn’t sound nearly as damning, does it, because naturally there’s some overlap, because we all overlap at some places. We all have a lot of shared beliefs and views, which we leave on the back shelf in favor of arguing over the ones we don’t share.

The funny thing is, the view that men are not women and women are not men used to be part of that vast boring taken for granted common ground, that nobody bothered to fight over because nobody thought otherwise. Now it’s equated with the murder of 8 million Jews.

Or as DaveDavidDave put it more succinctly –

JL at the Glinner Update has details on the guy who asked Judith Butler those leading questions.

Butler has, not surprisingly, become a pin-up girl of the gender identity cult. She can always be relied upon to throw proper feminists under the bus when gender zealots like those at the The Guardian need to wheel out a talking head who has at least a veneer of academic authority.

On this occasion, Butler was interviewed by Jules Gleeson, a trans identified male.

Gleeson is the co-editor of a book called Transgender Marxism. He has written in the past about the ‘noxious views’ of lesbians trying to defend their sex-based rights and has likened gender critical feminists to religious reactionaries. He’s also called for the abolition of the family unit because it is ‘transphobic’.

JL provides several screenshots of his bullying tweets, such as –

I have to wonder why the Guardian thought he would be the right guy to interview Butler. His question that elicited the three paragraphs the Guardian deleted a few hours after publication, on the grounds of unspecified “developments”:

It seems that some within feminist movements are becoming sympathetic to these far-right campaigns. This year’s furore around Wi Spa in Los Angeles saw an online outrage by transphobes followed by bloody protests organized by the Proud Boys. Can we expect this alliance to continue?

That well is so poisoned the water is trying to climb out.

Quite a large chunk was cut, as it turns out.

Here’s one I can actually read. Thanks Roz!

There were “developments” you see.

It seems the Guardian edited that interview with Judith Butler.

It did?

So first thing I did was find that bit in my post from this morning, so that I could see how much was cut.

The Terfs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the so-called gender critical writers have also rejected the important work in feminist philosophy of science showing how culture and nature interact (such as Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, EM Hammonds or Anne Fausto-Sterling) in favor of a regressive and spurious form of biological essentialism. So they will not be part of the coalition that seeks to fight the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender ideology is one of the dominant strains of fascism in our times. So the Terfs will not be part of the contemporary struggle against fascism, one that requires a coalition guided by struggles against racism, nationalism, xenophobia and carceral violence, one that is mindful of the high rates of femicide throughout the world, which include high rates of attacks on trans and genderqueer people.

Here’s the surprise: they seem to have cut that entire paragraph.

I wonder if they will pause to think a little bit now. I wonder if they will pause to think and thus finally grasp that that’s not who we are. We’re not “the Terfs,” we’re not the enemy, we’re not in favor of regressive anything, and we’re most certainly not fans of racism, nationalism, xenophobia, carceral violence, femicide, or attacks on trans and genderqueer people.

How fucking dare she?

I’ll be interested to learn what else got cut.

Updating to add: I forgot the (possibly) best bit: their reason for editing.

• Jules Joanne Gleeson is a queer historian. She is also the co-editor of Transgender Marxism
• This article was edited on 7 September 2021 to reflect developments which occurred after the interview took place

What “developments”? It’s an interview, so it’s not as if there were developments that changed what Judith Butler had already said. So what developments? What kind of developments? A lot of furious lefty women telling the Guardian that Butler told a pack of lies? Couldn’t they have figured that out for themselves?

Oops you’re not supposed to say it out loud.

Joy Everingham is a Methodist deacon in Canterbury. This isn’t a parody.

Now there’s a headline.

NWHL changes its name to remove ‘women’s’ from title

Yayyyyyyyyyyy wait what?

The National Women’s Hockey League is history. Welcome, Premier Hockey Federation.

North America’s first women’s professional hockey league to pay players a salary announced on Tuesday it is adopting the new name as part of a rebranding strategy.

Well then why not name it the Hotties Hockey Federation? Or how about the Pumpkin Spice Latte Hockey Federation?

“We felt it’s time for our players to be defined by their talent and skill,” Tumminia said. “It’s not like they’re female phenomenal. You’re just phenomenal.”

And the way to underline that point is, as always, to delete the word “women.” Sure.

Metropolitan Riveters captain Madison Packer said the new name levels the playing field.

“Respectfully, I don’t know if men always understand, especially for me, because I encounter it a lot,” Packer said. “We play with the same-sized puck, in the same-sized rink, the same nets. … So to remove that label, not only remove it but in the logo erase the ‘W,’ I think is empowering.”

Oh yes, erasing the W is so empowering.

In billing the change “No Labels, No Limits,” the federation also focused on having its new title be more inclusive by respecting the various gender identities of its players and fanbase.

So they’ll be more inclusive by including men, who will swiftly exclude women altogether? That’s the path to empowerment is it?

H/t Sackbut

Greg Olear starts with the Texas law and the Supreme Court’s “Sure, go right ahead.”

After a day of excruciating silence, the Court voted 5-4 to let it be, citing some pusillanimous procedural technicality. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the three “liberal” justices, but the five other Federalist Society stooges on the bench—Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh—gave Texas the green light to go full Fascist, thus confirming what most of us feared all along: that Roe v. Wade is not safe, that the government is at war with women, that the radical Catholics who took over the Court are pro-tyranny.

We’re stuck with them except maybe for Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh is different. There is a clear playbook to removing him from the bench. And this is what must be done. Not because we don’t like his politics, although we don’t; not because we think he’s an asshole, although he is; not because he had a hissy fit at his confirmation hearing, although he did. No, we must remove him because at least twice in his life, some unknown entity endowed him with major infusions of cash, and Kavanaugh lied, under oath, about the provenance of that cash (he said it came from his Thrift Savings Plan)—and about several other things besides. He’s compromised, six ways from Sunday, and we simply can’t have that on the Supreme Court, no matter which way he votes.

While all of Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are beholden to some degree to Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society, and the other dark money organizations that helped install them, only Kavanaugh is owned. And we still don’t know who holds the paper.

Earlier this year, in Part Two of our five-part series, LB and I produced a painstakingly detailed examination of the red flags concerning Brett Kavanaugh’s finances, which show two enormous and out-of-the-blue influxes of revenue. The first, the down payment on the Chevy Chase house, came through just before his nomination to the D.C. circuit court in 2006; the second, the payment in full of his onerous credit card balances, immediately preceded his nomination to SCOTUS in 2018.

But apparently the Democrats can’t or won’t summon up the will to investigate.

I’m reading Jesse Singal’s review of Helen Joyce’s book in the Times, and I’m interrupting my reading to say this one thing.

A primary goal of those who adhere to gender-identity ideology is to enact “gender self-identification,” or the idea “that people should count as men or women according to how they feel and what they declare, instead of their biology,” into norm and law. According to self-ID, as I’ll call it henceforth, once an individual reveals their gender identity, that trumps anyone else’s understanding of it. If you say you are a man or a woman, or both or neither, that is exactly what you are.

When followed faithfully, gender-identity ideology has important implications. 

Yes, it does, but this is why I had to interrupt my own reading – it does, but I would hate the ideology even if it didn’t because I hate being bullied into endorsing a lie. The implications are important, but the claim itself is also important. It’s important because things like that are important. We do need to be able to see what we see, to rely on our own senses and perceptions, to have a stable sense of some basic realities.

I say “basic” because once we go beyond “basic” our senses and perceptions are helpless or wrong or both. We have no idea how big the moon is or how far away it is just from our own perceptions, and you can apply that to an infinite number of other realities, so I’m not saying our perceptions are infallible, but I am saying there are some basics that shouldn’t be thrown out the window on a god damn whim.

Sexual dimorphism is one of those basics, and I resent being ordered to pretend otherwise. I take it personally, and so should everyone. Don’t tell me to repeat a lie and call it true. Just don’t. Back off.

That’s it, that’s the interruption.

Brazil could be having its own insurrection moment.

Supporters of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro pushed through police barriers to advance towards Congress in Brasilia on Monday night, the eve of a day of planned demonstrations to back the far-right leader in his dispute with the judiciary.

Trucks honked their horns as hundreds of Bolsonaro supporters dressed in the green-and-yellow national colors cheered them through, videos posted on social media showed.

But they failed however to reach their target of surrounding the Supreme Court, which some demonstrators have planned to occupy in a protest modeled on the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump.

…

Thousands of demonstrators are expected to march in the capital on Tuesday – Brazil’s independence day – and in the financial center Sao Paulo to support Bolsonaro in his clash with the judiciary over changes to the voting system.

Critics fear the president is encouraging supporters to the point that they might try to invade the court.

Change voting systems to keep the fascist in power, and unleash violence to underline the point. Belarus, Brazil, the US – following the playbook.

More than 150 left-leaning former presidents and party leaders from across the globe signed an open letter criticizing Bolsonaro for encouraging what they called an imitation of the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, staged by Trump supporters after he gave a speech falsely claiming his election defeat was the result of fraud.

The demonstrations are “stoking fears of a coup d’état in the world’s third-largest democracy,” the letter said.

Bolsonaro said on Friday the demonstrations will be an ultimatum to the Supreme Court justices who had taken what he called “unconstitutional” decisions against his government.

Let’s ask Judith Butler what she thinks.